Photo-manipulations vs. photography

Started 3 months ago | Polls thread
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 55,841
Re: Photo-manipulations vs. photography

Don Lacy wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Don Lacy wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Don Lacy wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Photo manipulations imply distorting reality which is not photography. Things like blue screening and cutting objects out of a scene are distortions of reality and thus not photography.

So if I do say a Humming bird set up were I use a flower that I placed sugar water in then place a artificial back ground behind it and use six flashes to light everything it’s not a photograph according to your definition. So I guess my sons school pictures are not photographs either. I am confused when did the definition change and who changed it.

Only on a dpr forum are there arguments about the definitions of very simple fundamental things:

Dictionary definition:

Photograph: representing nature and human beings with exactness.

Both of your examples fit the above definition of a photograph.

Both of my examples distorted reality or more important show a false reality so my question is why in the process of of making an image does it matter when I distort reality. If I do it before I press the shutter it’s a photograph after I press the shutter in a editing program it no longer is a photograph one of the problems I have with that is when it was done in a dark room it was still considered a photograph. So why have the rules changed if I did a double exposure using film it’s a photograph if I combine two I’mages in PS it’s no longer a photograph.

If you do a double exposure you have two photos superimposed. You can have two photos in the same space or overlapping.

Do you understand what was capable using film it was not uncommon to take a exposure of the moon using a 300mm lens then take another exposure without advancing the frame with a wide angle lens changing the composition and now placing the moon in the sky were it never was. So again when I used double exposures techniques to place the moon were it never was in the scene it’s a photograph but if I do it later in a editing program using two digital captures it’s no longer a photograph. So you can see my confusion since both techniques accomplish the same thing.

You still have two photographs of the moon on the same image. The image with two moons is what is not a photograph as there is no reality of a small moon on top of a large moon.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow