What is this strange place I've walked into - subset of photography?

Forgive the rant. I need some constructive perspective.

I've walked into a dark cave I've never been before though a strange de javu
permeates my senses. I don't know where I am and I don't know where the cave
is. I think I'm lost.

Back to reality. How would you define the following:

- A digital (or scanned film) photo is reworked in a photo editor.
- Final prints are giclee.

More specific? The image is manipulated for brightness, contrast, gamma and
a standard effect such as watercolour is applied. Proofs and finals are made
on high quality substrates.

I mean, what is it? For instance, photography or digital media or do I need
a psychiatrist?

Thanks in advance.

 

Images have always been manipulated. Doing it in a darkroom was
an art form.

Now you can do it on a computer. It is still an art form.

And it doesn't really matter what you call it. I tend to
call it "photography". If folks want to be more specific
it is "digital photography". And if they want to be even
more specific, it is "photoshopped digital photography".

---- Paul J. Gans

 

Welp, if it's *cheating* Mr Meldon is worried about, consider this:
If you squint because you are nearsighted and want a "sharper image",
it's a cheat;
If you make any kind of a record (photographic, magnetic, written,
painted) so you can remember or convey more detail about your
experience, it's a cheat.
If you enhance your record in any way (dodge, burn, mix, addend,
pointillize), it's a cheat on top of a cheat at probably more levels
than you can discriminate.

So, relax and enjoy the god-like capabilities digitography endows.

Selah!


Frank ess

 

I've found myself classifying my stuff into four categories:
Photograph: Film, any modification is done in "traditional" manner in the
darkroom.
Digitally Modified Photograph: Film, but any modification is done in the
computer, "non-traditional."
Digital Photograph: Image taken with a digital camera, any modifications
done in the computer.
Digital Image: Any image modified to the point of not being immediately
recognizable as a photograph. As an example, I just finished working on an
image taken with my D30 that really looks like it is airbrushed, not a
photograph.
Mind you, these are just my own categories, as of this moment. And they do
not take into consideration printing methods, whether inkjet, lightjet or
silver halide.
Changes may be made without previous notification! <G>

 

Which brings up a question. Is there a software package that has a
usable dodging and burning tool? In the darkroom I used to dodge or
burn with abandon, often 2 to 4 stops in the same print. Doing B&W
prints I would even sometimes use variable contrast paper and burn with
a high contrast filter to comp for the loss if contrast in a dense neg.

How do I do that on a 'puter?

 

In message <>,

Most of the better graphics programs have dodge and burn tools, but they
tend to only work well if you use 16-bit mode. With 8-bit mode, they
tend to break up into a posterized mess pretty quickly.
--

 

And there are also those who start with 0 image in Photoshop to then
make what can look like a photo-realisitic picture. Full Circle! (I am
not among those who can do this.)

 

_________________________________________________________

Just reduce your meds a little.

 

I'm guessing you meant "deja vu". "De Javu" is a musical group, if the word
"musical" is given a really broad interpretation.

Digital photography and digital image manipulation represent a superset, not
a subset, of conventional photography.

Artists have been using photos as a basis for artist expression for as long
as conventional photography has been around. Ever seen any French
hand-painted postcards from the late 1900's? Photographers would make black
and white prints and artists would meticulously color the prints by hand.
Furthermore, in the 1960's, many other artists similarly manipulated and
distorted actual photos for artistic effect. Photoshop-modified digital
photography is just a latter-day extension of such practices.

I've heard a lot of folks say giclee has become an artform unto itself.
Yeah, right: though the high-quality inkjet printing process will endure,
the "art-in-itself" label is one of those silly fads which will disappear in
a year or two. Andy Warhol's Tomato Soup Can is art NOT because of the
subject matter, but because the work demonstrated a real mastery of the
silk-screen printing-making process; Campbels' tomato soup can, like a
giclee print, is just a mass-produced commodity item.

I think you do need a psychiatrist, perhaps, though for reasons unrelated to
digital photography.

 

I'd call it "art", myself. I've heard the (rather nasty) phrase
"original art print" to distinguish prints in the old sense for
photomechanical reproductions. I think it'd be stretching things to
call it "photography", but since the one thing I think is a stretch
(watercolor filter) would be obvious to anybody viewing it, I don't
think you'd mislead anybody.

 

I'd call it "art", myself. I've heard the (rather nasty) phrase
"original art print" to distinguish prints in the old sense from
photomechanical reproductions. I think it'd be stretching things to
call it "photography", but since the one thing I think is a stretch
(watercolor filter) would be obvious to anybody viewing it, I don't
think you'd mislead anybody.

 

Back to reality. How would you define the following:

a photograph is dodged and burned and bleached and toned in the lab.

a photograph is separated into three black and white negatives,
and then printed using dye transfer.

a photograph is adjusted for contrast and exposure,
(using software)
and then color balanced to print a perfect print.

 

Neither am I, I need a starting point, or an image to work with.