Is the photo art if its been edited?

glimmerman

I have a pretty good digital camera, a Panasonic FZ10. but like most digital camera's, its depth of field is pretty deep, since the sensor is so small.

So if I take a photo, and say gaussian blur the backround so my subject stands out a little more, is it still art?

Could I for instance, take this edited photo and legitimately use it for competitions, exhibitions etc?

glimmerman

Heres a link to what I'm talking about.

http://www.mikemanchip.com/photogallery/experiments/experiments.htm

Its the top photo. The depth of field was pretty deep to start with.

chewy

well i don't have that much knowledge of photography or gallery photography but since im here

do you/have you done film photography and developed photos in a dark room yourself?

i was amazed at the amount of fiddling and wizardry that photographers do in dark room to there images to get em right...


theres filters for contrast and dodging and burning, what else? all things that you would use in photoshop???

there must be line where the image is simple too divorced from the actual scene you took...?

and sure there plenty of digital photography shows too....aint there?

edit: im not sure if am answering your question but now that i think on it for a sec...
im sure you could do a "gaussain blur" on specified part of your photo in a darkroom too

misfocus the projector and cut a bit of paper to shape to cover the bit you don't want diffused... ?

i let somebody who actually submits photo to galleries as art answer further

acous

Generally anything you can do in a dark room seems to be acceptable. Theres quite a few articles on digital photography ethics around the web. Figuring it all out is an art in itself

glimmerman

was thinking of doing a photography course just to see whats possible in the darkroom. for sure filters and such allow you to manipulate light, change colour casts etc, and dodging and burning seem to be an ancient art

Still wondering about the blur tho...

Having said that, when I've checked competition rules, they never mention anything about editing. Like either they expect its obvious that the photographer *won't* edit an entry, or its completely obvious that he/she *will*.

In my mind, it might be OK to edit a photo when clearly the hardware or software on the camera isn't up to the task, or if the effect can be done in the darkroom. In the case of the gaussian blur, to me its ok to soften the background as the camera could not deliver the required effect since the sensor is small. Its a difficult line to draw tho.

DadaKopf

If you're entering a photo into a competition, then check the rules. If there's nothing about it in the rules then you're alright.

As far as I'm concerned, photographers make photographs the way they want. Some opt for total realism and minimal intervention, others make a virtue of their being digitally manipulated. Most photographers probably opt for the middle-ground: manipulating their photos so they look natural.

For example: consider how difficult it is to take a natural-looking shot of a street lit urban scene at night time. You have to use the right kind of film, the right kind of filters, then you have to get the colour casting right on the prints (or digital equivalent). Where do you draw the line?

It seems to me that anyone who takes their photgraphy seriously should really respond to one question: "does my final image correspond to the image I had in my head?" If it does, fine. Maybe it won't be successful with audiences but if you're happy with it, it's enough.

glimmerman

Sound advice, thanks for the input all

DotOrg

almost every picture you see in magazines, newspapers, and many adverts have been taken with digital cameras and have been tweaked in some way on a computer.

As for competitions, most competitions have a specific digital section as there really is no way of telling if a digital image has been edited or not.

chewy

but would the digital photos be proper photos poorer brother?

ie if there were a prices for the best digi and non-digi the non-digi eg film would get a higher prize but then i guess photography is capturing light and film does that far more directly?

Monkey

No a photo doesn't stop being art if it's edited. You can make art using any imaginable technique.

glimmerman

But when does a manipulated photo stop being an example of *photographic* art?

Another example would be for instance, taking a photo, turning it into a black and white, and then handcolouring some elements back into colour.

Is that a photograph, or is it "conventional" art?

Art is art, but its the photographic part I'm interested in

DotOrg

it's not a photograph and it's not art. it's a new classification officially called:

digitally edited photograph