The Faux-tographer.
Where do you draw the line between photographer and photoshopper? For me, this distinction is increasingly blurring. Take the Winter 07 edition of “Better Photography” for instance – there are two articles within which discuss techniques used by professional photographers (the writers of said articles) to create their final photographs from compositing or heavily post-processing their original images.
One would have thought that this level of manipulation using Photoshop, for instance, would mean that the image can no longer be regarded a photograph.
Thoughts?
mick8585
I think the argument lies within defining the two words themselves.
Photograph should be defined as the image taken.
Image should be defined as the end photograph. Its up to individuals to add value to each accordingly to their beliefs. This then brings photography closer to ART.
wHICH THEN LEADS TO A BIGGER QUESTION. What is art?
Sorry to answer a question with a question. Dont you hate that?
noonkey
i think when its used in journalism to portay a fictional reality then its wrong. people have won awards for pictures manipulated and then thankfully been stripped of those awards when the truth came to light.
thats when it counts i think. the rest of the time i dont think its that important, and usually a trained eye can spot it, unless the person who manipulated the photo has amazing skills.
Seng Mah
Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head there Noon! When photography is used to present or represent an actual event (reality), and its consumers are asked to place their faith in the “truth” represented in the image, then to manipulate it would be entirely false and inappropriate.
Perhaps the distinction needs to be made between a photographer (someone who takes and displays photographs) and the photomedia artist (an artist who uses photo media to create works of art). In which case, I would presume that the ‘photographers’ listed in the 2 articles I referred to above would be more photomedia artists than photographers.
John Hurle
I agree. As long as a manipulated image is not represented as truth it can be appreciated in it’s own right as an art form. There are some incredibly talented photographers who take their work to another level through further photoshopping. One that stand out to me for example is Flamejob. He never fail to impress. First with his skill as a photographer. But then also with the amazing results he gets from photoshop.
My personal preference is for photographs to be as “out of the box” as possible. I have to admit I don’t have the software (nor the skill) to do much playing around with my shots and that might influence my preference, somewhat. For the most part, I do only minor adjustments to saturaton and contrast to emphasise the feel I want to convey.