At what point does digital photography become "Computer Art"?

[jordanstarr]

I know that digital photography can be just as legit in terms of "realistically documenting the moment", with the obvious subjectivity. But, there's many photographers who say "I don't like that in there" and get rid of it or artificially add sharpness and alter the image in other ways that is not an accurate depiction of "reality". I know this will open a whole can of worms on the debate of such topics as:
-what is reality?
-film vs digital editing techniques in darkroom vs. computer in altering reality.
-shooting techniques that obscure what is "really happening"
-etc. etc. etc.

They are definately welcome, but I'd like to keep it as focused a possible as to at what POINT does digital photography become more like computer art and less like photography and the reasons why. For example, check out this video I found on You Tube at a new photoshop tool called "Content Aware". To me, this is not photography and is computer art. A computer artificially creates something that isn't even a part of the reality of the photograph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI

 

[tlitody]

A more pertinent question is at what point does digital photography cease to be photography and become something else. In literal terms photography is "Light Drawing" so image capture is photography. But thereafter it is not technically "photography" unless you use laser output. I know a lot of people will say so what but personally I think it becomes something that runs in parallel with photography but is so different in its process that it really should just be called digital imaging. That won't happen and whether that translates into art or not is in the eye of the beholder. Changes made on the way to final output via the digital process are simply methods of manipulation which are now widely accepted except where you are trying to place "photography" traditions into "digital processing". Thats a rediculous thing to try and do. They cannot be the same. They are different. Trying to impose photography on digital imaging and vice versa just leads to pointless argument. But it is something that we each have to resolve in our own minds hence, I guess, your question.

 

[pvdhaar]

The only difference between film and digital is the ease with which you can perform manipulations in the digital realm. The toolset differs, but retouching negs and reshooting retouched prints has existed from the day film was invented..

 

[Neare]

The only difference between film and digital is the ease with which you can perform manipulations in the digital realm. The toolset differs, but retouching negs and reshooting retouched prints has existed from the day film was invented..

Not at all, true you manipulate film prints - but darkroom work has no connection to the digital realm whatsoever.

IMO using film only to end up scanning it means you will never get the real 'meaning' of using film.

 

[pvdhaar]

Not at all, true you manipulate film prints - but darkroom work has no connection to the digital realm whatsoever.

I'm not talking about darkroom work like dodging/burning. I'm talking about retouching. As in airbrushing the neg. The airbrush was the retouching instrument of choice before the 35mm format became mainstream. Airbrushing was mostly done to remove skin blemishes; on the negs these show as white spots. Taking them out with a dab of spray is easy with an airbrush when the neg is large enough, as the dose can be applied incrementally until the coverage equals the surroundings. For small format, the retouching can be done on a bigger dupe, or if it's complicated on a print and then reshot. All the movie posters with these perfect actresses from the 30's through the 50's were done that way..

 

[Neare]

Yes, I am simply stating that the above processes you have mentioned are not within the 'digital' realm. There are similar processes in the digital realm that can create the same effect but from what I understand, this thread is aimed at the artistic qualities of photography and how classical processing and digital processing relate - or rather, don't.

"It's the journey, not the destination." I think this is appropriate?

____

Jordan I don't think photography, either digital or analogue, need to maintain any sense of realism. Photography has the potential to be as close or as far away from reality. It will still be photography provided that the the base of the work was a photograph.

I don't believe a digital image becomes a piece of computer art after being torn apart by photoshop. It's base was still a photograph.
However, I don't believe digital image editing to be an aspect of 'photography' whereas I do believe analogue methods to be.

Why? Because when using analogue methods you are using light, photosensitive material and you are editing a 1 of a kind piece of artwork which is the negative. There is no exact duplication or undo/delete buttons. From the start to finish of your photo creation it is a one way street. You can make mistakes or start printing the same neg over again but it is not the 'same' image.

With digital it is the 'same'. So while I believe taking an image with a digital camera to be photography and also whatever end result to also be photography. The digital editing process alone is under a different medium, this should be fairly easy to understand as photoshop (or similar programs) have many other uses in creating artworks that are not photography.

But I don't think digital photography ever becomes 'computer art', with the exception that the base of the artwork was not a photo, then it can be considered something else.

 

[jordanstarr]

I'm not talking about darkroom work like dodging/burning. I'm talking about retouching. As in airbrushing the neg. The airbrush was the retouching instrument of choice before the 35mm format became mainstream. Airbrushing was mostly done to remove skin blemishes; on the negs these show as white spots. Taking them out with a dab of spray is easy with an airbrush when the neg is large enough, as the dose can be applied incrementally until the coverage equals the surroundings. For small format, the retouching can be done on a bigger dupe, or if it's complicated on a print and then reshot. All the movie posters with these perfect actresses from the 30's through the 50's were done that way..

....so would this be considered photography? or something else like painting or copying/printing/dublicating (for the later)? I don't see how it's completely altering the image. It seems to be along the same lines as bleaching the print or spotting the negative. What appears to be altered here is the colour and maybe the density of parts of the face and not the physical features of the photograph/negative. I'm thinking Edward Weston used paints on his negatives to acheive certain densities around various areas of his photographs, but could potentially do the same with dodging, burning and bleaching.

was this a common practice or was it purely for commercial purposes (which never really cared for reality anyway)? I have painted black and white photographs before and heard of airbrushing as well to add subtle colour to a photograph, but I would still call it photography (painted photograph) because you're only altering the colour and not changing the physical structure of the photograph. This to me would be on par with changing the hue or saturation of any colour digital or film photo.

 

[pvdhaar]

Dear Neare and Jordan,

interesting responses, and food for thought.. I'm just not sure that digital is the decisive factor here. You're both correct by the way that everything that could be done in the darkroom or by retouching negs or prints can be done digitally, and then some. But it's not like that the reverse is impossible. You'd be amazed at what can be achieved with 'traditional' methods (airbrushing, painting, sandwiching, splicing etc, )..

The question is where's the divide.. would you consider painting colors onto a B&W photo (the oldest form of image manipulation) merely an enhancement of saturation or an artistic expression?

 

[igi]

"At what point does digital photography become "Computer Art"?"

- When the scene shown didn't happen

 

[c.poulton]

HDR - surely this is more 'computer art' than digital photography?

One of my pet hates is HDR - I don't know exactly why but every HDR image that I have ever seen really make the hair on the back of my neck stand up......... It's not natural.....

 

[Sonnar Brian]

HDR is more image processing than abstraction.

Computer art is application of numerical techniques to produce an abstract image.

HDR is the application of image processing algorithms to stitch multiple images together to extend dynamic range of a scene. Nothing abstract about it.