Do you consider a hand colored photo to still be a photograph?

[68degrees]

No. It is not a photograph any longer. It is no longer a photographic record of light falling on a photosensitive surface. It is a combination of a photograph and a painting.

I think this whole debate on digital vs film hinges on the definition of a photograph. Whether it is film or a digital sensor it is a photograph.

Once you no are no longer recording light waves such as with dodging and burning and are using some other manipulation such as chemical toning, coloring or photoshopping it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a painting.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but lets call it what it is. Its a painted photograph and it should be noted that it is not an actual photograph.

To acknowledge this would end the digital vs film debate. One may argue that one is more pleasing than the other or more realistic but that is a matter of preference.

When a moonlight is captured on film and in photoshop and dolphin is added jumping over the moonbeam on the water and the moon is made to be 10 x the size of the actual moon that night I dont consider that photography. I think its wonderful and amazing and fun to look at but the rub is in calling it photography.

Cant we all agree on this?

 

[foto_mike]

This only matters if you care to argue the definition of a photograph. You'll never get universal agreement anyway.

In my view, images on paper or on the web stand alone. They either work or not. They're either pleasing to me or not. I might be curious about how it was made, but I don't give "extra credit" to an image made a certain way or "deduct" from an image for the same reason. The end result is what I'm looking at.

 

[Mark T]

Art tends to have strong emphasis on technique/ process and materials. I think the greater question is what photography constitutes art, and what is not (snap shots, documentation, etc.).

I believe that most painted photographs would be considered art, or at least artistic in nature. It is hard to imagine most things done on the computer as art. Then of course there is the question of intent...

 

[Chris101]

Wait a minute - chemical toning? One could argue that a reducing agent's action on silver is chemical toning of a sort - you could develop a latent image in uranium salt and it comes out red. Or any number of other purely chemical techniques that alter a black and white photograph.

And no, I still count hand painted photographs as photographs. Except they are hand painted. But even the title of your thread labels them as "photo"s

 

[68degrees]

But even the title of your thread labels them as "photo"s

correct. It is a photo before it was painted. What kind of photo? A (unpainted)photo that has been painted. Is a (unpainted)photo, that has been painted, still a photo.

The meaning is clear.
"Is a hand painted unpainted photo, still a photo?" No. Its a painting. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[zsas]

Make art, not the labels to put on the art...

 

[68degrees]

Make art, not the labels to put on the art...

Thats fine. But if we do use words, lets use the right words to describe the art. How an art piece comes into existence has meaning for some.

 

[zsas]

some, but not all...

Your exercise of categorization is common, but truely ask yourself does it really matter what catogory is ascribed to a piece of art?

Check out the work of Jim Kazanjian, does it really matter what catagory of art his fits into?

http://www.kazanjian.net/

I say, the labels just exist to explain...I'd rather create...though I can understand the desire to categorize, it is necessary for one to figure out his/her way....but
In the end it gets dropped....

 

[maggieo]

Your definition of a hand-colored photograph as a "painting" is an insult to painters.

 

[68degrees]

some, but not all...

Your exercise of categorization is common, but truely ask yourself does it really matter what catogory is ascribed to a piece of art?

Check out the work of Jim Kazanjian, does it really matter what catagory of art his fits into?

http://www.kazanjian.net/

I say, the labels just exist to explain...I'd rather create...though I can understand the desire to categorize, it is necessary for one to figure out his/her way....but
In the end it gets dropped....

I agree with everything you say. I just want there to be a distinction between a photograph (recording of something actual) and a photograph(recording of something actual) that has been edited. (retouched).

 

[zsas]

Not going to get me to agree that there is a distinction that is truely reavant

If you really want to play the category game, go to Christie's and see where a hand colored silver gelatin print lands.....does it matter???

 

[68degrees]

Not going to get me to agree that there is a distinction that is truely reavant

If you really want to play the category game, go to Christie's and see where a hand colored silver gelatin print lands.....does it matter???

Does it matter if a book is labeled fiction or non fiction? What do you say?

 

[zsas]

Well played, but you still know my feelings. Just for fun there is historical fiction...he. Keep it up 20c! You will find your way. You might think I am disagreeing to disagree, but I am truely artistically agnostic.... To each his/her own

 

[jtm6]

Hand coloring a photograph and calling it a painting is like putting jet fuel in a drag car and calling it an airplane.

:angel:

 

[choozart]

No. It is not a photograph any longer. It is no longer a photographic record of light falling on a photosensitive surface. It is a combination of a photograph and a painting.

[...]

Well, didn't Andy Warhol score big on a few of those? I'd say let's just
call it "art" and leave it at that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Your definition of a hand-colored photograph as a "painting" is an insult to painters.

And photographers. And lexicographers. And historical and conventional usage. Is ANYTHING ther than a printing-out process 'writing with light'? As soon as you add a developer, you are impinging on the purity of the process. Even if you accept developing-out processes, given that the dyes in a colour photograph are developed as a sort of chemical-by product of developing the silver, via the addition of dye precursors, does colour photography qualify as photography?

Is a framed photograph still a photograph?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do you consider a hand colored photo to still be a photograph?

No. It's a chzwzx.

You'll get about as much agreement that it's a chzwzx as that it's a painting.

Cheers,

R.

 

[daveleo]

It is whatever it is.
Leave it that.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I think this whole debate on digital vs film hinges on the definition of a photograph. Whether it is film or a digital sensor it is a photograph.

Once you no are no longer recording light waves such as with dodging and burning and are using some other manipulation such as chemical toning, coloring or photoshopping it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a painting.

Thing is if you're dodging and burning you're recording light? If you expose a negative and the make a print using XYZ is it not still captured light?
Are you confusing the final print or artwork with the method of capture for the original scene?
I'm confused?