I never considered adding and removing elements to a photograph as photography. That was all done later, after the photo was taken or made, using a variety of techniques that only sometimes took place in a darkroom. There was physically pasting and cutting of different elements into and out of a photograph (making a collage) and then rephotographing the result, air brushing , masking and painting on negatives (done that myself), tinting or colorizing a photograph, and so on. None of these are photographic techniques, and none required a darkroom.
I'm not saying they are not valid ways of expression, but I just don't see them as part of photography, or the photographic process, per se. They are all manipulations done TO a photograph after the photograph has been made. The point of the article, as I understood it, is that it doesn't matter what you "capture," you can always change it later in Photoshop. Instead of relying on your eye for framing properly and good exposure techniques, or seeking out a good subject and waiting for good light, Photoshop will allow you to make something that wasn't there. The article suggested that this is consistent with "making a good photograph." May I suggest that it should more correctly called something other. I don't hear any "quacking" coming from my computer when using Photoshop. Perhaps I need to turn the sound up. Using Shel > [Original Message] > From: Christian > If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, what is > it? > > "photographers" have been manipulating images to the same extent as today > since the first picture was made. changing backgrounds, adding elements, > removing elements etc has all been done in the darkroom before the advent of > "digital" photography/processing. > > If the final result is something that includes many pieces and most of those > pieces were made with a camera (and perhaps manipulated in a PC or a > darkroom ) and it is printed either digitally or in a darkroom, it must be a > "photograph" and the process of producing it must be "photography." > > Photography is an art, whether it is snapshots of your kids or street > photography, journalism, nature photography or heavily manipulated collages. > They are all done by "painting with light" and there are many ways of > producing and interpreting said "art." > > Really what Shel and E. are saying is that they don't like this FORM of > photography; purists that they are. > > Honestly, as a graphic art, I think it has a place but I don't pursue it as > an art form because I'm not interested in the process. But to me, heretic > that I am, it's still "photography." > > Christian
