Photograph vs. Digital Image: Your Thoughts?

[Harlean Carpenter {★}]

Digital photography is, in many ways, as different from taking pictures with film as sculpting clay is from carving wood. The requirements of lighting, composition, and that indefinable quality we usually just call “the eye” still apply, but after the picture is taken, what you have is what is now very often considered to be only the middle of the process that ends with the finished product we call a “photograph”. And as I’m perusing photos here and elsewhere, I find myself asking one question more and more often:

At what point in the retouching/editing/manipulation process does a photograph cease to be a photograph, and become a digital image?

I look at a lot of photographs, but there are some that, even as I am saying I like them, I say simultaneously “but it’s not really a photograph.” Which brought me to the question of where I draw the line. Which makes me curious about where other people draw that line. It’s one of those things where there will likely never be a clear, precise definition.

And don’t get me wrong. I love digital imagery, the possibilities and the fun you can have with it, the things you can bring out of an image that just weren’t there in the “original”. I have an entire gallery of overly-manipulated images that I’ve had a blast creating. But I don’t call them photographs any more than I would call a package of clay a sculpture. Photographs were just the medium I used to create the final product.

To me, if I can look at a picture and tell immediately that it’s been manipulated, it isn’t a photograph, it’s a digital image. That’s my line. Where’s yours?

[Harlean Carpenter {★}]

First, I just want to thank you for thinking that I'm not old enough to remember darkrooms and old-fashioned retouching methods But, sadly, I assure you that's not the case.

The examples that you've provided are great for the point you're making, but to my way of thinking, they are indeed photographs. (And I will call it "way of thinking" rather than "definition" because, as I said in the original post, I don't think there can or will ever be a clear definition on this point, it's just too subjective.) I don't look at them and immediately think "manipulated". They are perfect example of Edson's opinion; the things they show could be achieved with lighting, makeup, the right background, etc. The manipulation after the fact was for emphasis, rather than any drastic change to the original; in short, they stayed pretty true to what the photographer actually saw.

I'm talking about far more manipulated images still being called "photographs". It's a semantic issue more than anything else, like sections of computer-animated movies still being referred to as "footage". What I had in mind when I posted this discussion was more about people's opinions of how when this



became this



using the same tools that would be used for basic retouching, at what point did it cease to be a photograph? In my mind, the second is absolutely not a photograph any longer, it's a digital image. That's an extreme example of what I mean when I say an image I can look at and tell immediately that it's been manipulated.


richardwangphotography said:

Harlean Carpenter

Your question concerning film versus digital images is a false dichotomy.

Are this above images photographs?

Because using your definition, they may not be since they are highly manipulated or as we used to call it "re-touched"

Understand that Photoshop merely replicates and makes easier what you once did in a photoshop.

Instead of using a computer, you used to use chemicals, enlargers, airbrushes, sharp needles and erasers. It was actually quite easy to retouch large format neg's and glass plates

So it isn't between film or digital, it's about image manipulation.

[Jerry Seeger]

Well, obviously manners are not what they teach at art school. When in a discussion like this, you can choose to clearly state a position like "if light goes through a lens, the result is a photograph no matter what happens next" -- a functional definition if not a terribly useful one -- or you can climb into your dogma bunker and throw hand grenades at people who wander too close.

If you choose the former course you can then decide whether you wish to listen to other ideas and rebut them (or be swayed by them), perhaps on the way teaching people things you've learned, or you can decide that you have made your position abundantly clear and simply say no more.

I say "not terribly useful" for the above definition of a photograph because it reduces the definition to a process that has no bearing at all on the result. I can take a photo, pin it to my easel, and (assuming I had the talent, which I demonstrably do not) create an oil painting that was a very accurate reproduction of the photo, but most people would not consider it a photograph.

Meanwhile I could take that same image into photoshop, muck with it until it was an unrecognizable blob (much more in my skill set), and by the above definition, that would be a photograph.

It might be more productive to focus on photographic (the adjective) rather than photograph (the noun). The adjective deals with the qualities of the result, rather than the process used to get there.



Michael Harrington said:

It's still a photograph, just a shitty manipulated one.







[edited to remove photos]

using the same tools that would be used for basic retouching, at what point did it cease to be a photograph? In my mind, the second is absolutely not a photograph any longer, it's a digital image. That's an extreme example of what I mean when I say an image I can look at and tell immediately that it's been manipulated.

[Jenna Photog]

I may be late in the game but was honestly having the same (less indepth) conversation with a friend recently. I'm a art major, artist and photographer. I see a fine line. I like my images to be the image I see in my frame, not a starting off point, but I also love the minor edits I can make in PS to make my images sing. To each his own. I have processed in a dark room - edited film and photos with chemicals in a dark room, and shoot both film and digital. I definately feel that film has a different depth quality, but love the freedom of easy digital manipulation. I don't recreat my imagery, only enhance certain qualitys. I don't think photos looked finished w/out some retouching/enhancing. For me, it's all about the final product....I like my photos to look "real", but really appreciate the digital artist that takes a concept over the top. "Mixed medium" and art no matter how you look at it. Just like someones pallet, it's all a matter of personal taste.

Have a great day!

[Jenna Photog]

But to answer the main question...IMO, if you took it with a camera, it's a photograph.

Miss Jenna said:

I may be late in the game but was honestly having the same (less indepth) conversation with a friend recently. I'm a art major, artist and photographer. I see a fine line. I like my images to be the image I see in my frame, not a starting off point, but I also love the minor edits I can make in PS to make my images sing. To each his own. I have processed in a dark room - edited film and photos with chemicals in a dark room, and shoot both film and digital. I definately feel that film has a different depth quality, but love the freedom of easy digital manipulation. I don't recreat my imagery, only enhance certain qualitys. I don't think photos looked finished w/out some retouching/enhancing. For me, it's all about the final product....I like my photos to look "real", but really appreciate the digital artist that takes a concept over the top. "Mixed medium" and art no matter how you look at it. Just like someones pallet, it's all a matter of personal taste.

Have a great day!

[Harlean Carpenter {★}]

I had actually continued this conversation with a few other people over the past week. At the end of the day, it really does seem to come down to being more of a semantic issue than an artistic or technical one. The technology has moved and changed so quickly that the language is still struggling to catch up. I'm just always curious about people's thoughts on these types of things

Miss Jenna said:

But to answer the main question...IMO, if you took it with a camera, it's a photograph.

Miss Jenna said:

I may be late in the game but was honestly having the same (less indepth) conversation with a friend recently. I'm a art major, artist and photographer. I see a fine line. I like my images to be the image I see in my frame, not a starting off point, but I also love the minor edits I can make in PS to make my images sing. To each his own. I have processed in a dark room - edited film and photos with chemicals in a dark room, and shoot both film and digital. I definately feel that film has a different depth quality, but love the freedom of easy digital manipulation. I don't recreat my imagery, only enhance certain qualitys. I don't think photos looked finished w/out some retouching/enhancing. For me, it's all about the final product....I like my photos to look "real", but really appreciate the digital artist that takes a concept over the top. "Mixed medium" and art no matter how you look at it. Just like someones pallet, it's all a matter of personal taste.

Have a great day!

[Jenna Photog]

Great discussion! It was interesting reading everyone's views.

Harlean Carpenter {★} said:

I had actually continued this conversation with a few other people over the past week. At the end of the day, it really does seem to come down to being more of a semantic issue than an artistic or technical one. The technology has moved and changed so quickly that the language is still struggling to catch up. I'm just always curious about people's thoughts on these types of things

Miss Jenna said:

But to answer the main question...IMO, if you took it with a camera, it's a photograph.

Miss Jenna said:

I may be late in the game but was honestly having the same (less indepth) conversation with a friend recently. I'm a art major, artist and photographer. I see a fine line. I like my images to be the image I see in my frame, not a starting off point, but I also love the minor edits I can make in PS to make my images sing. To each his own. I have processed in a dark room - edited film and photos with chemicals in a dark room, and shoot both film and digital. I definately feel that film has a different depth quality, but love the freedom of easy digital manipulation. I don't recreat my imagery, only enhance certain qualitys. I don't think photos looked finished w/out some retouching/enhancing. For me, it's all about the final product....I like my photos to look "real", but really appreciate the digital artist that takes a concept over the top. "Mixed medium" and art no matter how you look at it. Just like someones pallet, it's all a matter of personal taste.

Have a great day!