• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Processing_the_Photograph_as_Art

Jack_Flesher

New member
The different processings shown for this image raise a compound question in my mind: At what point is a captured image no longer a "photograph" and rather become a work of "graphic art" -- and does it matter?

For me, I would definitely say the distinction matters. But I'd also make it clear that in no way am I disparaging graphic art as viable artistic expression, just wanting to distinguish between the two. With that disclaimer, I would say the definition changes for me when it is obvious (to me as a viewer) the image has been significantly altered. I am curious what other's perspectives might be...

Cheers,
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jack_Flesher said:
The different processings shown for this image raise a question for me: At what point is an image altered to the poin tit is no longer a "photograph" and rather has become "graphic art" ?

This is an important question for us. Unfortunately, our knowledge of the world of advertizing, magazine layouts and other commerical photography has removed out innocence.

Thus we see modern creative expressions in a photograph as echoes of these uses of the captured nascent image.

However, all the blending, distortions, masking and combining of images and painting were alread embedded in the first 50 years of (mostly silver-based plate and film) photography. This was, however, recognized as a rightful expression of photography, not some "graphic art".

This mistaken attitude derives in part by the unfortunate use of the word "manupulation, which has, amongst its connotations, an air of falseness and deceit, of altering the image in order to unfairly represent something.

A photograph, however, is not a true represnetation of anything anyway, no matter how photographed.

As Ansel Adams said so aptly, a photograph is made!

People we photograph are covered in clothes and bathed in one kind of light, not another and the pictures is prerared from the latent image in some unique way. Any other de novo preparation would yield a differnt image with an altered emotional impact, meaning and significence.

When preparation of the image one sees from a latent image involves choices informed by some intent, a work of art of some or no significence is thus created.

The extent of alteration is not important as long as some reciognizable essence of the original image is still present.

In the examples, posted in the theread "Boy on a Bicycle", anyone can recognize the same fundamental image. Even a child would see that. So here I'd say these are versions of the original latent image.

One might rightly say that Nikolai version look very much like graphic art. That's true, however may perfectly good citizens might resemble crooks, hookers or filmstars. However, that does not make them so, only is that is how they function.

We should keep in mind that all of the images could potential be used for a graphic design with merely word elements added.

I would just keep in mind that Nikolai is not claiming that he has a torn photograph of boy cycling on a suspended layer of bricks! Rather, Nikolai is representing the latent image in one of the ways in which he is able to imagine it. Thus, he has brought the image to lfe thorough his own thoughts and imagination.

How different is this from imagining the extra dimensionality of a pear in the dawn light, an getting the image then and not a minute later, or choosing a paticular chemistry of contrast curve to elicit a particular emotional response.

Yes, we must disclose matters that are no obvioous to avoid deceit. However, this is self evident to anyone looking at Nikolais version. I'd still call it photography, but label it as creative.

If however, the image was used as a raw material and ceased to function to represent anything of what was seen at the time of getting a latent image, then one has transformed the image to another artform related to photography. However, to call it graphic art, which has the connotation of being related to commerical magazine and advertizing designs, is misleading and an error.

I'd call it art derived from a photograph. We should think up a better descriptive name!

Asher
 
Top