Is this a photograph?

For my Monday Window blog I wanted a photo of this building without people. It was a busy time however, and there was a steady stream of customers. My solution was to combine elements of two photos to obtain an image that shows no customers.

Is this a photograph?

Can this resultant image still be legitimately called a photograph?

You might have noticed that I also did some perspective correction. So often when we wish to include more of a building, we tilt the camera upwards, and the result is a structure that seems to be collapsing. Here is an example of that.

Is the edited version on the right still a photograph?

Still is, no problem, you say? Let’s take it a step further. Some years back I wanted to photograph an old church building. I could not get far enough back to get it all in with the camera I had at the time. So, I took a series of photos – and combined them. Then I went another step further.

Is the image on the left a photograph? How about the one on the right? If you look closely, you not only see that I have edited out the powerlines and pole but added a signature – my sign that I now consider it “cafe art”.

Let’s get picky. How about these images. Is the one on the right a photograph? Just a couple of edits, the grate in the driveway and the sign in front of the bushes are just distractions. It’s ok to get rid of them isn’t it?

“Journalistic accuracy”, you say, does not allow removing anything. Cropping at most is allowed.

Oh, yes? How about the liberties taken with this old, 1960s, Kodachrome photo.

The photo on the left shows firefighters tackling a brush fire. Just a small one. You can see people in the background walking past. It’s not a big deal. The image on the right crops out those people. It now looks like a much more substantial fire. Is it still a photograph?

I turned to ChatGPT for some insight. I started the chat with this:

“Boundaries of photography” – modern tools permit photographs to not only be “improved” but manipulated far beyond the image produced by the camera. Retouching, using filters, and a variety of darkroom dogging and burning techniques have been part of photography since its inception. Until the digital age, the term “photography” was rarely controversial. Nowadays that is not the case. Some post-processing is required for all photographs, but when is a photograph no longer a photograph and constitutes “digital art” or what-ever term artists might use?

ChatGPT responded:

The boundaries of photography have indeed expanded significantly with the advent of digital technology and advanced image editing tools. The traditional concept of photography as a medium that captures objective reality has evolved due to the creative possibilities offered by digital manipulation. This evolution has led to debates about what constitutes a “photograph” in the modern context and when it crosses over into the realm of “digital art.”

The distinction between a photograph and digital art can be somewhat subjective and can vary depending on individual perspectives and artistic intent. However, there are some factors to consider when determining where the line might be drawn:

Degree of Manipulation: One key factor is the extent of manipulation applied to the image. Minimal adjustments to enhance color, contrast, or sharpness are common in photography and can be considered acceptable post-processing. However, if the manipulation is extensive and alters the original image beyond recognition or adds elements that were not present in the original scene, it might be considered digital art.

Intent: The intention of the creator matters. If the creator’s primary aim is to faithfully document a scene or subject, then the work is more likely to be seen as a photograph. On the other hand, if the intent is to convey a specific emotion, concept, or artistic expression through significant alterations, it might lean more toward being categorized as digital art.

Use of Elements: Elements that are not part of the original scene (such as added objects, textures, or visual effects) can push an image into the realm of digital art. The use of composite images, where multiple photographs are combined to create a new scene, can also shift the work toward digital art.

Visual Style: The overall visual style can also play a role. If the image has a highly stylized or surreal appearance, it might be seen as digital art rather than a straightforward photograph.

Context and Audience: The context in which the work is presented and the audience’s expectations can influence how it’s perceived. For example, in a traditional photography competition, the judges might have stricter criteria for what qualifies as a photograph compared to an art exhibition that celebrates digital creativity.

Artist’s Perspective: Some photographers might deliberately blur the lines between photography and digital art, embracing the possibilities of both mediums. The artist’s own definition and perspective on their work can impact how it’s classified.

In the end, the distinction between photography and digital art can be fluid, and the lines can often be blurred. The important thing is that both photography and digital art are valid forms of artistic expression, each with its own set of creative opportunities and challenges. The evolving nature of technology and artistic vision will likely continue to shape and redefine these boundaries over time.

What do you think? What do you say?

.:. © 2024 Ludwig Keck