When is a photo not a photo - discuss!

I thought I’d open this thread after seeing Woo’s recent HDR images and after having yesterday taken some shots of two and half year old Heidi one of which I subjected to a fairly significant bit of tweaking in PhotoShop.

For anyone new to the GC photo sections there are some very interesting processed photos in earlier threads, Capney has posted some heavily processed photos of York Minster and Woo has a stack of HDRs in earlier posts.

So when is a photo not a photo? Does ‘tweaking’ necessarily mean that the original image was not a good one and can it result in something of greater impact and artistic value?
No marks out of ten for answers – I’m just hoping to open up an informative discussion.

Here’s a starter example. Heidi is growing out of babyhood all too quickly and by this time next year she’ll have lost her baby features and I want to capture them before they are lost. I took the photo yesterday, one of about fifty snapshots, while trying to get her in semi-profile. The original photo is I think reasonably good, but I think the enhanced version draws out the baby features better.

​

​

And with a bit of tweaking​

​

 

she is a super cutie in both pictures!

 

That is a good question.
I think there is a point where a photo has to be categorised as "digital art."
Where the line is drawn is the hard part.
For an example, here are three of mine:

This one has been enhanced, but I think is still a photo:



This one borderline, erring on digital art side:



This one although starting life as a photo I think is digital art:



I like both your photos Dave and I think your right in that the "enhanced" one shows off her baby features better.

 

This is quite a conundrum when it comes to photo's of flowers in catalogues as a number of plants look gorgeous from the photo but actually when you see it in really life you think "meh" a friend on another forum had this in reply to an image like that which I found most amusing

 

Some of the garden catalogues here in France show pictures of flowering shrubs that are faintly ridiculous. They are obviously faked.

 

Dare I say it, I hate all this "photo shop" stuff.
I prefer a picture "warts and all".

Digitally altering photos is OK as long as it is stated after the photo.

But I've seen the BBC Country File photo competion actually won by total rip off pictures that were obviously digitally enhanced.
Its something separate, in my view, and not photography.

Sorry, I hate it.

 

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "as long as it is stated after the photo."

Unfortunately for you, a huge proportion ( if not all) of "professional" photos are digitally enhanced these days. It's progress, like when they had cameras then made filters for them.

 

I just think if you alter a photo after taking it you should state that the photo is not as taken.
It far too easy to alter photos these days, I know it has always gone on professionally but why take a photo and then change it out of all recognition.

Or for the sake of making it look "better" add or take away things, change colours etc.

 

I think you are correct in some aspects Pete. It is much easier to alter a digital photo but 'altering' photos existed in the days of 'wet photography' too. One could take a photo using film, but just how the final print turned out depended on the skills employed during developing and printing and there were some quite 'arty' effects that could be created.

 

To a certain degree I agree with what Pete has said. I can't see the point of taking a picture and then altering the way it looks, that suggests to me the photographer didn't like the scene he/she had taken in the first place. Photo's are not paintings and I think, as Pete says, a photo should be accepted 'warts and all' or hit the delete button.

Dave's second picture of Heidi I don't like at all, I think it hardens her features and in fact makes her look more like a boy than a girl. I consider the picture to be art yes, but not photography. Again if you want a painting, use a brush, not a camera.

Woo sorry, again I prefer the first picture. That is the original you took, not the second one. If it was my picture, on looking through an album, I'd want to see the original to bring back the memories of the place as it was, not the enhanced one.

However, I accept everyone sees all forms of art in different respects and aspects.

 

So you're O.k with people using filters on cameras and "tricks" while taking the photo? (even with film) What about effects you can set up within the digital camera before you take it? Maybe all photos should state "not a true representative".
I wonder how many people can actually tell what photos have been altered and what ones haven't, if they're not obviously over done.