Okay, we all use digital cameras - because of their great advances and their handynes… In this time, digital photography has become a main factor in publishing and printing - and it came with full force and changed the word “photography” forever…
i do have a serious question now. When is a photograph no longer a photograph?
When my dad starts with photography and film, i was amazed at the things that slide film could do vs. negative film. But still slide was constrained to what one could accomplish in the darkroom, both in development and printing.
Now with digital and photoshop, the possibilities are endless. And i do realize that a neg scanned to digi can be used the same way, but again, my question is what do you guys think is the limit of what may be called a photograph before it must be designated a manipulation or art? Yes, is the simple tiny adjustment of brightness/contrast a manipulation?
My view is: if you can’t do it in a darkroom for real, then you cannot call it a ‘photo’…strictly speaking. i’ve seen many a stunningly beautiful piece that took a lot of hard work (and were not editied in any way!), but none the less, the things done to it digitally are technically unfeasible in the darkroom, yet it is passed off as a photograph.
My dad does photography same style he did 20 years ago - in the darkroom! I asked him why, and he answered me: “It´s not the final product what i call photograph - it´s the way i do!” And that makes me thinking about this!
Now, i may be just *****in, but i’d really like to know what everyone thinks is the limit of what you can do to a photo before it can no longer be labeled as such?
- Phew… longest post i ever did =)
Cya guys/gals!
:thumb::thumb: