When is a photo no longer a photo?

40 Replies to “When is a photo no longer a photo?”

1. Scrap digital and make everyone shoot film?? 🙂

2. As stated above I too think Cropping, Exposure, & Color adjustments are OK for a photo contest. Anything more than that is pushing it for me. It is no longer a photo contest but more of an art contest once you start pushing pixels or doing composites. Don’t get me wrong, I love using photoshop to edit images, but a photo contest should be what came out of the camera with minimum alterations such as cropping & color/exposure adjustments.

   1. I am with what Jim said, quoted from him. Jim Nichols says:
      June 28, 2011 at 3:45 am
      “As stated above I too think Cropping, Exposure, & Color adjustments are OK for a photo contest. Anything more than that is pushing it for me. It is no longer a photo contest but more of an art contest once you start pushing pixels or doing composites. Don’t get me wrong, I love using photoshop to edit images, but a photo contest should be what came out of the camera with minimum alterations such as cropping & color/exposure adjustments.” I could not have said it any better.

3. A number of years ago, I had a good conversation with the late Galen Rowell on this subject. At the time, there was some controversy about the use of filters (specifically GND). He indicated that camera technology could never achieve the complexities of how the human eye sees things. So certain types of filters and for that matter improvements (e.g., HDR) that more closely help to render the image a better approximation to what your eye actually sees is absolutely justified.

   I think exposure, WB and other settings are fair game. Color is a gray area (no pun intended). I’ve never had an issue with cropping, but I know of a fairly well-known photographer that doesn’t consider cropping fair game. He thinks that the time spent setting up the picture and getting the right composition should be rewarded. I think he is probably in the minority these days. Personally, if the photo contest is not designated as one allowing “enhanced” photos, then I would have a serious problem with any of the common PS alterations (e.g., removing wires/people, cloning, adding clouds, etc.).

4. Interesting topic!
   A friend of mine thinks that everything you do to alter a photograph is just wrong (even cropping). He’s a true purist.
   As for myself I always do a little color tweaking here and there but won’t completely alter the photograph (Though I sometimes remove wires if they truly destroy an otherwise perfect photograph. And when it comes to landscape photography I think it is more than OK to remove some of the “human influence” .
   I’ve also done complete surreal HDR’s so I really think it’S all about what you want to achieve, about what emotions you want your photographs to evoke. Don’t do it for pure razzle-dazzle! A painter might use a landscape for inspiration, even though the completed painting won’t look anything like the original (E.g: Birds in the Sky, different shape of a mountain etc.). Society accepts that. Yet they think a camera is only a tool to reproduce reality. While I think that might be the main purpose of a camera, I also think you can also use it as a painter’s brush (If a brush can be used to alter reality, so can a camera). I think it’s perfectly fine to use an altered artistic photograph for a contest IF it is labeled as a composition and ONLY if used in a fitting category.
   And let’s face it….there’s not a single photograph in a magazine or contest that has not been altered!

   But that’s just my opinion. As stated before it is an interesting topic and a complex one too!

   Best regards

5. This debate is all over the Web. There’s a long thread in Linked In Photoshop users group (I think) about it also. I agree with Jim Nichols.

   I’ve seen some amazing “photos” entered into competitions, but what I witnessed was a graphic artist’s idea of the photo imagined more than the pure photographic result. Adding HDR is definitely a more serious edit, imho. I tend toward the less is better approach.

   I like the idea of separate categories, which might include:
   Simple edits (crop, color, exposure adjustments),
   HDR category,
   Composites category,
   Photos as art projects,
   OR go for broke and require JPGs with NO edits applied! (Ergo avoiding the RAW process editing.)

   Removal of wires is a hard one though. You can’t get a decent photo in the Boston area without wires in it – even if you’re in more rural parts with old bridges! Plus, Amanda, setting up a shot is all good if you’re shooting cars, models, or posed people – but action sports and wildlife aren’t so cooperative.

   I see cropping as a way to focus the shot, but it’s not really editing it. Here’s my example of a crop with NO edits applied; it’s the jpg right out of the camera. What was removed? Just some more green grassy area and black and grey trees, which added nothing to the shot.
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/29372499@N06/5861068319/

   By the way, I saw a category division in a photo contest recently I like, which was something like this:
   Pro = someone who makes 50% or more of their living as a photographer (which would include photo books)
   Semi-Pro = someone who makes less than 50% of their living as a photographer selling photos (which would include photo books)
   Advanced Amateur = someone who shoots for fun, but may sell a shot here and there.
   Dedicated Amateur = someone who shoots for fun

   OR more simple put (courtesy of the National Wildlife Federation -http://www.nwf.org/PhotoContest/pdf/Photo_Contest_Rules_2011.pdf)
   • Pro—Full or part-time professional photographers who receive all or a major part of their income from nature
   photography.
   • Amateur—Beginning or amateur photographers at least 18 years of age, and advanced or experienced
   photographers who do not receive a major part of their income from nature photography.
   • Youth—Young photographers ages 13 to 17.

   Another category to muse on:

   DSLR user
   non-DSLR user

6. This reminds me of a discussion about changing technologies in photography in Ft.Myers, FL, 1995, for a photo summit of the then infant North American Nature photography Association (NANPA.org). Many of the world’s top outdoor shooters were there. George Lepp, Frans Lanting, Dewitt Jones, Art Wolfe and the late Galen Rowell to name a few. Film was on the way out and digital was the technology of the of the future.

   The argument of the summit was “Digital technology was not the same as film and so it was no longer photography”. The comparison when photo technology moved from glass negs to film was brought up. These are the natural progressions of technology which expands our creative photo opportunities.

   Grabbing a full moon in “Bulb” mode then put our lens cap back on, turning to the cityscape or nature scape, taking the cap off to capture where we want the moon is a simple example of this. After all, it was shot at the same time, in the same frame, photo or photo-illustration?

   The computer and the camera are just tools in out creative tool belt we use to create. Are we only to document a scene or to create our visions as photographers?

7. Terry. is it me just waking up at four am or do you see a phallic symbol made of light? I don’t think that is what you meant by being more than a picture. Sorry, very distracting.

   Now to your question. my brain interprets what my eyes see through its amazing bio-electric process. This is one of our interfaces with the world. Film and digital are tools we fabricated to recreate our natural interface. These tools are tools to be read by an observer to obtain more information. Sensors and film, post production… all are part of a the artists vision to convey information. It is for the observer to accept or deny the information that is presented.

8. This is a common and often discussed topic among my photography friends, amateur and professional. I definitely feel strongly that there is a fine line between ‘digital darkroom’ and ‘digital artwork’. However, the real arguments begin when attempting to define where that line is. For myself, just a little cropping, exposure, and very slight color correction is about it. Practically 90% of what I shoot does not receive any sort of post production work of any sort. My photography is more about recording what my eyes see, as they see it. For others (an a whole lot of others), their photography time is 20% shooting and 80% staring at a monitor or two; tweaking images. I’m sorry… HDR is not photography… it’s digital artwork. Things seen with real eyes in the real world do not look like HDR images or most of the other over-corrected, over-processed ‘photos’ that are so trendy. I didn’t say that I don’t like those styles. I like and appreciate very much those artists and styles, but I’m a grouchy old bastard. They do not fit my description of ‘organic’ photography. They have moved into another category.

9. Simple! Have a category for Unedited photos and one for Edited photos. They both have a place in today’s photography.

10. I personally have no problem with simple edits and even some types of content change. Removing wires, adding some elements are acceptable to me unless they were used to create the focus of the image. If I see a shot of some scene and the moon in the shot looks really cool, I want to know that the photographer managed to get the moon in the shot at the right place at the right time, not simply photoshopping it in later. The moon was the item that made the image interesting and it should have been part of the original image. In general, power lines aren’t the focus of the image and their removal doesn’t cause a problem. Of course if the image is meant to convey any sort of editorial content, it should have no edits (i.e. riots in the street, burning buildings, etc.)

11. “I’m sorry… [long-exposures are] not photography… [they’re] digital artwork. Things seen with real eyes in the real world do not look like [long-exposure] images ….”

    In fact, it’s not photography if you use a tripod. Only photos taken hand-held are real photos, and frankly, serious photographers only take photos with their non-dominant hands, preferably while standing on their heads.

    😎

    Only SooC is photography? What about those using cameras with in-camera editing? Is that somehow more acceptable than using Photoshop or Aperture just because you’re using a tool poorly designed for the purpose?

    HDR isn’t photography? Hate to tell you, but if you use fill light and highlight recovery sliders in post, you’re tone mapping a wider dynamic range onto a narrower one, which is the essence of HDR. You’re just doing it with a single exposure rather than by stacking multiple exposures.

    Do you ever use flash? Or lightpainting? Those do not represent the way your eye captures an image. Why are they allowable and post-processing is somehow anathema?

    Oh, and I should perhaps mention that I rarely do heavy post-processing on my personal work, though I have both the tools and the ability. The fact that I don’t often do it, though, does not give me some special right to criticize those who do.

    This whole, “My photography is more pure than yours” attitude is absurd*. The only thing that matters to me is the final image. If you can build it entirely with CGI while avoiding the uncanny valley, more power to you. If you use both exposure and focus stacking on a 52-pane panorama, I might think you’re not quite right in the head, but I’d still be interested in the image. And if you can take it in a single exposure with an Instamatic, great.

    I’m only interested in the process when I’m so inspired that I want to try to do the same or a similar thing. Let me know when you write the tutorial, not when I’m judging a contest.

    * That would be what we in the writing business call “an opinion”. Just in case there was any question.

12. Wait that pic of Shay is a composite Terry? Here I thought you were hiding that location from me here in Pontiac 🙂

13. I define myself as a “photo artist” rather than as a “photographer.” That’s because my goal is the end image, and I’ll use whatever tools I have to create the image. That includes graduated neutral density filters in the field, blended exposures, pushing colors, and removing distracting elements. If there were an “Unlimited” class in a contest, that’s where I’d fit. That’s my approach, and it works for me. Of course, there’s no reason it should be your approach.

    I don’t think there’s “one right way” to set up a contest, as long as the guidelines are clearly defined. Fortunately, the rules apply to all entries, so we’re on a level playing field as far as what we’re allowed to do. When I enter a contest, I always read the rules. If they limit editing, then I select only images that fall within their guidelines. I may even process and image specifically to meet contest guidelines. Or, I may not enter the contest if I don’t feel I have an image that’s strong enough.

    The concept of fairness in a contest is always a tough issue. The obvious purpose of the contest is to choose one person’s work as being better than all the others, and we hope we’re that one person. But the judgement is always somewhat arbitrary. A different set of judges would most likely see it differently, so it’s somewhat unfair to start with. Is it fair if the winner has a better camera, or sharper lenses, or a more sturdy tripod? Is it fair if they have lighting skills you don’t have? Is it fair if they have better processing software, or advanced processing skills?

    There were problems in the film days as well. Very few photographers processed and printed their own color prints. Instead, we relied on custom color labs to make our beautiful prints. Even today, there are labs that specialize in making competition prints (for an added fee). How often was the winner chosen because he had a better color lab, or paid for more refined printing?

    The best we can hope for is to have the rules clearly defined. As they say, enter at your own risk. And accept the fact that if you don’t win, the winner might have had an advantage – and that’s why they won.

14. Without reading through others comments, yet, my thoughts are:

    Pro distinction to me should be someone making a living as a photographer.

    Rules for a contest should allow finishing a photo, not a composit. Meaning retouching out distracting details like powerlines or a person, doing any necessary color correction. Cropping to me also includes stitching panos together. If the photographer had a pano in mind for the finished image then that should be acceptable.

    Photo manipulation, like blending images together (like placing a silo of a person to an image of a road or something) or recreation of parts of an image like a sign or something, or using filters, should not be allowed in a straight up photo contest.

15. As someone who does take all liberties with editing images, as art is really in the mind of the creator, I believe that it doesn’t really matter whether its photograph or not.

    The person or people who establish the criteria for their photo event need to set clear guidelines about what is or is not allowed. After all most events should be fun, creative and a bit challenging and the rules should factor in the capabilities and interests of the participants.

    If a event wants to limit it to 4×5’s, pinhole, film, hand developed, etc then great. If you have that equipment and or skills go do it and have fun. For others, join one of the many other events that fit your needs.

    Niels Henriksen

16. A photo is always a photo whether is under expose or over expose. Theres a market out there willing to purchase these. Any work, manipulation done to enhance the photo must be recorded. Not doing so, is ground for rejection.

17. Photos have always been manipulated even back in the days of film. Generally, the only people who care about how a photo is made is fellow photographers and those in the industry. Majority of people only care about the final results.

    I think it is only to be a concern for contests and editorial use which relies on truth of the image. Both should define the categories in great detail as to what is acceptable considering the possibilities to avoid controversy.

18. This whole idea that you aren’t creating a photograph if you alter it is absurd.

    Photography serves many purposes. Two of the main ones are:
    1) Documenting reality
    2) Creating artwork

    If you are doing the first – then NO, editing it is absolutely forbidden. When you start editing it, you stop moving towards the goal. Note, I don’t say “editing it in post” – because there are plenty of ways you can edit reality in the camera. In or out of the camera, editing the image is not right if you are attempting to document reality. NOTE – I don’t view simple color-correction, brightness/contrast tweaks, or cropping as edits to the image. These are things that every photography does regardless – darkroom or computer.

    The second – why should you not edit it? The end goal of this is an image! Who cares what you did to it to get there. If you shoot on chrome – develop the slides, paint on them with watercolor, scan them into the computer, then digitally remove elements, crop, change the color, etc – you are still working with a photograph – and you are still creating artwork.

    So – my opinion on this matter is as follows: It all depends on your goals. You need to know what the goal is, and be true to it. As for a show – what type of work do you want to display? If artwork – no rules need apply to editing the image. If it is about documenting nature – perhaps you should limit it to the basics – color correction, brightness/contrast, and cropping.

19. I have read the article and the comments, and all are great. Thanks Terry for this interesting topic. My thought/opinion/reply: I think the only photo that is no longer a photo is the one never shot. Who captures it, how it is captured, what is used to produce the final result to me does not matter, photo’s are an expression of the one who shot it and once that is done it is a photo. The technology today simply allows an individual the ability to fine tune that expression as they want to display it. Any creative art form is this self expression, does an author who writes a book with pencil differ from the one who uses a computer or one who uses a quill?

    Thank you for the insight, and more importantly thank you for sharing the shots you have done.

20. Altering photos and eliminating elements is nothing new. Photoshop and other photo editing software has just made it easier. I watched my father do some fantastic work with negative touch-up inks and inter-negs 50 years ago. He even recreated a lost wedding photo of his parents for their 50th anniversary by copying, modifying and layering other photos taken at around the same time. If a photo is taken for artistic purposes, then anything goes in my opinion. For journalistic purposes, cropping and exposure correction should be the only things done.

    1. Your father sounds like quite an artist, Phillis. Must have been great exposure for you.

21. What is the point of the contest? Contests related to photowalks always seemed a little strange to me. But really is it people want recognition or want to learn? The idea behind categories is to make things fair, but I think do very little to help people learn. Get a dozen categories and everyone takes what they are comfortable with and submits to the category that fits them best. How about assignments instead of categories. Straight out of camera. B/W only. People only. Must have a dog done in HDR. Whatever. Then talk about what works or doesn’t in the photos.

22. To me there are 2 divisions in photographic output. First the photographic “picture” which is minimal processing as others have stated, crop etc. The second is a photographic “image” which has been processed to be perfect or convey the takers view of the scene. Remember Mr. Adams. This also includes all forms of hdr, pano, watercolor conversions, adding moon or clouds and what ever the mind can think of.

23. I run a photo competition on Facebook (www.facebook.com/bgiphotocomp) where the topic changes every 2 weeks. So far this issue hasn’t raised it’s ugly head. It is an interesting subject. With digital we are using pixels, a bunch of 1s & 0s which from the moment of exposure on the sensor these pixels are modified, by the camera’s processor, file conversion, resizing, etc. For better or worse that’s the reality of digital imaging. How far does one edit one’s image before the “photograph” is no longer a photograph is highly debatable. The ground rules of any competition need to be “liquid”. To allow change as the need arises. However with voting involved if you don’t like the image don’t vote for it. But if the majority of people like the image then the image must stand for what it represents “The voter’s choice”. End of debate.

24. Garbage in garbage out. Take the picture and share what you have taken, not what you have created in editing software.

25. Wow now if ever there was a topic to draw a discussion then this would certainly be up there 🙂

    My own take on this as a Portrait Photographer who also does alot of compositing work is that for a competition such as this then editing should be limited to what the ‘average’ user would be capable of ie cropping, contrast, colour correction and such like.

    I love using photoshop, I love compositing but it’s not something that everyone is capable of…certainly to a ‘believable/realistic’ standard so if it is acceptable in a competition then maybe have categories…ie an out of camera cataegory, an enhanced category and so on…

    Ok maybe I’m rambling a little here but hopefully my point comes across.

    Great discussion topic Terry; will definitely generate alot more thoughts and I’m sure The Grid will run over on this 🙂

    Cheers,
    Glyn

26. For me personally, all photography is art. The camera, filters, lenses, flash(es), studio, film/cards, darkroom (digital or otherwise) are the tools we use to create that art. Ansel Adams was an artist. My understanding is that he spent hours in the darkroom enhancing his photos. There are times when it is important to limit photography to documentary. For the rest, I think everything is fair game. But when it comes to a contest, the rules should rule.

27. Photographs or images? I think a “photography” or “photo” contest is limited to the capture with allowable tweaks. I think it reflects true photographic skills. Of course, the “allowable tweaks need to be defined.”
    On the other hand, having contests for images that go beyond the capture can be many; can be broad or limited in the scope of work. They show a wide variety of artistic expression. (Of course, there are many people extremely talented in both photography and image art.) Go to Flickr and you have groups dedicated to the use of one particular filter! Very cool! Many times, that one filter is from the “Filter Gallery” and it’s use changes the photo to an artistic image beyond the original capture.
    So? Have all kinds of contests with whatever rules and if everyone understands the rules beforehand, knock yourselves out and have a good time.

28. this is the way i see it, it would only be fair for the contestants to do whatever they please, so long as the original images are presented with the final. this way it shows the original composition and color of the photo and the creative process undergone to create the final image.

29. Terry,
    You bring up a great question. When is a photo no longer a photo. The real question the photo walk group needs to ask itself is: What do we want to incorperate into our walk. Can we stitch a pano? Can we photoshop out a telephone pole? etc… I am sure you have seen the contests over at http://www.dpreview.com The contest starter gets to make the rules for the contest. I would suggest each walk you make up an established set of rules that those participating will adhere to. IT makes the most sense to me, and change it up to make the walk a bit more lively and interesting.
    I think the normal tweeks should always be allowed IMHO. (sharpen, Levels, curves etc…)
    SO that is my 2 cents.
    Have a great day
    Lance

30. Why not ask everyone to submit their RAW files along with the tweaked final images and ensure that the manipulation was just limited to enhancing the colors / tones / contrast etc.?

31. In the days of film and black and white photography, photographers used dodging and burning when processing their prints. Now we have software that will allow us to do the same thing. Granted we’re not all pros when it comes to using image editing software but that doesn’t mean those who do know how to use the software shouldn’t be allowed to. Of course, it’s very hard to compete against someone who is proficient with PS when all other factors are the same. The final argument for me is whether I like the final photo. I guess it comes down to what the parameters of the contest are.

32. Hi. I was in the Photowalk to which Terry refers. The attendees at MacGroup Detroit judged the photos and lots of them thought that one of mine was a total Photoshop job, which it was not.

    I had taken the photo of the back of a steel park bench that had cutouts in the shape of leaves. In the photo you couldn’t tell it was a bench, the park (subject of the photowalk) was as it appeared if one were a child’s height looking through the back of the bench. I even heard people saying that my photo “didn’t meet the criteria” for the contest because it was some sort of template layered over the picture. Nope, it was totally a picture taken at the park. I cropped it, adjusted the lighting, and brushed out some bird poop that was on the back of the bench (all in Aperture), but that was pretty much it.

    Perhaps next time we should have cards in front of the pictures that explain what they are (if necessary) and what was done to get the effect.

33. Possible simple rules for photo contest:

    YES for alterations that are meant for all pixels of a photo (WB, exposure, contrast, …)

    NO for alterations that are meant for selected pixels of a photo (cropping, retouching, …)

    Then rules are simple enough yet some changes are still possible 🙂

34. It seems to me the essence of the photowalks is to take good replicatable photos. Moose Peterson is a fantastic photographer and his wildlife images are replicatable without knowing photoshop or how to composite. I think that if you spend an hour in post processing for one photo then its probably not going to be realistically replicatable photo. Terry’s work is replicatable, as is Scott Kelby’s, RC’s, Matt K’s (except their HDR work), Joe McNally and so on.

    I know that people are rebels and stringent rules will make them want to push the limts, so I say keep it simple and say the photo should be replicatable by anyone who aspires to be a photographer or is one. When you are in post process you know if someone could easily recreate your image or not. If the contest has an award for the best composite, then the rules would differ of course.

    I believe that the overall skill that the photo walk highlights is the ability to compose and capture an interesting photo, which everyone cannot do no matter what camera, lens or programs they have. That seperates the winning photo from the rest. That being said a person can see a great shot and replicate it and grow as a photographer and learn to compose great shots that another person can learn from. If we don’t all become better whats the point?

35. I think that in this day of digital possibilities, if you’re going to have a photography contest, you simply have to specify what is okay if you want to avoid arguments. We all know what is possible, so there’s no reason we can’t say ahead of time what is allowable in any instance. If you don’t take the time to think about what technical limitations best express what your contest is about and spell it out, then no one who participates can be blamed for doing what is in their mind and creating the best art that they think fits whatever the stated goals of the contest are.

36. Terry,

    In my opinion, the rules are really very simple.

    If the contest’s profile is an artistic photography, there should be no limitations whatsoever on the use of various creative editing and/or enhancing techniques. After all, limiting art with any kind of rules is pure nonsense. It never works.

    However, if the contest is to be about documental or journalistic type of photography, the only editing allowed should be of the correctional type, for instance: cropping, exposure, color and contrast (only global adjustments).

37. When displaying non-photographic apparatus, the highly regarded U. of Calif.’s California Museum of Photography seems to exhibit images that fall into the category of “photo-pased still media.” This offers the curator and artist wide latitude to focus on sub-categories in any media/style/theme that contains photo-based still artwork (e.g., cyanotype, daguerreotype, specific artist, digital, B&W, political and social themes, graduate thesis, etc.) in different rooms in the CMP.

38. If you’re going to allow manipulated photos to be entered into a competition, it should be made mandatory to submit the original version too.
    This way a contestant can be judged on both their photography and photoshop skills.

Comments are closed.