RETURN to AlphaUniverse.com
Jump to content
Welcome To Our Community!

Discuss, share & explore photography, video, vlogging and making the most of your gear.

Is composite photography really photography or is it a graphic illustration?


Drew_Geraci

Recommended Posts

With AI encroaching in the photography workspace now, I thought it was the perfect time to bring up this question!  Because today's technology allows users to simply do one-click edits of adding a new sky, light element(s), or even a new or additional subject to your original photography,  I'm curious if people believe this type of art is actually considered photography. Or should it be labeled as a Photo Illustration, much like AI photography is going to be labeled as? 

 

Also, is stacking imagery from the same scene (with minor differences in composition/exposure) still considered a photo as well if you're taking elements from other photos and combining them after the fact? (Example below).

 

I'm always curious as to what others think so let's get this discussion going!

 

620iEFCE620C5FBF0242.thumb.jpg.e404b33082ca8a24f10236c5ef632ac2.jpg619iB8F35DB2A1D1E679.thumb.jpg.4321df72782dbd00670de144659ade26.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are a lot of questions there Drew. I personally do not change skies. I want my images to relay an emotion(s) that I felt when I captured the image. As for stacking - that is just a way to overcome the camera / lens ability to render the image either correctly exposed and/or having extreme depth-of-field. So my summary is anytime I add something to the scene that was not there in the original capture, I would list it as digitally altered - not what I saw literally; rather what I saw in my mind. As for processing of a RAW file, I see it as a necessity similar to making a print from a negative. Al Weber was a friend of mine and taught with Ansel Adams for 20 years. He told me one day at lunch that Ansel always told people he manipulated his black-and-white images. He was very fond of using a Kodak #25 Wratten filter to render his blue skies black. Moreover, he did extensive burning and dodging and kept detailed notes. A great book was released by his office manager after he passed where she showed a number of Ansel's more famous images and showed you the progression from a straight contact print all the way to finished gallery print. Included Ansel's notes. Al told me he would have been all over Photoshop because he loved to tinker... Too bad he never made it to the digital era! Lastly, IMO, there was not a color chrome film out there that truly captured an image the way our eyes see color and light. My favorite all-time film was Kodachrome 25 because it rendered a painterly look...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If something is added or removed from the image then it is altered. If multiple images are used to make one image then it can go either way depending if all the objects were there in the first place. When I make my panoramic images by stitching many images I am recreating what is already there over a short period of time. However if I add a fake sky then I have overstepped what is real. Generally standard adjustments to exposure and minor color tweaks are acceptable. But changing from one color to another is not.

This is a 17 image 35,000 pixel composite panorama taken in Augusta Maine over a period of 15 seconds. Is it time altered in showing the final photograph(s) or is it real because it is 35K wide when the a1 can only deliver 8750 in one single shot?634iDCCE2C4DF858832D.thumb.jpg.59202231fb4ce8a3a267d0c6f85b2e97.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been wrestling with this too. In Luminar AI you can just drop in a sky or elements and I have no idea if they are true photographs or generated images. I would say I am more comfortable calling anything made from photographs photography, even if it is composited. Where I get stumped is in manipulation of photography. I smear and change pixels, so the original image no longer remains. Is that still photography? I can also use photographs as references in Corel Painter, but then it is no longer a photograph, but a new image made with digital paint. What is it and how does that fit in? 

I think it is just easier to call a spade a spade, especially for competitions. I don't know if the general public need to know the nuances of everything though as that could get tedious. For instance, if a client wants an image with a sky that looks a certain way--say a hotel that wants murals for rooms, I don't see the harm in compositing it or using AI generated effects to please them (unless they specifically want a true photograph). In the end it is about selling images one way or another, right? If we are honest about a hybrid process, then I think it is ok. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm usually of the mindset that "if it makes me say wow, I don't care how it was done".

I think of it as there is no definition of photography that states "a photograph is only a photograph if it was captured in one frame... in the camera... with no manipulation". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest previous-member

I would say it is photography.  There is so much more available to photographers today.  The photograph itself can capture a moment in time, convey a thought or idea.  I want to get the beauty of any particular photograph and not get to wrapped up in how it was made.  Just my thoughts .  .  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm usually of the mindset that "if it makes me say wow, I don't care how it was done".

I think of it as there is no definition of photography that states "a photograph is only a photograph if it was captured in one frame... in the camera... with no manipulation". 

In that same vein are you comfortable with how AI is using photography to create scenes that don't actually exist as long as it makes you say WOW? Much like how sky/particle/light/subject replacement is used in some other types of photography? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest previous-member

In that same vein are you comfortable with how AI is using photography to create scenes that don't actually exist as long as it makes you say WOW? Much like how sky/particle/light/subject replacement is used in some other types of photography? 

For me personally, I'm okay with some editing capabilities and am more of a purist.  I try and capture the best photo I can take without much editing.  For the photographers who need more, like AI, then good for them.  I do feel they have some sort of responsibility to inform their viewers of what was "created" to make their photograph more interesting.  Thanks for your comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Trending Content

  • Featured Products

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...