Photoshopped Images or Digital Art

[Toe Knee"F"]

Hi All,
I'd be interested on your thoughts on Photoshopping. Where do you draw the line between a photoshopped image, and digital art? Now we all do a little shopping, whether it be toning, blur, contrast...etc. But when does it become Digital art! When is enough, too much?

[MillerPhoto]

I think once you remove or add objects is when it becomes art. Not talking bout little blemishes or anything like that, talking like removing a whole person or subject.

[mswebb]

What about editing out of unwanted but unavoidable distractions such as tree branches, shrubbery, etc? Since these elements aren't part of the original vision, does it matter. In the real world our eyes become quite selective and can tune out distractions (up to a certain level). Case in point, place your left hand about 3 inches in front of one of your eyes and look at your computer screen; you can see the screen just fine and your hand mostly dissapears.

In one of the other threads here on FF, there is a link to an artist who seemingly makes his living off of Photoshop re-touching. He has some fantastic models (including Hally Berry). In one of his before/after photos you can see where he has modified the model's body shape which goes beyond simple skin tone corrections and shading. Does body modification make a difference? If the model doesn't conform to the photographers vision is it okay to fake it later? Obviously this artist isn't working for art's sake, it's pretty muc hcommercial so what does it matter.

If the argument is that photography is artistic, why does it matter if an image is photoshopped to death? Mann Ray did some amazing things in his darkroom but he was still considered to be a photorapher. His artform was truly in his manipulation of the film and light but, he didn't merely take pictures.

[JohnQ]

This is a very interesting discussion. To me photography is art, unless you are a photojournalist any manipulation is fine with me. I don't care if you use computer generated graphics to make a photograph if it is pleasing to my eye. The medium in which the art is created is not nearly as important as the emotion or thoughts it provokes.

[TheBaron]

I always viewed it as colour, lighting, slight cleanups etc... as still part of the photography, even some effects that you can achieve in a darkroom.

But when you start fully changing the piece, adding things to the image, removing the background and manipulating in other factors then it become digital art.

[mommymomo]

I think that you should have your shot through the camera. If there is a branch in the way, move it. I am not oppossed to minor things done to the overall shot, but I think you should take the photo and frame it then!

I am no expert, but the alterations are becoming unbelievable. See post under PS Re touch. While the results are amazing, the capture itself is lost.

[savona]

This is a very interesting discussion. To me photography is art, unless you are a photojournalist any manipulation is fine with me. I don't care if you use computer generated graphics to make a photograph if it is pleasing to my eye. The medium in which the art is created is not nearly as important as the emotion or thoughts it provokes.

Well said... I agree with this statement whole heartedly. Photojournalist are the only photographers that MUST show the scene as it was. A photographer is an artist in my mind, and art knows NO boundries.