Digital Photo Software

Hello Everyone, I have a question for all. I have a Photograph in my images named Landscape2.
With the Description: "Help from Paint Shop Pro" ! if you went to look for this photo to take for your self it could not be found. So I guess what I'm asking is at what point by using Digital Photo Software to help improve or change a Photo do we cross the line and end up with a Digital Graphic instead of a Photograph. Or is that just relative to the Photographer who took the Photo? I grew up with Film Photography. You could manipulate it to a point but not even close to Digital. I just thought this would be an interesting observation to get feedback by the Group !Thanks Guys.

Post edited by: k8mia, at: 2008/06/20 17:19

Photo or digital graphic? It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Hardcore photojournalists consider any image that's been edited at all beyond exposure adjustment to be invalidated. One photographer got into deep doo-doo when he merely enhanced a column of smoke in an aerial shot of Bagdhad. Some even consider a mere crop to be dishonest, invalidating the photograph.

Some photographers don't consider a photograph complete until it's been enhanced for maximum visual impact: intensify the sky, punch up colors, etc.

Others who produce entire fantasies in postproduction probably don't fret much about distinctions of what's a photograph and what's a image. Perhaps for them, a photograph might be whatever was taken with a camera and somehow got to the point that the result meets the artist's vision.

I don't think there's any one line of demarcation, just like there's no one line distinguishing food from not-food. Some people think McDonald's is good eating. Some people think it's poison.

I knew I'd get a good comment from you Bob....Very well put. Do you know what the Courts allow now as far as invalidated ? I don't know !

Do you know what the Courts allow now as far as invalidated ?

I seriously doubt the courts have any opinion on that. It's up to the photographic community itself to determine. For example, that AP photographer who enhanced the column of Iraqi smoke caught all kind of abuse from the journalistic community, not to mention from his own employer. Through peer pressure and consensus, the de facto standard (i.e., nothing beyond cropping and exposure-adjustment and even those had better be judicious) was reinforced. But that journalistic standard has no application to the advertising industry, which has only one apparent standard: Does the image sell what it's trying to sell? And neither industry is incorrect in its own application of standards.

For something to be "invalidated," it's necessary to first define "valid." Standards vary by genre and industry. They HAVE to. We mustn't have news doctored like ads and ads won't work if they always have to tell the unblinking truth.

Thanks Bob for staying with me on this one. I guess when I veered off on the Court subject I was thinking of a Police case a few years back when I was ask to Photograph a Scene but then after word had to turn the Film over to the Police to get developed. I had to log every Photo, the contents their in and time of each shot was taken. We might have to get Greg to reply on this also. The Court's are very careful about Photo enhancement.

Yep, police officer Greg's definitely the go-to guy on this one.

I'm guessing that digital photography makes that documentation easier, though it's probably still possible to edit the metadata of a shot, thus rendering evidence suspicious.

As for editing an evidentiary shot itself, yeah, that's obviously asking for trouble.

The simple answer is no enhancements at all are accepted in evidence. It has to be straight out of the camera. I use a Sony FD200 camera that has a floppy drive in it. I turn the floppy in as evidence so that they can see it was the original file, and all original data is included.

Evidence photography is just about showing the evidence as it is. There is no boosting of colors, no exposure adjustment, no cropping, no nothing. If the image has been manipulated at all, there is no longer any evidentury value to it.

Its the defense attorneys that will raise this issue because if anything is manipulated in the photo it no longer represents the actuality of the evidence, and there is no way of telling what was changed or how much.


Dealing with when does a photograph become digital art as opposed to a photograph, that is wide open to interpretation and is not mandated by the courts in any way, shape or form. To them, it is all the same, and they really don't care one way or the other.

Thanks Bob and Greg, Greg you cleared that up for me as far as Court process Thanks. You might want to do a Topic on that for those young Photographers interested in Police Crime Sceen Photography !

And Bob once again thanks on your view on Photo enhancement. Some others might find this interesting....

Thanks Guy's.

Post edited by: k8mia, at: 2008/06/21 01:40

Greg Wrote: Dealing with when does a photograph become digital art as opposed to a photograph, that is wide open to interpretation and is not mandated by the courts in any way, shape or form. To them, it is all the same, and they really don't care one way or the other.

Greg and Bob, I think I got mis-understood. I wasn't asking what the Courts think about when a photograph become digital art as opposed to a photograph, but as Photographers think and how far can you push the envelope.

I WOUNDER IF ARTISTS WAY BACK WHEN ASKED THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY. WHEN PHOTOGRAPHY WAS THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK IT TOOK A LONG TIME BEFORE IT WAS GIVEN ANY RECOGNITION. THINK ABOUT IT!

k8mia wrote:

Greg and Bob, I think I got mis-understood. I wasn't asking what the Courts think about when a photograph become digital art as opposed to a photograph, but as Photographers think and how far can you push the envelope.

Hey James, I went into the archives and found an old topic that I started a long time ago that kind of deals with this. Check it out if you get a minute...you can see the different views on this subject.

http://www.photographyboard.net/component/ option,com_joomlaboard/Itemid,27/func,view/catid,13/ id,35609/

I WOUNDER IF ARTISTS WAY BACK WHEN ASKED THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY. WHEN PHOTOGRAPHY WAS THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK IT TOOK A LONG TIME BEFORE IT WAS GIVEN ANY RECOGNITION. THINK ABOUT IT!

That's a very cogent point and the prejudice still applies in places. When researching membership in various art leagues in my area, it turned out some exclude photographers.

Bob

P.S. Could you toggle your CAPS LOCK key, please? ALL CAPS is the equivalent of shouting.

Greg, I read the old topic. Thanks,