Public Forums > Photography > The line between Photography and Digital art.

I'm curious about this because as you may or maynot know I love using Photoshop to edit some of my work until it's teetering on the edge of abstract. I'd like to know how you'd distinguish photography to digital art. Does it depend on how many hours editing?

I don't think so because a picture can still look real after hours of editing if it's done subtly and tastefully.

And do some of the really heavily digitalised pictures fall out of the category of photography because they've been so obviously Photoshopped even though the base of the creativitiy is a photograph.

This is an interesting question Jettica, one that I think deserves a lot of thought. In my opinion, the line between photography and digital art is one that is extremely thin and constantly being crossed in today's digital age.

In my own experience, when an image is altered to the point where it doesn't retain any of it's original characteristics than that's walking the line. Working at a magazine, I've heard stories of images being altered. One example is a model was shot for a cover but her teeth were not up to par. So the photographer Photoshopped another model's teeth onto the original model. To me, while that was in the best interest of the magazine, it had to be a blow to the model and it distorts reality for people who read the magazine.

Is it still photography, even if the model has "new" teeth added? Or has it crossed the line?

Or does it just count as 'editing' the picture? I've found that most pictures are 'touched up' in someway whether it's to remove a blemish or to completely change someone's teeth. Unfortunately a few of my pictures haven't been approved, I believe this is because they are too heavily digitalised. However, if a client is asking for photographs that are digitally changed, to fit a brand or style is it photography?

This for example is digital art but derived from a photograph:

Tiny Dancer

But for some reason I still class it as photography it's hard to explain.

It is a very interesting question.  I am sure that all published fashion images are touched up since everyone has their imperfections (some more than others!).  There are lots of interesting videos on You Tube that demonstrate the transformation of what can be done.

I think, if an image in its roots or base is a photograph it can normally be classed as photography.  If it is heavily worked on then it is more digital art.  I had a look at the Tiny Dancer photograph, and I would say it is still a photography because thats the first thing I would identify it as, but with obvious tweaking.  

I have to say, when I studied photography, Photoshop was new and exciting for all the students and there were some pretty awful OTT photoshop jobs  - suddenly everyone had bright green eyes, that kind of thing!  I think on a job, keep it simple, make the photograph as good as it can be, then see the digital has some kind of fairy sprinkling on top, but not as a fix-it-all for bad photographs!

I agree, you can see some very over photoshopped work that the phootgrpaher has intended to look like photography as opposed to digital art. Too much skin smoothing or enhancing eye colour etc. it's not digital art but it's tweaking that doesn't necessarily improve a picture.