Are images like the butterfly above or below, or this clematis, photography?
Good question. In one sense, they certainly start out as digital captures, so are at least technically digital photographs in origin. And I’m not Photoshop artsy-filter-slap-happy, at least I hope not. Let it be clearly understood that nothing other than the Sharpen > Unsharp Mask Filter was used from the Photoshop Filter menu.
In another sense, a viewer could quite reasonably look at the imagery and would be right in assuming that non-photographic techniques are involved. The clematis in particular looks more like painting than photography to me.
Here’s where I come out. A good question, but ultimately it may not matter much what an image is, provided the image works visually. But if I had to say, I’d say these images are a new media, part photography part something new, and part of the evolution of digital photography into a new art form. (Drum roll, please!)
View this image larger.
Pingback: TechNovelty » Ist ein digitales Foto noch Fotografie?
Pingback: Photoblog 2.0: » Photoblog 2.0 Archive: » Xrays, Photograms, and Cross Processing, Oh My!
Pingback: Photoblog 2.0: » Photoblog 2.0 Archive: » From Filter Play to Layer Masking
Pingback: Photoblog 2.0: » Photoblog 2.0 Archive: » Coleoptera
Pingback: Photoblog 2.0: » Photoblog 2.0 Archive: » Dragonfly
Pingback: Photoblog 2.0: » Photoblog 2.0 Archive: » Coleoptera after Warhol
Pingback: Photoblog 2.0: » Photoblog 2.0 Archive: » Ringing Cedars Covers
Pingback: Cartouche | Photoblog 2.0