Photo Art

Maybe I'm not getting the photo art meaning. I see all kinds of photo creations using software, and I wonder if multiple image combination is classifies as photo art. Now aday photos are- oil painted, several photos are combined to make one,Stitching, etc so what are the standards for posting to this forum? I see that most photographers frown on combining several photos to make one photo but don't mind using a PS tool to make a geometric Photo, etc. If I change a photograph in any way I feature it as photograph art. I seen some paintings that are simply beautiful, and I seen some photo combinations that are beautiful.So what territory does photo art cover?

Jackie. Whenever I do anything that changes the original with the exception of basic adjustments and minor cloning (removing a coke can, or an of out of focus branch), I put it in photo art. By acceptable adjustments, I mean hue/saturation, contrast, levels, sharpness, etc.... all of which are in my normal workflow before posting. For example, if I change a sky, I'll put in photo art. I also put heavily manipulated images in photo art, so that category covers a lot of ground.

Everyone has their personal standard concerning manipulation and when it is considered photo art. This just happens to be my comfort zone. Hope this helps. Pat

Thanks for the information Pat. Now I understand where photo art is coming from.

I find this topic interesting Jackie. When you think about it your camera is adjustable for contrast, saturation, sharpness. Each camera brand in fact reads the information it receives slightly differently.
I try to adjust my pictures to be as close to what I saw as possible. This usually involves the same adjustments as Patricia mentioned and sometimes I will stretch it to a dodge or burn. These are the adjustments that could be made to film as well. If contrast masking or layering is used to acheive better exposures I think it should be mentioned, the same way someone mentions external lense filters, but I don't consider it photo art.
RickT

No I don't either Rick. I was speaking about instances when a bird is taken from one photographa and pasted into another photograph, or a more pleasing sky is pasted from one photograph into another.
some are totally against this while others are o.k. with this.Some call this a lie, but to me it is just art, just as an artist who paints a scene , puts into that scene what he wants to make a more pleasing picture and more sellable. I call this type munipulation " Photo Art" which requires a real tallent. Am I right?

I agree. To do it well it takes talent and it should be called art. It is definitely manipulation.
Rick T

I think if you asked 10 different people you will get 10 different answers. I know my definition of photo art will be drastically different than someone else's.

Let me give you an example of a contradiction I see a lot these days. People consider combining 2 exposures photo art, but using ND grads, or other filters is not. This is kind of ridiculous to me, here's why. I can get the exact same result if I use a 2 stop soft grad, or if I combine 2 images, 2 stops apart using masking and the gradient tool in photoshop. So how can one be photo art and the other not? My point is everyones definition is different, more tradition photographers will see anything someone does in photoshop as photo manipulation and label it photo art; even if it's just bringing it in line with what velvia might have looked like. And other people might not consider it photo art unless you dragged a moon from one shot to another. Everyone's line will be different.

I have a painter friend who defines art as "anything you can get away with."

This is timely for me since i just posted an ESS shot that i strongly considered putting in Photo Art. Until very recently i've been a strict purist when it comes to photography vs art, since ive painted for years and its a very different skill. I basically followed Patricia's definition. But in the last couple years, ive been in juried shows that had "Digital Art or Photo Art" and "Photography" categories, and ive seen numerous times that the photos are way more manipulated than the "art" entries! So, obviously, many people are really confused where that line is. Digital technology has progressed so rapidly that i have a hunch that it may completely replace traditional art medias in the near future--for example an exponentially greater number of painters are now creating their work with digital technolgy rather than smelly chemicals and brushes that need cleaning. The more i see this happening, the closer i get to just accepting that a distinction simply can't be made--it's all art, so as Buck said: anything goes! My opinion has so rapidly evolved on this, to the point where i think the only point of importance is that the artist not misrepresent what he or she has done--honesty in art.

First, thanks for all the comments. I feel better already. I do feel that Photo manipulation should not be taged as photography in a photo cagegorie, but should be taged as Photo Art so as to not mislead anyone. I must say it is sometime difficult not to try and conceal the truth, especially if a manipulated photo turns out GREAT.I did one a while back which viewers simply loved, and sold several. It was hard for me to offer this one as photo art. but I feel that my reputation as and artist and photographer would be in question if I were not totally honest about my work .

I have to completely agree with Zack and Stan's comments.