Hi all, got the above topic for discussion. I flipped through a couple of photography mags from the UK and US, and came across some articles featuring editted photos. "Editted" in the sense that there is some form of superimposing and erasure of the contents in the image, not about trivial processing like colours/saturation etc.
There was an amazing photo focussed on one flower against an entire field of flowers, with very good DOF, and the special touch was a butterfly flying across the frame, motion froze with blurred wings. It was when I read the fine prints that I realised the butterfly was superimposed. The photographer did encounter such a scene but before he could snap the butterfly flew out of sight. So he superimposed the butterfly to re-enact the same scene.
There was another one showing an almost totally graphical photo, showing some kind of space-age backdrop and a sphere. On the backdrop and sphere are montages of hundreds of photos, real ones, not graphics. And this piece of work won the Photo of the Month for that mag. Some readers wrote in and argued that it shouldn't even be considered a photo, but the editor's reply was that, digital or not, a photo is still a photo. It's up to the photographer to explore his creativity.
What do you guys think about going "too" digital? What's your tolerance of digital manipulation? Does it tarnish the true spirit of photography, or does it re-define photography, or does it merely extend photography further?
I'd like to hear your views. This is a discussion so there's no right or wrong. Thanks in advance for any response.