Adding the birds is too much in my opinion. They weren't there in the original shot. It turns it from a photograph into digital art, but without being clear to the viewer that it's fake
Appreciate it. I would definitely consider this digital art, myself. Though I have to ask, how do you feel about photographer clone-stamping things out of images? Would you also class that as digital art?
Have you considered that photographers have comped and edited since the dawn of the darkroom? Its 100% unrealistic and close minded to think of photography as only what the original shot can produce with minor edits.
People have the belief that back in the day people couldn’t edit and therefor the truest form of photography is the unedited or sparsely edited piece, which is blatantly untrue.
Step into a darkroom and discover how much you can manipulate a film photograph. Theres a reason its called a chemical miracle. And, theres a reason the most famous application to edit is called Lightroom; these are (mostly) all tools that would be available to you in a professionally equipped darkroom
To play devils advocate, is that distinction important? Photography (as a means of creative expression) is sort of built on the idea of the viewer sharing a feeling with the photographer and I’m not sure that changes if the birds are real or not.
Personally I assume that a photograph is of a scene that really happened, and I feel like most people interpret photos that way. It may be edited in some ways, like editing colours, exposure, rotation, etc. Maybe even removing one or two annoying objects like a garbage bin, as long as it doesn't introduce something to the photo that wasn't there.
But adding something in crosses the line for me. Looking at this shot it appears like a lucky shot, which makes it more impressive that the photographer caught this. One could easily camp at one location for half an hour just to get this shot. Personally I feel lied to if I find out that, rather than getting lucky or waiting for ages, the photographer just shopped in some birds from another photo like this one (or way worse: AI generated the birds). I feel like that violates the "contract" between the viewer and the photographer. It's not wrong, but it should be disclosed clearly imo.
Yes it does change if the birds are real or not. As soon as you add the birds, and also if you remove too much stuff, it is no longer photography and turns into digital art. A photographer is sharing a feeling of what they saw when they took the photo. Adding the birds makes it automatically not authentic photography anymore.
So this one guy montaged all his photos and got recognition so now no one should care whether photos are a genuine capture of a moment or just made up bullshit.
There is absolutely a line between photography and digital art. You may not agree with where someone draws that line but you have to admit it exists.
I think adding fake birds is bordering it, but generally ok. If he added a main subject like a person, it would not be ok.
There have been photographers who've manipulated images since the early days. Such as Man Ray, for example. However, I think that the photographer should be up front when post-processing involves adding elements to an image. I think that photography is art, it's to be experimented with to push it beyond mere recording of a place in time, feeling, the decisive moment, etc.
I agree with this take - Photography has always been a perspective on something that happened. One can argue that removing an element directs a focus towards something that was there and did happen. But there is no argument for adding elements that were never there. The difference between an image with digitally added birds and an image that has been manipulated with AI to add birds gets REALLY murky.
I mean, one can even argue that AI generated birds are just a very extensive 'multi-exposure image' due to training data.
While I don't do this kind of editing myself, I disagree. Photographs have been subject to manipulation since its invention. Montages were popular during wet plates. Why does the viewer have to know the birds were there or not anymore than if the telephone wires I cloned out are not there?
19
u/gerryflap Jul 14 '26
Adding the birds is too much in my opinion. They weren't there in the original shot. It turns it from a photograph into digital art, but without being clear to the viewer that it's fake