# Can virtual photography really be considered photography?



## Sam82 (May 21, 2020)

Very interested to hear you thoughts on this.

Incase you not aware of what virtual photography is, it is where you capture images inside a virtual world (video games, CGI etc).

An example of virtual photography is by and artist called Pastel White, who has coined the term Photography 5.1, which as you will see demands the creation of many bits of equipments needed to do the shoot but in the digital realm, making it an almost like for like reflection of the physical world.

Some of there works are below:

Images have been removed. Users may link to but not embed photos for which they do not have copyright.

I saw a video of this as well on instagram.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 21, 2020)

IMO, its photography because its capturing an image. 
Fake or not, virtual or not, if its capturing an image.. 
its photography.


----------



## Sam82 (May 21, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> IMO, its photography because its capturing an image.
> Fake or not, virtual or not, if its capturing an image..
> its photography.


I like your clear definition, but it still seems strange to me to call this photography. Would that make painting photography?


----------



## petrochemist (May 21, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> IMO, its photography because its capturing an image.
> Fake or not, virtual or not, if its capturing an image..
> its photography.


By your definition drawing & painting are also photography - so your definition is flawed.

There are several digital arts that are not photography - ray tracing, vector graphics drawing, & digital painting all fall into this class IMO along with 'virtual photography' from the sounds of it.


----------



## compur (May 21, 2020)

You can capture images with Silly Putty but it ain't photography.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 21, 2020)

No no no... 
Definition of PHOTOGRAPHY

: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)

Capturing an image by the above is the contect. 
Painting and drawing is not "capturing" but copying an image through the use of applicable medium to a surface to create shapes. 

Capturing means that the light waves (photons) are recorded from something emitting them. 
Virtual images are still light emitted. and if captured is by definition under photography.


----------



## limr (May 21, 2020)

Reading their definition, 'virtual photography' is creating an image that basically looks like a real photograph but is entirely made from scratch using digital software.

So let me see if I got this straight: I sit down at a computer and create a scene which would fool someone into thinking it's a photograph of a real scene, but which I've actually created on a computer.

Is that a photograph? I say no. It's graphic art/design, but not a photograph just because it mimics photography.


----------



## snowbear (May 21, 2020)

limr said:


> So let me see if I got this straight: I sit down at a computer and create a scene which would fool someone into thinking it's a photograph of a real scene, but which I've actually created on a computer.


Are you including the bad composition and poor focus I see a lot on fb?

I, too, will say no.  It is a visual art, but not photography.  Now if I take a shot of the screen with the Nikon, that would be photography.


----------



## weepete (May 21, 2020)

Well it's a bit of a grey area. I'd consider in game shots of play photography, though I've yet to see any good examples. I don't consider photorealistic modeling photography, it's in it's own category .


----------



## dxqcanada (May 21, 2020)

...no, what they call Photography 5.1 is not a photograph ... reads like circular reasoning.


----------



## Original katomi (May 22, 2020)

I thought the original photography was to draw with light.
Ie photo graphs 
Found this on the web
*The word "photography" is a combination of the Greek root words "photo-," meaning "light," and "-graphia," meaning "writing" or "drawing."* Thus, "photography" literally means "writing or drawing with light." 

If we have ebooks, e coffee rooms why not V or VR photography


----------



## petrochemist (May 22, 2020)

Original katomi said:


> I thought the original photography was to draw with light.
> Ie photo graphs
> Found this on the web
> *The word "photography" is a combination of the Greek root words "photo-," meaning "light," and "-graphia," meaning "writing" or "drawing."* Thus, "photography" literally means "writing or drawing with light."
> ...


Storing photographs in digital format would be the photographic equivalent of e-books. This is something that's been done since about the 1970s long before digital cameras came out & simplified the process.

The 'virtual photography' you are referring to appears to be removing the light from the initial capture, having it computer generated instead. A very different matter.


----------



## Derrel (May 22, 2020)

Pastel White trying to make CGI Imaging into something he or she defines as photography 5.1...interesting.


----------



## zombiesniper (May 26, 2020)

They way I see it. This will not affect what most of us would consider photography.......for now.

As with everything, evolution is inevitable so I see no issue with it. It is a very niche form of photography but I would still call it such.

Just wait. VERY soon you will see cameras specifically designed that only capture video and the user just chooses the frames they want still images from.
Is it photography? Yes
Do I like it? Don't care either way.
Will I use it. Nope.


----------



## Derrel (May 27, 2020)

zombiesniper said:


> snip>Just wait. VERY soon you will see cameras specifically designed that only capture video and the user just chooses the frames they want still images from.
> Is it photography? Yes
> Do I like it? Don't care either way.
> Will I use it. Nope.



I think we already have similar technology on the market right now.

A few years ago there was a magazine cover that was done by pulling a video still. It looked quite good.


----------



## Destin (May 28, 2020)

To simplify this a little and spark further discussion:

If I take a screenshot on my smart phone, is that photography?


----------



## limr (May 28, 2020)

I say no.


----------



## Derrel (May 28, 2020)

Destin said:


> To simplify this a little and spark further discussion:
> 
> If I take a screenshot on my smart phone, is that photography?



No.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jun 27, 2020)

Not much to thinks about here.

If an artist takes brush to canvas and adds some background, by definition he or she was created a painting. 

If a photographer looks through a view finder and snaps the shutter, by definition he of she has taken a photograph.

Neither the painting nor the photograph are defined by what is shown but only by the process used to capture the image. Taking brush to canvas would be defined as art. Capturing photons for the display of an image is called photography.   

The merit of what is captured is opinion not process.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Jun 27, 2020)

I think there's a large grey area here.

At a practical level - digital cameras are an evolution of photography that does not need film, and virtual images are an evolution of painting that does not need brushes.

But at a philosophical level, if you took a photo of a painting, the result would be a photograph.

And at what point does a heavily post processed, digitally manipulated photo stop being a photograph?  Same for video - movies like Avatar have blured the boundary between 'film' an animation.

I posted an image of mine last week in a discussuon about Second Life screenshots being posted in Portrait Groups in Flickr. It was a photo I took, but then heavily manipulated to look like second life.  Coming from the other direction, I could scan a photo of my wife, and use it to create an avatar - so has the digital illustration become a photo, and has my photo become an illustration?


----------



## Mike Drone (Jun 27, 2020)

Photography is capturing light from any source.  =]


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 28, 2020)

Silly humans you're worrying about defining me, while I'm eliminating you. According to this  Will Photographers Be Replaced By AI? - Feature Shoot photography and photographers as we know it is being replaced.


----------



## 407370 (Jun 28, 2020)

So I work a lot with creating images made up of elements from the real and virtual worlds.

Is this a photo???




That sunrise photograph was taken by me on Al Wakra beach in Qatar at 4am about 4 years ago. I specifically chose that pic to include in a reflective scene because of the defined red ball of a sun.

The original pic was heavily modified and then included as a texture in a 3D Scene.

When did it stop being a photograph????

These are the settings that are available when using a virtual camera in a 3D Scene:


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jun 28, 2020)

I have lost track of the times I have pondered, is it really a photograph or a photographic creation of a non-existent or a heavily modified object?

Over time I realized it simply does not matter. They are all photography and it is impossible to say where photography and photographic art merge. We can say that a 1970 color slide of someone's birthday party is a "as shot" photograph and that a photograph of Mickey Mouse is photographic art. However, there will never be a general consensus of where the two art forms merge.

The reason I feel it does not make a difference is because when we look at a sculpture of a Roman emperor, or an 18th century painting of some Archduke  in Europe or an American  Indian painted by Russell in the Old West, one rarely asked "Is that what they really looked like or did the artist embellish piece?"

I know what I prefer and just let it go at that.


----------



## petrochemist (Jul 22, 2020)

407370 said:


> So I work a lot with creating images made up of elements from the real and virtual worlds.
> 
> Is this a photo???
> View attachment 193620
> ...


The image of the red sun over the water is a photo, the combined images are digital art, but not a photo.

The question becomes a bit hazier if you take several photos & stitch them together to make a panorama. I'd be happy to call the final panorama a photo, but I suspect some others wouldn't.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jul 22, 2020)

The problem is, trying to compare apples to oranges.

By the scientific definition, "Photography" can be defined by a set of "facts". Traditionally this meant, a method of capturing and image onto a display media by the use of light. So yes, even the digital camera and monitor match this.

However the definition of  "Photography" has also evolved to mean the "content" of the image. At this point it can no longer be defined by fact, as it falls into the realm of "opinion".  There is no wrong answer to an opinion, only varying  degrees of acceptance.


----------



## Mike Drone (Jul 22, 2020)

The definition of photography: definition of photography : the *art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy* and especially light on a *sensitive surface* *(such as film or an optical sensor*).  I believe what you are referring to is considered graphic arts.  Computer graphic arts is taught next door to my classroom, they even get degrees for their work! =]


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jul 22, 2020)

I certainly would not argue over the semantics of the scientific definition of photography, it changes with the evolution of technology. 

However, my point was, defining photography includes acceptance of the fact that not everyone thinks of, or even cares about, graphic art; it a photograph by popular convention. Hence the unfortunate mix of fact and opinion.


----------



## 407370 (Jul 23, 2020)

Grandpa Ron said:


> However, my point was, defining photography includes acceptance of the fact that not everyone thinks of, or even cares about, graphic art; it a photograph by popular convention. Hence the unfortunate mix of fact and opinion.



Tis. An image is just an image.....


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 23, 2020)

No. It would be closer to a photo illustration, but really it's digital or graphic art/illustration. Not an image, it's a digital creation.


----------



## limr (Jul 23, 2020)

Grandpa Ron said:


> I certainly would not argue over the semantics of the scientific definition of photography, it changes with the evolution of technology.
> 
> However, my point was, defining photography includes acceptance of the fact that not everyone thinks of, or even cares about, graphic art; it a photograph by popular convention. Hence the unfortunate mix of fact and opinion.



Um....arguing over semantics is kind of the exact point of this thread.

There's only so far we can extend a definition before we render it meaningless. Language depends on a communal understanding of how we are using individual words. If there is no distinguishing characteristics between 'image' or 'graphic arts' or 'photography', then we're left with pointless redundancy of terms, which in term causes a lack of clear communication.

As such, I stand firm:  if the image was not created "*by the action of radiant energy* and especially light on a *sensitive surface* *(such as film or an optical sensor*)" then it has to be called something other than a photograph.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jul 23, 2020)

limr, 

I certainly would not ague with your logic. 

The only thing I can offer is that, after more that fifty years as an engineer, I have learned that most folks really do not care about the correct  semantics. They should, but they just do not think it is important enough to give a second thought to.

This thread is a case in point. If you show a poster of a champion show dog or a poster of Scooby-Doo; it is a rare individual that asks if it a photograph or a  computer generated image.  Most folks, would simply refer to both as a photograph.

Even those people who like to debate such questions, rarely end up agreeing on the exact definition; though it does make for interesting mind games.      

Take care


----------



## limr (Jul 23, 2020)

Grandpa Ron said:


> limr,
> 
> I certainly would not ague with your logic.
> 
> ...



Just because a lot of people don't think about something doesn't mean it's not a worthy topic of discussion. And someone did start a thread, so it's important enough for those of us who have participated in this thread.


----------



## stevebohne (Jul 28, 2020)

I tend not to think about such things. If Peter Max takes a photograph, then applies oils in his studio, it depends on how much medium was applied. Just a little? It's a photograph. The original image replaced by oils? Art. But of course, in spite of what the massive ego of Picasso thought (Every Dentist aspires to be a Doctor, every photographer aspires to be an artist), the photograph itself can be art. The reality is, I've seen many photographs that I enjoyed more than some of Picasso's scribblings.


----------



## voyager360 (Jul 28, 2020)

No one would argue that photojournalists take photos.  While photos can be artistic, the nomenclature of "photo" has changed over the years.  

Once upon a time, photos were made from film.  Today, photos can come from digital cameras and a smart phone phone.  In 1994, my stupid Gordon Gecko cell phone brick could not take a photo.  Today, my iPhone can capture a digital photo, a digital video but wait for it... it can ALSO TAKE a panorama!  (The crowd says: Oooooh!  Ahhhhh!) 

The first digital cameras were introduced to photojournalists during my time at Eastman Kodak during the 1990's.  During Kodak's annual Electronic Times Photojournalism Workshops and at the Camden Center for Imaging (CCI) we trained photojournalists how to move from their Nikon and Canon film-based cameras to digital.  

Back then, digital photos could not allow you to "step inside the picture."  A digital photo was just a flat photo.  Twenty-five years later, it's now possible to step inside a photo because the way it was captured and produced with a digital camera. 

Digital photos will continue to evolve with technology improvements to cameras and lenses.  Which follows, newspapers are moving now to panoramic photography, evidenced by the fact we are licensing VPiX SaaS platforms to them, complete with ANPA/IPTC tagging of the panos for distribution to Reuters and the Associated Press for syndication.


----------



## mariah1902 (Nov 26, 2020)

By definition a lot of things can be said or referred as photography but truly what photography really means is that an image that we take by our camera and the picture has to say something or define something. Not all picture is a photograph. Do not just search up the definition and comment. Photography is not a joke.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 5, 2020)

It is possible to over think any is issue, I am still trying for figure out how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. I believe I heard that in grade school or there abouts. It seems that folks have been asking this question since the Renaissance.  

My point is everyone has questions that are important to them. However it is important not to be surprised because other do not share your concerns. For example many folks pay a lot of attention to sharpness and composition in a photograph. I consider subject and emotional impact far more important.

Dayton Duncan and Ken Burn's book of  "The National Parks" has scores of photos that would never be considered for entry in a photography contest today. But they have stood the test of time.


----------



## Rickbb (Dec 6, 2020)

Back in the day we used to call such things a multimedia collage.


----------



## Widef1964 (Jan 19, 2021)

Interesting topic OP. To put my 5 cents in, I don't believe it could be classed as photography. My understanding of photography is the 'photo' part comes from Greek translation of light - which was how photographs were originally, and arguably still made today (despite everything being digital and not using negatives blabla bla - that's a whole other discussion in itself). 

Some might argue that the light from the digital image could be considered a photo - but I'm not convinced. 

Not to take away from anyone who does part take in this, I am personally a huge fan, and do think it's skilled. 

Maybe alternative names could be CGI photography, or digital scapeographer?  

Anyway, i'm going off on a tangent now lol


----------



## nokk (Jan 19, 2021)

that's like saying every screenshot i take is a photo.  i've taken screenshots in games to create art.  to me it's no different than an artist using photoshop or illustrator to create art.  but i never considered it photography.  

the photo trend in video games is annoying to me, especially in games like assassins creed where photos taken by others cover up the place on the map that you need to fast travel to.  or cyberpunk where you spent a good 5 minutes trying to figure out how to take a stupid selfie 75% of the way through the game for one side quest when you've never been introduced to the camera mechanics before.


----------

