Have you heard of the Orton Effect? This post-processing technique has been around since the 1980s, if not earlier, but the trend has exploded tremendously in the past few years. If you haven’t heard of it, you aren’t alone – it only recently began to gain mainstream popularity. And yet, in some ways, the Orton Effect is swallowing the modern world of landscape photography. This is barely an exaggeration; after seeing the Orton Effect in practice, you should be able to spot it in at least a third of the trending 500px landscape photos, as well as many winning photo contest entries. This article covers all the basics of the Orton Effect, including a tutorial on how to implement it in your own images – and a discussion on why you may not want to do so.
Table of Contents
1) What is the Orton Effect?
At its most basic, the Orton Effect is a glow added to photographs (typically landscapes) in post-production. In and of itself, that doesn’t seem too harmful. The problem, though, comes when a huge portion of landscape photos have the same glow. Take the photograph below for an exaggerated application of the Orton Effect:
You should be able to tell that something is unusual about the photo above; it has a bizarre glow around it, and certain areas of the photo are hard to focus on. That’s the Orton Effect.
The Orton Effect was created by abstract landscape photographer Michael Orton, and it was originally a technique used in film photography. With film, a photographer would take two images and layer them on top of each other – one that was in focus, and one that was overexposed and out of focus. When layered, the two pieces of film produced a single photograph that was simultaneously sharp and blurry. This technique added a soft glow effect to a photo.
This article is not a reaction against Michael Orton. His photographs are great; you should check out his website if you get the chance. Even his Orton Effect images are so abstract and surreal that they hardly fall under the umbrella of this article.
Instead, I want to focus on the modern-day implementation of the Orton Effect. This technique is overused among digital landscape photographers, and I believe that its proliferation harms our collective idea of creativity.
2) How to Apply the Orton Effect
I won’t go into extreme details in this section, since (as I discuss ahead), the last thing I want is an even higher number of photographers defaulting to the Orton Effect. Still, a brief tutorial is below:
- Open your image in Photoshop and duplicate the layer:
- For the top layer, click Image > Apply Image:
- In the “Apply Image” blending mode, click “Screen” and hit enter:
- Duplicate that layer, then click the “Multiply” blending mode:
- Go to Filter > Blur > Gaussian Blur. Adjust to taste:
- Merge the two top layers (Command+e or Control+e) and create a mask to decrease or increase the Orton Effect in different portions of the image. You almost certainly will want to reduce the layer’s opacity, or the effect will be far too strong:
As a final touch, since the Orton Effect darkens the shadows of a photo, you may want to lighten them back in Lightroom or Photoshop.
That’s it; the Orton Effect is pretty simple to implement. However, it does take a few steps in Photoshop, some of which may not be intuitive. Some software has built-in Orton Effect settings, while others (like Lightroom) do not allow for layers and thus cannot be used to create the Orton Effect.
3) Exaggerated Examples of the Orton Effect
In order to show clear examples of the Orton Effect, I have included three before/after comparisons below. These are far more exaggerated than typical implementations of the Orton Effect, but they will help solidify the concept if you are not yet familiar with it.
Here’s an incredibly pronounced example, where I barely reduced the opacity of the Orton Effect layer at all:
This next one is a bit subtler, but pay attention to the trees and rocks near the top of the frame. It’s still pretty pronounced:
Finally, here’s a landscape that never should have had this soft effect applied in the first place, since it is supposed to be harsh and dramatic:
4) Typical Use of the Orton Effect
The examples above are pronounced, to say the least. Although some photographers do employ the Orton Effect to such extremes, most – including a majority of 500px photos with this effect – are far, far subtler.
Take a look at the landscape photograph below, for example. It has had the Orton Effect applied, but only in certain areas of the frame. This is similar to how many of the photos on 500px appear:
Since you’ve seen some other examples, hopefully you can tell that this photo has the Orton Effect applied. Still, it is much less noticeable than the three comparisons above. (If you’re having a tough time seeing it, pay attention to the glowing spots of grass near the sunbeams; the effect also is more visible on a large monitor.) Photographers who don’t know about this effect – like the vast majority of 500px viewers – may think that the glow in the photo above is simply a natural result of fog. But what if every photo that I took had the exact same “natural” fog? It no longer would add interest to the photo; it would add a creepy sense of uniformity.
5) What’s Wrong with It?
If every photograph of mine employed the Orton Effect, even subtly, they would all start to look the same. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with one or two such photos in someone’s portfolio, but it would be unbearable if every single photo looked exactly like this.
Therein lies the problem. Although not all popular landscape photos employ this technique, a shockingly large portion of them do. While writing this article, I looked at the top fifty trending landscape photos on 500px (which have now changed) for a comparison; I am certain that seventeen of them used this effect, and there were a few others that were too close to tell. Two of them used the Orton Effect so strongly that my eyes began to blur; I started to see a false glow in the real world for a few seconds – not a pleasant experience!
Collectively, photographers don’t yet look at the Orton Effect in the same way that we see over-the-top HDR photography. However, I believe that both – especially when overused – lead to equally garish photographs. Under most circumstances, details in the real world do not have an etherial glow lingering around them; even when employed lightly, the Orton Effect feels “off” from how we experience the world. In subtle doses, the Orton Effect may not be a bad thing. But, in subtle doses across a third of the popular 500px photographs, I think it has run its course.
6) Proceeding from Here
I shared an Ansel Adams photo in a previous article, and it is worth adding here as well:
Feel free to stare at this photograph until your eyes no longer see the world with a cheesy glow effect.
As you can tell, I am not a fan of the Orton Effect’s prevalence today. I believe that it has encroached upon our collective concept of a “good” landscape photograph – its otherworldly glow gives the false appearance of improving every landscape image. In reality, I think it does more harm than good.
Is this post simply a reaction against the mainstream concept of beautiful landscape photography? Am I calling out a system simply because I have different tastes from most people? Perhaps so. I enjoy Ansel Adams’s photos far more than any Orton Effect image; maybe my opinion of photographs is simply stuck in what used to be considered beautiful, and I have yet to move on.
Still, I know what makes a photograph work for me, and it isn’t the Orton Effect. I think that, as photographers, we are far beyond the point of using the Orton Effect reasonably; we have fallen victim to the soft, glowing, faux-beautiful atmosphere of photos that have been adjusted well beyond their inherent value. I am not immune; until recent weeks, I also gravitated to the impossible beauty of these photos. Now, though, I have begun to see the consequences of the Orton Effect. The most popular landscape photos on the world’s largest photography websites are beginning to look like Thomas Kinkade paintings (which you should Google with caution).
7) Conclusion
There is nothing inherently wrong with a post-production glow, even if it looks overdone and fake. But I absolutely believe that there is something wrong when more than a third of the “popular” landscapes on photography boards use the exact same Photoshop effect. We are no longer reacting to the photographs themselves; we are reacting to the presets that have been applied. This isn’t much better than an Instagram filter.
The Orton Effect wouldn’t bother me much, except that it gets almost universal praise from photographers across the internet. Sunrise photos of Mount Fitz Roy with the Orton Effect? They are among the most popular on every photography website. A field of glowing green grass with an extreme Orton Effect? They win photo contests and elicit thousands of Facebook likes. Even if a photo’s quality has nothing to do with its online popularity, all this attention certainly counts for something.
As a final note, if you do use the Orton Effect for your own photographs, please do not take this article as a personal criticism. People certainly love Orton Effect photographs, and it would not surprise me if landscape professionals find that their sales increase with this effect (similar to HDR photographs). In the end, you should feel free to use whatever methods you enjoy; for most photographers, that’s the real point of taking pictures in the first place.
But if you find yourself jealous over the increasing number of overly-beautiful, glowing landscape photos on sites like 500px, don’t feel discouraged. The Orton Effect is rarely more than eye candy, and it loses its “magic” the moment that everyone has access to this technique. A landscape photograph doesn’t need a mystical glow in order to be beautiful; it just needs to represent your personal take on the world.
Thanks for showing me how to do the effect. I love it and will use it often. That said, I’m not trying to replicate nature in my shots, I enjoy image manipulation and making things seem surreal. That also said, I enjoy a good rant and am prone to them myself :)
are you jealous because you can’t go to the mount Fitz Roy?
I would love to go to Mount Fitz Roy! But it’s definitely true that those photos have begun to explode in popularity in recent years. Nothing wrong with that – it didn’t stop me from going to Iceland, which I feel has been similar!
Spenser, thanks for the great article (as always, they are great). However, I must disagree with some of your claims regarding the process and the damage supposedly being done to landscape photography.
Your distaste for the process, being noted as a personal distaste, might sound a bit dramatic when you pose the idea that somehow the landscape genre of photography stands to suffer because so many people are engaging in such pursuits according to their likes, their vision, or whatever they feel makes their image(s) stand out. You admit that you post-process your images quite a bit (as did Ansel Adams, which you keenly point out). You probably know that Ansel was in fact a years-long adherent to the Pictorial movement before abandoning it for a more Realist approach, which fit with his vision. That was a matter of his taste, was it not? And a taste vis-a-vis the differing tastes and agendas of the like of other Pictorial photographers such as Alfred Stieglitz et al. But it’s important to note that Ansel took parts of the Pictorial process with him into the Realist approach, in the form of deviating from the “reality” of the scene by way of coloured filters, lens choices, and later, in the development of his negatives and prints.
Imagine if we were to chastise the photographic community for dodging and burning, digitally or otherwise, because it stood to “take over” landscape photography and lend a depiction of “reality” in an unnatural fashion? Or better still, how about all that focus-stacking presently going on, or bracketing exposures to combine later in an effort to increase the dynamic range of the final image/print? Should we look at such techniques as akin to the Orton Effect — “swallowing the modern world of landscape photography” so that every photograph, “even subtly, […] all start to look the same?” I must say, rather than your idea that “Perhaps there is nothing wrong with one or two such photos in someone’s portfolio, but it would be unbearable if every single photo looked exactly like this,” it would actually be more beneficial if someone’s portfolio contained nothing but the Orton Effect or some other commonality that actually brought unity to their work. From my point of view (and I know I’m not alone… legions of articles have pointed out) a much larger problem with photography today, or at least for those trying to get their work noticed, is that most photographers these days don’t have anything unifying within their larger body of work: here we see a photographer’s work — there are some portraits; there are some sports shots; there are some landscapes; there are some street photos; there are a few macros. Etc!
Now, on the one hand, that’s a problem. But it’s great that so much interests them. Professionals will quickly point out that such a broad portfolio makes it hard for a professional to take such a photographer seriously for commissioned work or for a spot in an exhibition, though: they simply lack unity in their work. The photography Masters (both past and present) had/have one thing in common, despite their differences in approach or subject matter: they more or less stuck to one genre, one vision that guided their work. A photographer with a comprehensive body of work that employs the Orton Effect in each image? I’d like to see that! –see where that process took him or her, and the result.
As you note, “Collectively, photographers don’t yet look at the Orton Effect in the same way that we see over-the-top HDR photography.” You do, however, state you believe that “both [processes] – especially when overused – lead to equally garish photographs.” Spencer, that is all a matter of taste, is it not? Pointing out that the Orton Effect is wrong because “Under most circumstances, details in the real world do not have an etherial [sic] glow lingering around them,” is a rather poor choice of defense of the “real.” Water doesn’t smooth in the “real” world without a long shutter speed. And the sun doesn’t make nice 18-point sun-stars without a closed-up aperture with 9 (or more) blades. None of these things are “natural” or “real” anymore than the Orton Effect is “real.” But blurred water and sun-stars and focus-stacking are ubiquitous in landscape photography these days. Does that diminish the genre? Hardly.
I don’t see anything wrong with photographers experimenting with different techniques, as the process of experimentation can help a photographer find a particular process which works for them. Who cares what the landscape photography genre stands to win or lose through the process. You are hardly stating that photographers ought to shoot in the service of their chosen genre(s). So why not instead encourage more people to give the Orton Effect a try in their process? Explain it better, and give ideas on how to employ it without it being “overdone?” Same as with an ND filter, slow shutter, tutorial, etc? Sure, the Orton Effect is presently a fad. And sure, history may not look back kindly on it. But who knows where such experimentation might lead the individual giving a go? Personal distaste for a process should not be conflated with doing a genre of photography a disservice. Well, at least not to me.
Thanks again for yet another well-written article. Food for thought.
Brian
Thank you, Brian, this is a very comprehensive and interesting comment!
I absolutely see where you’re coming from. Interestingly enough, I don’t see a problem using an extremely long exposure, dodging and burning, or even the Orton Effect. I think that deviating from reality is a natural (and even unavoidable) part of photography, and such manipulations can make images significantly more compelling.
For me, the discomfort stems from seeing that trending images from dozens of different photographers all have the same, clear preset applied. I get the sense that the Orton Effect’s prevalence is actually decreasing landscape photographers’ creativity, since our preconceived notion of a “good” landscape photo is beginning to include this effect. This isn’t like dodging and burning, where it can be impossible to tell if the effect has been applied, and the photographer’s personal touch is much more present; instead, it is glaringly obvious if you know what you’re looking for.
In that way, the Orton Effect is similar to other photographic techniques and decisions — star trails, HDR, and even your subject matter (which is why I mentioned Mount Fitz Roy in the article). If 1/3 of the trending 500px photos used extremely long shutter speeds along a coastline, I would have written almost the same article about that. (I know that quite a few such photos do become popular on 500px, but not to the same degree as the Orton Effect.) From my perspective, even though it is another tool in your toolbox, the Orton Effect can reduce your creativity if you only use it (consciously or not) because of what is currently trending. That’s what I think is happening now.
As for the concept of a unified portfolio, I think there’s quite a bit of truth to what you’re saying. Personally, I would prefer that a photographer’s portfolio is unified based upon colors, subject matter, and composition rather than upon a Photoshop adjustment. Again, though, that is a personal preference — I’m sure that many people would disagree.
I appreciate such a well thought-out comment. I definitely don’t expect everyone to see these trends from the same perspective that I do, and your points are very well put.
Brian
“Your distaste for the process,….etc,etc,etc,”
You seem to have entirely missed the point of the article and gone off on a rambling tangent.
There was no distaste for the process.
The distaste was for the overuse of the process.
All and any processess are valid in the creation of an image when used judiciously to achieve a particular effect.
It’s called editing and post processing an image and is not only essential, but unavoidable.
But when a particular process takes on cult status and is plastered over every second image willy nilly, it becomes nothing more than a mindless gimmick – usually to mask a shortfall in content, originality or both.
Betty!
“You seem to have entirely missed the point of the article and gone off on a rambling tangent…”
Not according to the article’s author, which my comment was directed solely towards and whom kindly replied.
But your typical feedback to my posts and your enlightening perspective on what constitutes “editing” and “post[-]processing is always…
#yawns
Brian
The author very politely said your comments were “interesting” and “comprehensive” (idiosyncratic and verbose) and then, equally politely, disagreed with every one of them.
For a moment I was tempted to dismember this latest quasi intellectual ramble point by point, but from past experience know that to be rather akin to entering a maze wearing a blindfold.
Any chance you and Brian will be attending a workshop together someplace? This would be really entertaining in person. :)
Mark
Ha, ha, ha. What a grizzly sense of humour you have.
Brian may feel differently and can no doubt write on his own behalf.
It shouldn’t take more than about twenty six, comprehensively baffling, sheets of A4 for him to meander around his answer before failing to reach a conclusion.
Just trying to lighten things up Betty but I must admit that I do get a kick out of your come-backs!
The nuances of what makes art (or disqualifies something as art) is a question that was no doubt debated in front of the first cave paintings… I’ll be the first to admit I have both improved and worsened images using various techniques. The real answer to moving beyond Orton is to displace it with the next flavor of the day!
Mark
Thanks – it’s all in fun and a gal has to stick up for herself doesn’t she?
Absolutely – keep that wit coming!
Mark,
Surely you must know (you must all know by now) that I hold a special place in Betty’s heart: a spot reserved for me and only me; a hardened location filled with utter disdain and contempt for every thought I put to words; a critical space that ignites whenever I am present; yea–that very place where eye-rolling and disgust emanate. I adore that Betty consistently leaps to the occasion to parse through article-after-article’s comments on PL, scanning for the off-chance of my presence and, if discovered, to take time out of her busty day to enthusiastically compose clever, tongue-in-cheek retorts to anything I might say. …Time and time again! …Year after year. …Whether based on my content or my verbosity or (usually) both! But what’s especially flattering is that despite my long-time absence here on PL (I only read one or two articles a year on here anymore), I am still so remembered. My thoughts still lighten up Betty’s day and ignite that same disdain and contempt she’s always held for me! It’s almost as if (nay–it’s exactly as if) Betty can’t resist the urge to seek me out, single me out, and give me her witty all. In all sincerity, I am flattered to be the constant focus of Betty’s sweet verbal caressing :)
Betty, I look forward to your clever reply. I know you love having the final word… how else can a gal like you “stick up for yourself” if you’re not on the preemptive and unprovoked attack?
Love,
Brian
Brian I think you really set her up this time with “take time out of her busty day”. :)
Cheers to you both!
Mark
Dear Brian
You flatter yourself if you imagine for one moment that you hold any position of special privilege in my heart and you are mistaken if you believe I have any special animosity towards you. On the contrary, I read your comments, in the articles that I find stimulating, with the same impartiality and interest as anyone else’s.
However, when you draw attention to my commenting on content and verbosity you hit the nail on the head and since you invite comment, here it is.
When content is factually incorrect, irrelevant or misleading, I exercise the prerogative to comment lest inexperienced photographers, who draw on this site for accurate information and intelligent discourse, are misinformed.
Likewise, when or if I say something stupid, I expect to be taken to task.
On verbosity, I confess to having a dislike of convoluted claptrap, otherwise known as Artspeak, which amounts to little more than pseudo intellectual elitism, self aggrandisement, pretentious posturing and a desperate attempt to elevate one’s self to a level of importance that is patently undeserved.
Here is a classic example – which you may recognise:
“With each photograph I take, I use my camera to parse out the emotional qualities a particular moment evokes in me. My camera is the tool through which I am able to access my creativity, but moreover, through the collection and manipulation of light, I am able to record my subjectivity as it exists in a fraction of transitory time… In my professional photographic work, I primarily shoot traditional portraiture and lifestyle sessions, with an emphasis on location-based visual narratives with creative, portable lighting strategies…I employ a shooting approach rooted in photojournalist praxis.”
For anyone else with a need to appear erudite in a deeply incoherent way, I can warmly recommend an excellent little website – Arty Bollocks Generator artybollocks.com/) – where all your dreams of being as clever as Brian can come true.
Perfectly answered, as ever.
Had a good laugh at the artybollocks site.
Opinion should never be confused with fact, or indeed confuse a fact.
I’m guilty but unintentionally.
I have absolutely no problem in how Brian describes his approach. Betty, don’t take offense in what he says but focus (pun intended) as to what he does. To me a picture is a thousand words (cliche intended). And you’re not perfect, in fact quite arrogant, and demeaning. It is what makes you as what makes Brian. Some how, I see the pot calling the kettle back (and over used cliche but appropriate). But I take no offense and it triggers nothing, no emotional response. Why, because in the context of an open public forum, it is meaningless. Let me put it this way, garbage in, garbage out. Hmmm… all those cliches are going to irritate some one, I am sure of it.
“But I take no offense and it triggers nothing, no emotional response.” So, did your comment write itself then manage to click POST COMMENT button :-)
And you the same … meaningless? We agree ….
There’s a vast difference between “meaningless” and “illogical”.
Maggie-the-Cat
“I have absolutely no problem in how Brian describes his approach.”
Well that’s just dandy. Could you please explain what he means – in plain English?
As to what he does, I neither know nor care very much. Then again, if he used a picture perhaps we could be spared a thousand words?
I take no offence at what Brian says and not wanting to have this descend into personal invective,
let’s just say I have a low tolerance for incomprehensible verbiage which in reality has little or no substance and serves only to mask its own mundanity.
As for being perfect, I have to admit that in my most private moments, and in spite of my many admirers’ protestations to the contrary, I am not. Well, not completely… I was once, but time and gravity have taken their toll.
I do however, adopt a firm, not to say busty, point of view, try to make my position clear and substantiate what I say. Not everyone likes that in this politically correct world where not causing offence is deemed more important than being honest.
I will stop there as I am beginning to sound unbearably pompous, even to myself.
Time for a quiet half hour in my hammock with a large gin and a fat cigar.
You described yourself exactly as I see you. How about a picture to go with?
I should (we all should) like to thank you as well for standing as a vigilant guard against all those occasions “When content is factually incorrect, irrelevant or misleading, [that you] exercise the prerogative to comment lest inexperienced photographers, who draw on this site for accurate information and intelligent discourse, are misinformed.”
What would we do without you?! Thank you very much taking the reins on this one. Photography Life would probably collapse into total ignorance, were it not for your safeguarding those poor “inexperienced photographers” from thinking for themselves. It’s no wonder you’ve acquired an army of supporters here.
Best,
Brian
Brian
“Photography Life would probably collapse into total ignorance, were it not for your safeguarding those poor “inexperienced photographers” from thinking for themselves. It’s no wonder you’ve acquired an army of supporters here.”
Denigrating inexperienced photographers as being incapable of thinking for themselves is a bit of a cheap shot.
Inexperienced photographers (and everyone starts out inexperienced) need a sound foundation of science-based fact on which to build a knowledge base and from which they can then think and question.
Being fed fatuous gobbledygook at the outset does nothing to aid progress.
Now Betty,
Are you seriously going to imply that ‘your’ initial comment, which I was replying to sarcastically (in case you can’t see that), isn’t the comment that’s actually “denigrating inexperienced photographers as being capable of thinking for themselves?”
Recall that you stated “[You] exercise the prerogative to comment lest inexperienced photographers, who draw on this site for accurate information and intelligent discourse, are misinformed.”
Recall also that “Likewise, when or if [you] say something stupid, [you] expect to be taken to task.”
Task taken!
There was nothing in my original comment to Spencer that would qualify as — how did you say it above? –“Being fed fatuous gobbledygook at the outset […]” I merely offered my perspective. In plain English, no less.
Brian
Define “plain english.”
I defer to a quote from F.A.T. City Workshop: Reading Comprehension to demonstrate that you obviously have no clue what “plain english” really is.
Are there any words you’ve not seen before?
are
between
consists
continuously
corresponding
curve
draws
variation
graph
if
isolated
known
making
only
often
with
one
points
relation
set
table
values
variables
Well? Do these word not represent “plain english”?
If the known relation between the variable consists of a table of corresponding values, the graph consists only of the corresponding set of isolated points. If the variables are known to vary continuously, one often draws a curve to show the variation.
(Basic College Math, M. Michael Michaelson, 1945)
Can you pass basic college math Betsy? Even if you can so easily as I, being a math major, understand what that says and agree that it is the best way to describe the process, it doesn’t change the underlying fault that “plain english” simply does not exist.
There are people familiar with and intelligent enough to understand some concepts described with words you know and understand; and there are people who need help having those concepts explained to them.
Language, by itself, isn’t “artsybollocks” or whatever artsy insult you come up with. Maggie tried to point out how you were molding the definition of “plain english” to suit your argument as the argument continued. “Defining the terms of the argument” is extremely important because what the debaters personally consider “artsybollocks” differs between individuals.
Again, as the F.A.T. City Workshop showed, the teachers were all gungho about how their kids only needed to know what the words meant and that it was their fault for not “listening” or whatever nonsense the teachers came up with. The teachers defined “comprehension” as simple vocabulary, while the students defined “comprehension” as the capacity to understand the underlying message.
But who defines what an individual’s capacity for “understanding the underlying message” is? Again a term that has difficulty being defined as only the individual can answer that question, but the individual often does not know what he/she does not know.
Is that obfuscated? The idea that you do not know what you do not know? Do you know how many bugs are in a bar of chocolate? Did you even think about there being bugs in a bar of chocolate before I mentioned it? If this is the first time you’ve thought about that, then you never knew you did not know how many bugs are in a bar of chocolate… but who else could tell me that you do not know how many bugs are in a bar of chocolate? Your mother? Your father? Your siblings? Who? Only you…
Which gets to my point. You’re fighting an untenable war against those who speak in a manner to which you are not accustom, yet each individual word must make perfect sense to you.
Perhaps, the real question should be, if to a writer verbosity is to a photographer dynamic range, image quality, colour contrast, would you still tell the writer to “cut it out and use plain english?”
If you cannot understand why someone has a particular photography style, would you directly tell that person “I hate people who use the Orton Effect! You all irk me to the core. Here is an Orton Effect instagram filter, now I can do super cool Orton Effect photos with my iPhone. Orton Effect SUCKS!”
There is no “pretty bow” summing up of feelings, of emotions, of the verbosity of human thought and communication. How we write, what we write, are just as much an expressive artwork of ourselves as our photography.
Betty,
Thank you so much for your predictable reply. I’m pleased to have that reinforce that I do in fact understand you well.
In reading that you “confess to having a dislike of convoluted claptrap, otherwise known as Artspeak, which amounts to little more than pseudo intellectual elitism, self aggrandisement, pretentious posturing and a desperate attempt to elevate one’s self to a level of importance that is patently undeserved,” I cannot help but roll on the floor though, being this is exactly what you do all the time. I wouldn’t expect for you to see that in yourself, though. That would be too bold a step for you.
Oh, but kudos for taking the rather large intellectual step in discovering that my name here on PL, highlighted in blue, is actually a link that goes directly to my website, and that on that site, there is an cutting-edge feature called an ‘ABOUT’ section that is also clickable, wherein one is taken hostage against their own will to a new page on MY page to read more about ME–what motivates me and excites me about photography! How deeply elitist of me to have such a section on my page, and to dare to express who I am in a way that is honest to my abilities.
Did I write that (paraphrased) bit that you quote above? Of course I did. All by my little self, though, with nothing but the years of education I worked very hard to achieve to assist me in said narrative. Had I only known about the “Artybollocks” generator you so graciously bestowed. Then I wouldn’t have had to painstakingly engage in introspect in an effort to discover for myself what moves me and motivates me and challenges me–in photography, but also in life. In hindsight, (some might call it retrospect), I suppose I should apologise for my ability to articulate thoughts to words beyond “Me take pictures ’cause life pretty.” Apologies all around.
I should also apologise for being so opaque over who I am, through the words I use and with the photos I take, being that I am finally ready to own who I am in an honest fashion and admit it’s all been plagiarised until just now. You’ve lead the way for me, Betty, through your own courageous and transparent actions.
;)
Honestly, I should rather stick with complete and total anonymity, as have you. It’s far easier and safer to craft and then stand behind such a ‘presented’ personality, without ever really divulging who the ‘real’ me is, beyond a cantankerous and elitist (and historically labeled) Internet troll. I really should start to live my life more safely, both online and in the actual real world, as do you. It would be far better if I stayed safe in the UK, hidden behind my computer and my wit, and only ventured out on a few occasions to take a few choice shots whilst on, say, safari. I cannot believe I’ve bothered to make myself so open and willing to engage in new things, with new people, who have new perspectives, wherein I might actually (GASP!) stand to learn something beyond my tired, trite, and so-predictable commentary on an Internet forum. What a waste indeed!
Warmly,
Brian
If you have any mirrors in your house then I suggest that you return them to your supplier in order to obtain a refund — because it is blindingly obvious to others that they don’t work.
Wow… “Pete A,” that is quite an intellectually stimulating thought you’ve presented! Brilliant, really! I’m sure you’re right, though: It’s totally plausible that Internet personalities such as yourself and the infamous “Betty” know me far better than I know myself… “blindingly” so!
Keep up the great work!
Brian
Pete, go away but do come back when never arrives.
Brian Gaschler,
I tried my best to match your levels of intellect, humour, and humility. I conclude that my levels of achievement in these three attributes will never match yours.
Many thanks for your insightful reply.
Brian
“Had I only known about the “Artybollocks” generator you so graciously bestowed… Then I wouldn’t have had to painstakingly engage in introspect in an effort to discover for myself what moves me and motivates me and challenges me–in photography, but also in life.”
Exactly Brian, you could have explained it all in good, intelligent (and intelligible) English instead of arty bollocks. If you did the same in your other contributions it would be a double blessing.
Betty,
Perhaps I should have explained the following from the ABOUT section on my webpage (which is paraphrased identically to how you quoted it above) in a more intelligent (and intelligible) English, instead of “artsy bollocks.” I’ll take an honest look here. So let us examine again what you quoted/paraphrased me as saying on my website:
“With each photograph I take, I use my camera to parse out the emotional qualities a particular moment evokes in me. My camera is the tool through which I am able to access my creativity, but moreover, through the collection and manipulation of light, I am able to record my subjectivity as it exists in a fraction of transitory time… In my professional photographic work, I primarily shoot traditional portraiture and lifestyle sessions, with an emphasis on location-based visual narratives with creative, portable lighting strategies…I employ a shooting approach rooted in photojournalist praxis.”
In all honesty, is it that hard to comprehend what I am trying to convey, when I use words like:
1) Photograph (rather than ‘light-painting’?)
2) Camera (rather than ‘image-making tool’?)
3) Parse (rather than ‘to analyse and break down into separate parts’?)
4) Emotional Qualities (rather than ‘that which in particular moves me regarding…”?)
5) Moment (rather than ‘a unidentified or quanitifed measure of time’?)
6) Evokes (rather than ‘brings back to my conscious mind’?)
7) Access (rather than ‘as a means of approaching and tapping into…’?)
8) Creativity (rather than ‘my imagination and original ideas’?)
9) Collection and Manipulation of Light (rather than ‘gathering and altering the characteristics of light’?)
10) Subjectivity (rather than ‘my own judgement, based on my independent feelings rather than outside influences’?)
11) Fraction (rather than ‘a tiny percentage’?)
12) Transitory (rather than ‘not permanent’?)
13) Lifestyle (rather than ‘photographing people whilst they are doing stuff they would do anyway’?)
14) Portrait (rather than ‘photos of people’s faces and heads whilst not necessarily doing stuff they would do otherwise’?)
15) Emphasis (rather than ‘special importance’?)
16) Visual Narratives (rather than ‘stories being told not through words but through seeing’?)
17) Portable Lighting Strategies (rather than ‘a collection of speed-lights and light-modifiers used to create a mood, but that can be easily moved from one area to another)
18) Photojournalist (rather than ‘like those other people who report on newsworthy events through pictures, not just words’?)
19) Praxis (rather than ‘accepted practices and customs within a specific field’?)
I know you loathe the way I write. That’s OK by me. I don’t write the way I write to annoy you or to come across as pompous. And I really don’t care that you (or others) think that is my agenda. What you (and others) might wish to consider, is that each and every word I used in the paraphrased section above, is indeed ‘plain English’ — unless you have no formal education and/or spend little time reading outside of Internet forums. If that is the case, I would suggest you grab a dictionary and (GASP!) learn something new! Not to be pompous, mind you, but because there is always a more precise and succinct word to describe that which you wish to convey through language.
If you don’t like the way I write, why on earth would you go out of your way to navigate to my webpage in order to read my ABOUT section? Oh right! — because that’s what you do, Betty: you troll!
Know thyself, dearest Betty.
(BTW: “thyself’ is another way of saying ‘you’)
Brian
This slug-fest is now at 33.2.1.1.1.2.2.3.2.1…deeper (numerically at least) than any contract I’ve ever worked on….it makes me think this could be even funnier if you two were attorneys going at it. Amazing work – both of you – staying in character this long with no breaks in the rhetoric!
Brian
At last, a piece of clear, unambiguous writing. I read and understood every word without having to stand back , scratch my head and try to decipher what the hell you were trying to say through a fog of Artspeak. You are making progress. All that going to school is finally paying off.
I regard, as would most others, that using words like ‘busty’ and ‘troll’ to bolster your argument/ego, to be sexist and unpleasant. There have been much worse terms bandied about, it is true, but usually calling someone a troll is a surrogate for an effective counter argument. It’s the last hurrah of the moron.
“When do you actually go out and take photos though, I wonder. You certainly don’t share them here.”
I have shared a significant number of my images on Photography Life – you only need to look in the PL Critique and Nature forums. I don’t however, recall ever seeing any of yours. Perhaps you are more interested in waffling?
“It’s no secret that you loathe the way I write.”
‘Loath’ is a strong word, but it is true to say that I dislike pseudo intellectual claptrap and challenge comments which are either irrelevant or tangential to the discussion, factually inaccurate or just plain fatuous. Others, like Pete A, Iliah, Waldemar…take a similar stance and thank heaven for that.
“Because it’s fun, getting a rise out of you and watching you reach for anything that might bolster your comments and status.”
I thought it was me you were accusing of engaging in that behaviour. Make up your mind – for once.
Well now it is you and “others”. I don’t see others. I just see you. This is another effort to define the argument, and therefore the solution. It is a the self-righteous approach. But who appointed you as the artspeak Nazi? Who are you to police this forum and others? The real issue here is that you feel threatened by Brian and others like him. It threatens your supremacy.
Betty, the issue is not artspeak as others do understand Brian. You just lack that capacity, and your supremacy is threatened. You apparently also have a great interpersonal need to have the last word in this meaningless banter, It is often referred to as “egocentricity”. Get over it.
Maggie-the-Cat
Since when does defining the argument define the solution? Claptrap.
Nobody appointed me as the artspeak Nazi. Nice choice of words though.
I am not policing this forum, I just have my say like everyone else. It’s a forum.
I don’t feel threatened by anyone, least of all Brian.
I had no idea I had a supremacy. So thanks.
My issue is with artspeak and artybollocks, not with Brian. It’s just that Brian is a master of both.
Define “plain english.”
I defer to a quote from F.A.T. City Workshop: Reading Comprehension to demonstrate that you obviously have no clue what “plain english” really is.
Are there any words you’ve not seen before?
are
between
consists
continuously
corresponding
curve
draws
variation
graph
if
isolated
known
making
only
often
with
one
points
relation
set
table
values
variables
Well? Do these word not represent “plain english”?
If the known relation between the variable consists of a table of corresponding values, the graph consists only of the corresponding set of isolated points. If the variables are known to vary continuously, one often draws a curve to show the variation.
(Basic College Math, M. Michael Michaelson, 1945)
Can you pass basic college math Betsy? Even if you can so easily as I, being a math major, understand what that says and agree that it is the best way to describe the process, it doesn’t change the underlying fault that “plain english” simply does not exist.
There are people familiar with and intelligent enough to understand some concepts described with words you know and understand; and there are people who need help having those concepts explained to them.
Language, by itself, isn’t “artsybollocks” or whatever artsy insult you come up with. Maggie tried to point out how you were molding the definition of “plain english” to suit your argument as the argument continued. “Defining the terms of the argument” is extremely important because what the debaters personally consider “artsybollocks” differs between individuals.
Again, as the F.A.T. City Workshop showed, the teachers were all gungho about how their kids only needed to know what the words meant and that it was their fault for not “listening” or whatever nonsense the teachers came up with. The teachers defined “comprehension” as simple vocabulary, while the students defined “comprehension” as the capacity to understand the underlying message.
But who defines what an individual’s capacity for “understanding the underlying message” is? Again a term that has difficulty being defined as only the individual can answer that question, but the individual often does not know what he/she does not know.
Is that obfuscated? The idea that you do not know what you do not know? Do you know how many bugs are in a bar of chocolate? Did you even think about there being bugs in a bar of chocolate before I mentioned it? If this is the first time you’ve thought about that, then you never knew you did not know how many bugs are in a bar of chocolate… but who else could tell me that you do not know how many bugs are in a bar of chocolate? Your mother? Your father? Your siblings? Who? Only you…
Which gets to my point. You’re fighting an untenable war against those who speak in a manner to which you are not accustom, yet each individual word must make perfect sense to you.
Perhaps, the real question should be, if to a writer verbosity is to a photographer dynamic range, image quality, colour contrast, would you still tell the writer to “cut it out and use plain english?”
If you cannot understand why someone has a particular photography style, would you directly tell that person “I hate people who use the Orton Effect! You all irk me to the core. Here is an Orton Effect instagram filter, now I can do super cool Orton Effect photos with my iPhone. Orton Effect SUCKS!”
There is no “pretty bow” summing up of feelings, of emotions, of the verbosity of human thought and communication. How we write, what we write, are just as much an expressive artwork of ourselves as our photography.
Brian
“In all honesty, is it that hard to comprehend what I am trying to convey, when I use words like:……..”
In all honesty Brian, yes it is.
And why should it be hard at all?
Clear and unambiguous descriptive writing should surely be a pleasure to read and easy to understand.
Taken individually and painstakingly defined, this collection of Artspeak buzzwords is, of course, intelligible. We are after all, literate. However, when assembled into a narrative, they become nothing less than an exhausting exercise in pretentious posturing and pompous affectation. The art world is riddled with this kind of obscure blather which presumably is intended to make the writer appear profound, but in truth serves only to irritate and alienate.
If you want to appear more profound Brian, say something profound, rather than spouting this kind of self indulgent morse code.
So yes Brian, although each and every word you paraphrased is indeed plain English, the end result is a turgid Irish stew.
“If you don’t like the way I write, why on earth would you go out of your way to navigate to my webpage in order to read my ABOUT section? Oh right! — because that’s what you do, Betty: you troll!”
No Brian, I used your About page because you kindly provided a link and because it was the shortest route to making my point. Going back over your previous convoluted, vacuous contributions was simply too daunting a proposition.
Finally Brian, it does neither you, nor your argument, any credit when you fall back on sexist jibes and infantile name calling as a substitute for rational debate.
Betty,
Nothing I said was sexist, nor has any name-calling taken place. Looks like someone needs to grab the dictionary yet again so they can get their words and facts straight.
If it makes you feel safer to presume I am trying to be pompous, or engage in “Artspeak,’ that’s fine by me, Betty. I’ve stated my purposes already. It’s totally my fault that I went to school and learned to write. It’s also my fault that I’m not ashamed of who I am nor what motivates me to engage in photography. No need to senselessly beat a dead horse. It’s your word against mine as to my intentions. You would be some form of awesome if you knew my own intentions better than I do. Sadly, you’re just keen to be stubborn. If only you’d “listen” to me when I explain myself. Nope.. you’d rather hear your own self. How rich! But that’s not what makes your behaviour ridiculous…
What makes your behaviour so incredibly ridiculous is not this instance, but your history of making such a fuss over any and all things I might ever contribute on here which, incidentally, have been positive and productive commentary. Anyone who ever wishes to go back in time and read past articles wherein we engaged each-other, will plainly see that you come out of blue to pay tribute in a hostile manner to any/all my comments. And more often than not, to mine alone.
You were long-ago accused by a number of readers as behaving in a Trollish manner. Even the staff writers here on PL accused you of behaving like a troll. To top it all off, you were almost blacklisted by Nasim himself, and Nasim needed to create PL’s Code of Conduct as a result. You have a terrible and ugly history on PL for abusive comments and condescending tones to others. All that’s changed over the years is that you’ve also acquired a fan-following. Congrats! What a thing to be proud of.
When do you actually go out and take photos though, I wonder. You certainly don’t share them here. All you seem to share is your typically snarky, elitist tone. Again, you must be so proud.
It’s no secret that you loathe the way I write. It’s no secret that I find you incredibly boring and predictable. I honestly think you’re the most boring person I’ve ever conversed with. Why? Because you are always the same snarky, opinionated, elitist self. Always. To me. To others. Always. How very boring indeed. Your contributions are know-it-all and harsh. You just can’t help but jump in on my comment alone here, to make your point: “Brian’s opinions are not valid because I don’t like the way Brian writes or the things Brian has to say. I’ll prove that by taking quotes of his out of context and accusing him of things he’s not even doing in an effort to get him to engage.”
And engage I have. Because it’s fun, getting a rise out of you and watching you reach for anything that might bolster your comments and status. Wow….
I’ll now bow out so you can satiate your hunger for the final word
All the best, Betty. ‘See’ you on the next thread wherein I dare to share a comment!
Brian
You are just as bad as you report he is. Bantering over artspeak is still bantering. Crux of the matter is that you simply don’t understand. It not that you are upset with the artspeak but more upset with yourself. Rather that addressing your shortcomings, you have choose to lash out at Brian. In essence, you have litter this posting with meaningless comments that do nothing for the many who come in here. So why don’t you just stop? I am tired of getting notices in my inbox on the latest attempt to put someone in his place. It doesn’t work Betty. You still will not convince, sway or change any of it. It is useless like the artspeak you abhor.
Maggie-the-Cat
Bantering is a good natured exchange of views – surely the prime purpose of a PL forum?
I will continue to banter whenever I have something to banter about.
Perhaps this whole subject of Artspeak could be made the subject of a fresh article – or perhaps it has now been flogged to death?
Betty:
Bantering for the sake of bantering serves no purpose. I don’t see this as an exchange of views but insistence that one’s view is the only view. But I agree, you should open up your own website and pursue the point.
Maggie-the-Cat
“Bantering for the sake of bantering serves no purpose.”
Agreed, on that at least.
However, to argue one’s corner is not to insist that one’s view is the only view.
Neither is pointing out factual inaccuracy a desire to be right at all costs.
You may enjoy trying to decipher artybollocks or accepting scientific fallacy as truth.
I, along with many others, prefer verifiable fact and plain English.
Brent
>>Well? Do these word not represent “plain english”?<>Can you pass basic college math Betsy?<>Language, by itself, isn’t “artsy bollocks” or whatever artsy insult you come up with.<>“Defining the terms of the argument” is extremely important because what the debaters personally consider “artsy bollocks” differs between individuals”<>Perhaps, the real question should be, if to a writer verbosity is to a photographer dynamic range, image quality, colour contrast, would you still tell the writer to “cut it out and use plain (e)English?”<>How we write, what we write, are just as much an expressive artwork of ourselves as our photography.<<
My point exactly.
Pretentious arty bollocks usually comes from photographer/artists whose arty output amounts to little more than arty bollocks too. The effusive language just seeks to disguise the paucity of content.
It’s like putting lipstick on a pig. You may for a moment believe you are looking at Kate Moss, but the illusion is all too transient and the confrontation with reality all the more disappointing.
This is for you.
Enjoy…
"Mercurial, pluralistic and singular, the publication of the first two books of Silence in a single volume represents the genesis of a radical new form of epic poetry.
Embracing the seemingly diverse spheres of apophatic theology and Big Bang cosmology, and drawing inspiration from the works of Ovid, Joseph Beuys and Ezra Pound, the epic seeks, through the juxtaposition of intuitive and rational voices, to counter-signify the divine darkness of a singularity.
Here Nietzsche, Socrates and Dionysos dissolve into a dithyramb of Primordial Fire, whilst Caravaggio, Leonardo and St. Hieronymus perform the photonic dance of the early Matter Era; here the Universe begins to speak through the masks of cultural memory, and laugh in the face of the ineffable."
Beyond price.
PS Apologies for the late response, I have just returned from a trip to Africa.
Brent
>>Well? Do these word not represent “plain english”?<>Can you pass basic college math Betsy?<>Language, by itself, isn’t “artsy bollocks” or whatever artsy insult you come up with.<>”Defining the terms of the argument” is extremely important because what the debaters personally consider “artsy bollocks” differs between individuals”<>Perhaps, the real question should be, if to a writer verbosity is to a photographer dynamic range, image quality, colour contrast, would you still tell the writer to “cut it out and use plain (e)English?”<>How we write, what we write, are just as much an expressive artwork of ourselves as our photography.<<
My point exactly.
Pretentious arty bollocks usually comes from photographer/artists whose arty output amounts to little more than arty bollocks too. The effusive language just seeks to disguise the paucity of content.
It's like putting lipstick on a pig. You may for a moment believe you are looking at Kate Moss, but then the illusion fades and you find yourself confronted with bald reality.
This is for you.
Enjoy…
"Mercurial, pluralistic and singular, the publication of the first two books of Silence in a single volume represents the genesis of a radical new form of epic poetry.
Embracing the seemingly diverse spheres of apophatic theology and Big Bang cosmology, and drawing inspiration from the works of Ovid, Joseph Beuys and Ezra Pound, the epic seeks, through the juxtaposition of intuitive and rational voices, to counter-signify the divine darkness of a singularity.
Here Nietzsche, Socrates and Dionysos dissolve into a dithyramb of Primordial Fire, whilst Caravaggio, Leonardo and St. Hieronymus perform the photonic dance of the early Matter Era; here the Universe begins to speak through the masks of cultural memory, and laugh in the face of the ineffable."
Beyond price.
PS Apologies for the late response, I have just returned from a trip to Africa.
I think a good photo doesn’t need to glow to stand out, some of the best I see are so simple using space or have a strong message. I will try the glow Effect on some images To see if I I like it but I am still aiming for the photo itself to stand out on its own with composition. Perhaps no glow will become the way to stand out of the crowd as I see so many of them on Instagram now with huge numbers of likes and popularity.
To Spencer Cox
I got to this page after spending a few days looking at numerous landscape photography websites. I love landscape photography, esp. mountains, fields, lakes and places like the English Lake District or southern France or the Appalachian mountains. It relaxes me and is akin to meditation for me.
But I kept noticing that many photos looked dark, almost sinister or foreboding, or there was some strange glow. I wasn’t finding any “natural” looking landscapes. So I googled “why are current landscape photographs so dark?” and your article came up.
So, I agree with you. To me, landscape photography should reveal the beauty of the landscape in all it’s brilliance (or darkness, if that’s the natural way it looks) otherwise I might as well just look at manufactured images.
I want to see great PHOTOGRAPHY, not great IMAGE DISTORTION.
Hi Spencer I am doing a six month trip through the Australian outback soon and am trying to choose between a canon 11-24mm and 10-22mm wide lens for my landscapes. When I’m looking at Flickr trying to compare shots taken with both lenses it becomes confusing to me because of the amount of effects used I can’t get a realistic feel of distortion. I am a huge fan of Ansel Adams’ style and really want to take more raw shots. Would you have any lens advice for a relative newbie?
First, unless you you know you are looking at images taken at the widest and/or narrowest focal lengths or at least at a particular focal length, the exercise of looking at images on Fllckr taken with two zoom lenses is pretty pointless.
Second, looking at images from different photographers, using different techniques and different focal lengths, in different conditions, from different positions (perspectives) and at different levels of ability is both pointless and, as you have found, confusing.
If you are huge fan of Ansel Adams you wouldn’t even be considering a wide angle zoom lens. Adams used mostly a 5×4 view cameras (and later a Hasselblad) and whatever lenses were available – a wide variety, none of them zooms, not many of them wide angle and none of them a patch on what we have today. Zooming was not an option in his day. As he put it, “A good photograph is knowing where to stand”.
If you want to emulate his technique you might need to look at fixed focal length, tilt-shift lenses and at using very small apertures, long exposures shooting from a big heavy tripod.
If you want to emulate his ability, well, that may take some time.
To quote the great man…
‘Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer—and often the supreme disappointment.’
and…
‘There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.’
More seriously, the differences between two such lenses are not great in practical terms and unlikely to make the difference between a good image and a great one. That part is up to you.
First, unless you know you are looking at images taken at the widest and/or narrowest focal lengths or at least at a particular focal length, the exercise of looking at images on Fllckr taken with two zoom lenses is pretty pointless.
Second, looking at images from different photographers, using different techniques and different focal lengths, in different conditions, from different positions (perspectives) and at different levels of ability is both pointless and, as you have found, confusing.
If you are huge fan of Ansel Adams you wouldn’t even be considering a wide angle zoom lens. Adams used mostly a 5×4 view cameras (and later a Hasselblad) and whatever lenses were available – a wide variety, none of them zooms, not many of them wide angle and none of them a patch on what we have today. Zooming was not an option in his day. As he put it, “A good photograph is knowing where to stand”.
If you want to emulate his technique you might need to look at fixed focal length, tilt-shift lenses and at using very small apertures, long exposures shooting from a big heavy tripod.
If you want to emulate his ability, well, that may take some time.
To quote the great man…
‘Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer—and often the supreme disappointment.’
and…
‘There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.’
More seriously, the differences between two such lenses are not great in practical terms and unlikely to make the difference between a good image and a great one. That part is up to you.
Nice photography
Well said, thank you for the article. Adams as beautiful as always!
A bit irreverent – I know but just Two things
1 : Seems I’ve been doing the Orton effect for years & don’t have any problems – as the majority of my photos look out of focus most of the time anyway !!!! :)
2 : Might also be something to do with the way you guys record the date ( today is Easter Sunday – eg 16:4:2017 in my world ) – but why are the oldest posts at the top of the lists that are on this site
Wouldn’t it be more useful the other way
This could be construed – it’s not by the way – as a further example of British Colonialism !!!!
Just made me smile – !!!!!!
Colby Burke – UK :D /. ;)
Which brings up my original question.
When does a photograph stop being a photograph…?
Probably never – assuming the original capture was a photographic image.
Manipulation/processing ranges from the absolutely necessary ( RAW conversion/film development), through the recommended (adjustment of tone, white balance, colour, sharpness, etc) to the creative, the ludicrous and finally the utterly mad.
I would say that as long as the processes involved in the final image are photographic then it’s a photograph. If an image strays into another medium such as painting and is merely derived from a photograph I would say it had ceased being a photograph.
This strikes me as the crux of many different points of view – mine herewith:
I would say it stops being a photo-graph the instant it ceases to be a graph of the photons present at that one place and one time.
Simple answer, but leaves the next question – so what? It’s just semantics, after all, since it simply becomes “photographic art” rather than a “photograph” and under the “art” rubric, anything goes. There’s no accounting for taste.
This strikes me as the crux of many different points of view – mine herewith:
I would say it stops being a photo-graph the instant it ceases to be a graph of the photons present at that one place and one time.
Simple answer, but leaves the next question – so what? It’s just semantics, after all, since it simply becomes “photographic art” rather than a “photograph” and under the “art” rubric, anything goes. There’s no accounting for taste.