RE: Photography Lesson #1 - Being an Artographer
I have been doing edits for 30 years now (sins Photoshop 2 :) and never had a name for it, this is as good name as any. "edit" is misleading "photo manipulation" also. To tag a photo as "art" is just a personal opinion. So what does one do when like for instance if the work you ar posting really doesn't exist? Like one I'm going to post today which looks like a path in a ferry forest. That "work" I made out of about 6 photos and created this path that like I say, do not exist except in that "photo" or should I cal it photo when it really is something else? I have had this problem for a long time, not having a name for a lot of my works. Artographer is something one can call oneself, but the work? What should I cal the end result? "Artograph"? yes, maybe. Any ideas?
@bragih great question and this is something I have thought about a lot over the years. I'm in the same boat as you on this one....
I do call each work a photo. Times are changing and as long as you mention that it is a reflection of how you saw the scene there is nothing wrong with it. The only problem arises when you enter it into competitions or galleries etc, then you must disclose what you did to it and stay within the rules. Thanks for commenting and I hope that explanation helps :)
Your explanation is a great help, but also a food for thoughts.
Thanks for commenting @bragih!
My pleasure
Here you can see an exemple of what I'm thinking about:
https://steemit.com/artography/@bragih/this-path-in-a-fairy-forest-really-does-not-exist-still-it-exist-when-you-look-at-it-why
Is this being an 'Artographer' in your opinion?