Inspired by Ron, thanks.
This is gonna be very tricky because the extremely fine line between the
two can move quite a bit depending on who you ask.
In my eye, the word says it all:
The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός
(phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "repre-
sentation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "draw-
ing with light". wiki.
And this: "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes god
made in establishing tonal relationships." — Ansel Adams
No one has ever seen good shots signed: god!
So is/are there a limit(s) in the production of photographs… some sort
of taboo? Are the tools used clearly defined and so restricted?
My view is there is a big difference between photography and imagery.
Don't get me wrong, both are legitimate as they appeal to artistic intent
and/or to rigorous and disciplined technical application.
Imagery is bringing in the process the creative freedom of the painters.
With imagery like with painting, the process is all about creating a com-
positional interest using everything like subject, perspective, colours, to-
nes etc. Even non existing scenes.
Photography, otoh, is more like getting out there and witness, live, expe-
rience the world as it is… in all its splendour.
What do you say, think?