When photos are not photos

A green roadsign, blue skies, white clouds. Looks like the ideal stock photograph, until you notice that other “photos” show the exact same white clouds and a green roadsign identical to that first one, down to the smallest dents and scratches. A glance at the author’s portfolio reveals hundreds of such images that overlap perfectly, save for the changing text on the signboard.

This begs the question: what constitutes a photograph for the purpose of selling it on Photodune? An actual picture snapped with a camera and undergone minimal editing? A photo-montage of blank elements with text photoshopped onto them? A photorealistic computer-generated image?

Just wondering if what I saw is an anomaly or is it standard practice. Thanks!

Even worse, I’ve started noticing 3D renders on PhotoDune isn’t that what 3docean is for?

Zeplix said
Even worse, I’ve started noticing 3D renders on PhotoDune isn’t that what 3docean is for?

Wrongg… GraphicRiver is for that

StockDesignMan said

Zeplix said
Even worse, I’ve started noticing 3D renders on PhotoDune isn’t that what 3docean is for?

Wrongg… GraphicRiver is for that

Ah true, 3docean is for the models obviously ^^ a little mindpoop there! Nonetheless, they still shouldn’t be on Photodune : )

That’s really hard to say and depends on many factors – but my guess is – its up to the reviewers.

If you want to split the hair of a gnat: A Photo is a microsecond locked in time. Any corrections / manipulations applied make it an illustration.

Yes; I know that photography itself is an art. But with that definition set aside, where does one draw the line?

Original = Photo

Mild Manipulation (light HDR ) = Illustration

Extreme Manipulation = Art

The first two could pass as a photo – but where does the third photo belong (besides the recycle bin)? PhotoDune or GraphicRiver?

It is a photo! It is a graphic!

@FremontTech

The third photo isn’t “a graphic”, very very far from it. It’s still a photo, and if accepted, should be on PhotoDune. As should all the three versions you posted. The second image isn’t an illustration either, at least not in the commonly accepted sense within design and art (where an illustration is a drawing (or an emulation of such)).

I wouldn’t even say that the photo’s have been “manipulated”, merely “corrected”.

I guess that’s why they call photography an art.

I can’t argue with you as I’m merely a professional hobbyist and the knowledge of “art” is not a strong subject of mine.

So, should I assume that if something originates from a camera it should be here on PhotoDune? And if something originates from computer software it should not be here?

Zeplix said
Even worse, I’ve started noticing 3D renders on PhotoDune isn’t that what 3docean is for?

Those are going to be moved before we’re out of beta.