photography versus illustration

[laura]

Do you see photography as a form of illustration?

[Clif Page]

I see photography as a tool to communicate.
In my mind, the best use of photography is to serve as an eyewitness to the reader. "I was there and this is what you would have seen." This means putting photographers in place to make images that will communicate to our readers.
The strength of photojournalism is based in photographs and words (captions, headlines and text) provide information that is quickly observed and understood.

Good photojournalism is a news designer's best weapon.

[Connie Beard]

A photograph can become an illustration if it's altered. ie. cut out, color alteration (not color management) and the like. It should then be labeled as such.

Some say even cropping a photo makes it an illustration and, yes, cropping can change perception of what actually happened. Although I have been known to do some minor crops.

That's why I am very careful how I work with news photos. Photojournalistic integrity is difficult enough without adding to the problem.

Clif is right in how important photos are to the overall package.

[Chris Lee]

Those that say cropping is a form of photo illustration are coming from a clearly un-photo-journalistic background.
As any photo journalist will tell you -- no photo is objective. Photographers emphasize and deemphasize certain aspects in order to best tell the story and create a compelling photo. This is not objectivity and to pretend that it is, is naive.

In my mind, if an illustration REQUIRES a label of 'photo illustration by', then it should probably be reworked (that's not to say they shouldn't all be labeled).
As designers, we know that first impressions matter and readers look at the big stuff before looking at the small stuff.

Anyway, yes, I do see photos as a form of illustration. However, I would say that I lump photos and illustrations together as 'art.' News design is all about information and simplicity, so our photo illustrations and photographs should be as informational as possible. So, whatever gets the job done better should be used.

I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but hopefully it generates some discussion.

[Héctor Rodríguez Cano]

A good picture can illustrate very well a character, a place, moods, situations... yes they can be subjective too, but they are always taken from something real. What i find photos can't do is -to some extent- to give an opinion, about the subject, about a situation, illustrations can be more conclusive -or can be conclusive-, for they have the power to show us the intangible.

Photos are a way of illustrations, yes... but illustration can have a broader meaning about a given subject.

[Paul Orlando]

An excellent question. I tend to think of all photography as illustration, but only to different degrees. For instance, you can look at a more functional image and say: "This photo illustrates how to use a Kiosk" but look at a more artistic image and say: "This photo illustrates that you can obtain wild and undeserved success by just pressing a button."

[Santosh]

These days some Indian newspapers have started using collages of manipulated images as photo-illustration, without mentioning that it is a digitally altered image. This trend degrades photo journalism and journalistic ethics. News photos shouldn't be manipulated. An evocative photograph can tell a story without the support of words to supplement it. I still remember the phot essays produced by the LIFE magazine. These days we never get to see such photographs.