Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 09 Oct 2014 (Thursday) 07:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is it still a photograph if you.....

 
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,999 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1615
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Oct 11, 2014 09:57 as a reply to  @ post 17206749 |  #61

I think that the big problem we have is the strict application of the definition that was quoted from Websters (Although really I as a Brit recognise the Oxford English Dictionary as the correct definition for all English words, but cannot access it easily to quote it). As it stands at the current moment in time there is not, and never has been a Photographic system that did NOT require some level of processing, between operating the shutter (or other means of exposing the sensor to light) and having a useable image that you can view. All of the classic processes of the 19th Century, Daguerreotype, Calotype, etc. Or the various film types developed during the 20th Century. Even the latest electronic recording systems that have brought us into the 21st Century (although mostly devised in the 20th C), they all have to undergo some form of processing after exposure to create a viewable image. Even Polaroid instant prints, require chemical processing, which can be affected by the temperature to some degree. We still even have to make decisions on how our out of camera JPEG images will be processed, although we limit ourselves by making those decisions in advance of the actual exposure. So a definition of a photograph that doesn't allow for "processing the image" is a pretty poor definition in my opinion.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,252 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5517
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 11, 2014 10:22 |  #62

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17206749 (external link)
As I read it, it said that a picture is a photograph if it captures the scene as it was (as humans see it). And it is art if it's been postprocessed to look like something else (in your example: Adams' zone system).

If you stick to that definition, a photograph isn't art because it isnt processed, and if it is processed it stops being a photograph and becomes an artpiece.

Going on, we have to realise that a camera can't *actually* capture a scene as we see it, and most of us use postprocessing these days. You might argue that a Raw convertor isn't as radical postprocessing as some other alterations though.

But if I understand your reasoning, the logical result is a clear distinction between art and photography... One that I personally don't agree with. I think "art" has much more to do with personal expression than whatever technique is used to create that. If I feel my camera image is my personal view of a scene, I won't choose to use post processing. Or do you imagine that an art gallery is going to ask a photographer if he's used Photoshop?

Let me say it again I said and believe anything photographed with a camera is a photograph. That is the first part of the definition and the part I agree with. Any alteration is up to the photographer except in those fields I mentioned in an earlier post. That is exactly what I have consistently said if you read back. In fact I asked to those so called purists what would Uelsmann's work be (he shot most of his more notable work on large format film). I even gave the example of Henry Peach Robinson so I don't know where you thought I was saying anything different. And where did I say art wasn't personal expression? Again, read my previous post before this one. I was pretty clear and still am.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,267 posts
Likes: 2301
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 11, 2014 10:31 |  #63

BigAl007 wrote in post #17206897 (external link)
...Even Polaroid instant prints, require chemical processing, which can be affected by the temperature to some degree. We still even have to make decisions on how our out of camera JPEG images will be processed, although we limit ourselves by making those decisions in advance of the actual exposure. So a definition of a photograph that doesn't allow for "processing the image" is a pretty poor definition in my opinion.

Alan

It shouldn't be the physical act of processing the image but what the processing does to the image. For instance, take an image, process it, print it, hold it at arms length and if you cannot see a difference between the image and the actual subject, there has been not processing. The image accurately reflects reality. If the image is different, more saturated, better contrast, greater DR, then we should consider the image processed as it no longer represents what is seen but something more (or less).


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Oct 11, 2014 11:03 |  #64

gjl711 wrote in post #17206930 (external link)
It shouldn't be the physical act of processing the image but what the processing does to the image. For instance, take an image, process it, print it, hold it at arms length and if you cannot see a difference between the image and the actual subject, there has been not processing. The image accurately reflects reality. If the image is different, more saturated, better contrast, greater DR, then we should consider the image processed as it no longer represents what is seen but something more (or less).

Which is next-to-impossible with a sunset/sunrise.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
18,757 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6386
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Oct 11, 2014 14:00 |  #65

gjl711 wrote in post #17206930 (external link)
For instance, take an image, process it, print it, hold it at arms length and if you cannot see a difference between the image and the actual subject, there has been not processing. The image accurately reflects reality.

I have trouble agreeing with this. Being unable to see a difference between the image and the actual subject is too strict a standard. You can always see a difference; perhaps I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

A camera doesn't record reality as a human being perceives it. > Looking at things in the world, we use binocular vision. > We move our eyes and our heads. > We give attention selectively to what we're interested in (we're afraid of it, for instance, or we like it, or someone said "Look at that!"). We attend also to what moves or what has the brightest color in the scene. Did you ever get home with a shot you thought was going to be great and find that it was ruined by irrelevant stuff in the background that you hadn't noticed when shooting? > Our eyes and brain can't freeze motion. If it weren't for fast shutters, I wouldn't know the posture of a hummingbird's wings in flight. A still image doesn't show motion, although it can suggest it. > Our brains compensate for lens distortion by straightening lines and smoothing out angles. > In human vision, only the central area of the visual field is sharp. Peripheral areas are out of focus. The brain fills in backgrounds that we don't actually see. It also fills in the blind spot in each eye.

In these ways and probably others, seeing with a camera differs from seeing with your eyes.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photoguy6405
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,306 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 18
Joined Feb 2008
Location: US Midwest
     
Oct 11, 2014 14:48 |  #66

archer1960 wrote in post #17203199 (external link)
My personal opinion is that cropping, adjusting white balance, curves, etc are still part of photography, but that adding or removing elements in the image move it from the realm of photography to art.

This is reasonable.


Website: Iowa Landscape Photography (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear List & Feedback
Equipment For Sale: Canon PowerShot A95

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,252 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5517
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 11, 2014 14:52 |  #67

So if you pretty much shoot straight, it's not art? As we know that is far from the truth. You would be eliminating great photographers like Bresson, Winogrand, Meyerowitz, Frank, Levitt, Lange, Evans, man this list could go on and on.

The argument of straight photograph being art was settled a very long time ago. In fact it was that very thing (straight photography) that used the elements that photography can only do, that no other art form can do, that caused it to become a legit art form. Before that it was called pictorial and it was trying to imitate paintings of the time. (late 19/early 20th century)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,252 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5517
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 11, 2014 14:57 |  #68

OhLook wrote in post #17207238 (external link)
I have trouble agreeing with this. Being unable to see a difference between the image and the actual subject is too strict a standard. You can always see a difference; perhaps I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

A camera doesn't record reality as a human being perceives it. > Looking at things in the world, we use binocular vision. > We move our eyes and our heads. > We give attention selectively to what we're interested in (we're afraid of it, for instance, or we like it, or someone said "Look at that!"). We attend also to what moves or what has the brightest color in the scene. Did you ever get home with a shot you thought was going to be great and find that it was ruined by irrelevant stuff in the background that you hadn't noticed when shooting? > Our eyes and brain can't freeze motion. If it weren't for fast shutters, I wouldn't know the posture of a hummingbird's wings in flight. A still image doesn't show motion, although it can suggest it. > Our brains compensate for lens distortion by straightening lines and smoothing out angles. > In human vision, only the central area of the visual field is sharp. Peripheral areas are out of focus. The brain fills in backgrounds that we don't actually see. It also fills in the blind spot in each eye.

In these ways and probably others, seeing with a camera differs from seeing with your eyes.

Agree... In the 1880s Muybridge set out to prove that a horse does completely leave the ground when in a full gallop. It was believed until his photographs showed differently that there was always one leg down and paintings before Muybridge always reflected that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 11, 2014 15:31 as a reply to  @ airfrogusmc's post |  #69

OED - photography: The art or practice of taking and processing photographs.

OED - photograph: A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,359 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 735
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
Oct 11, 2014 15:42 |  #70

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17205237 (external link)
Doug,

Thank you for posting this - for the purposes of this discussion, and for the purposes of answering the OP's question in a technically accurate, semantically correct manner, I think it is necessary to have a precise definition of "photography" and/or of "photograph".

I agree with Webster's definition. Photography is what is done when we produce the original image, then we combine other skills/arts/processes in order to make prints or edited/converted digital images. Heck, just turning a file from RAW format to jPeg format requires a process that is not photography!

Agreed, and I've spent a lot of time in the B&W wet darkroom burning, dodging and using variable contrast enlarger filters and papers to achieve different results.

From my presentations, I try to convey what the scene showed me with very little manipulation after the fact. Typically a light saturation and contrast boost and that is about it.

Because I try to keep things close to reality in the purest sense, I do not remove phone wires, or insert a frog in a wetland shore because the frog could have been there. If I screwed up the shot (IMHO) then I re-take it.

Others have no problem manipulating the heck out of an image with heavy HDR, etc. Hey, whatever floats their boat. As mentioned before, I try to keep things close to reality but if someone does just the opposite, good for them.

We are all artists after all and art itself is open to the viewer's interpretation. I think my 6 year old grand-daughter finger paints better than Picasso while others may thousands of $$ for his "work".

Wish I could get 'em all dazzled to buy my work. :)


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DisrupTer911
Goldmember
Avatar
2,452 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ, USA
     
Oct 12, 2014 18:53 |  #71

I'll curious why you don't just use Lightroom 5 for all the LR edits..why some in 4 and some in 5


www.vividemotionphotograph​y.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iowajim
Senior Member
Avatar
518 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Mar 2011
Location: North Central Iowa
     
Oct 12, 2014 19:12 |  #72

It's all a computer generated image. The real question is, whas it a photograph or a snapshot?


Jim, in Iowa
80D / T2i / Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 / Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 / Canon 24-105 f4 / Tamron SP VC 70-200mm f2.8 / Sigma 150-600mm C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bosscat
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,892 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Ontario Canada
     
Oct 13, 2014 07:09 |  #73

DisrupTer911 wrote in post #17209332 (external link)
I'll curious why you don't just use Lightroom 5 for all the LR edits..why some in 4 and some in 5

I didn't do what I posted originally. Somebody else posted that they did all of this in order to get to the finished product.


Your camera is alot smarter than the "M" Zealots would have you believe

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
     
Oct 13, 2014 07:44 |  #74

Bosscat wrote in post #17203189 (external link)
Is it still a photograph or is it now a computer facsimile of what you saw.


Discuss

Who said that Photography is "what the eye sees"?
It never was about that.


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,252 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5517
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 13, 2014 09:20 |  #75

andrikos wrote in post #17210103 (external link)
Who said that Photography is "what the eye sees"?

Or the bigger question should be. It should be what the heart and mind sees...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,788 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is it still a photograph if you.....
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is 7DMalinois
1357 guests, 299 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.