Clyde Butcher

[DREW WILEY]

Watercolor has its special look and potentiality, oil something entirely different. I'm a photographer because I was too impatient for watercolor, and didn't particularly like the less luminous quality of oil or acrylic. But that doesn't mean I print photographs that look like watercolors, or I should say, "wannabee" watercolors. Photographs should look like photographs. But it does more subtly influence me in
the sense I prefer the transparency of real color dyes as opposed to something basically opaque like inkjet. The bigger problem is hue control. Photographs are very limited in this respect, and the web damn near hopeless. Any Fauxtoshop monkey can get saturated colors, maybe not cleanly, but at least saturated, loud, and noisy. What takes real skill is balancing all the subtleties and nuances of the neutrals. That's what makes the game of color printing so interesting. And the simple fact is, those that choose to do it digitally expend a helluva lot
of time and effort to try to get there. It's not a shortcut at all or any cheaper. I applaud anyone highly skilled at any craft. I just prefer to
do it in a darkroom.

 

[blansky]

If the final image were all that mattered, no one would care whether a painting of the same subject by the same artist was done in oil, acrylic, pastel, or water color. But, many people do care. I'm one of them.

I think that's a mis-characterization of what I meant. Obviously a oil, acrylic, pastel and water color all have a different look.

When I went to digital I made sure the look I'd achieved in a digital print framed and under acrylic was indistinguishable from what I did with analog and the public could not tell, or actually care one way or the other.

You may argue that, but that's a different rant.

So in the area of photography I work in, which is not the area that most people here work in, the digital result was the same as the analog result I'd done for 35 years.

That's what I meant by the final image was all that mattered.

Obviously people here do different types of photography and this may not apply to their chosen avenue.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Marty Knapp down there at Pt Reyes Station did a good job making his digital prints closely resemble his silver ones. It was good insurance
for him that he had high-quality scans made, because the house he was renting, with its darkroom, was sold out from under him. His images are basically straight black ink of some type. But in my case, I just can't see anything inkjet really having the subtle flexibility in multiple toners that I often use. What is easy in the darkroom would be a nightmare digitally. It wouldn't be tactile and fun either.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think it might be a fascinating exercise to flip the logic. Instead of everyone stating what a photograph isn't (it's not an inkjet, it's not a negative, it's not an abstraction, etc.), allow everyone to explicitly lay out what their own definition of a photograph is.

In other words, to exist in the state of being a photograph, what unique characteristics and/or behaviors must a thing exhibit?

I say "unique" because if a thing shares a characteristic or behavior with something else, then the possibility exists that it might indeed BE that something else. We would be looking for an exclusionary definition. Meaning, I can't be that thing because that thing doesn't exhibit this particular characteristic or behavior, which I do exhibit, and without which I cannot be me.

Or put more simply, to be a photograph one must exhibit these characteristics or behaviors, which I do, he doesn't, and we both can't.

Any takers?

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nope. I won't go for the bait. I'm afraid it would end up like what I fear the new Pacific Film Archive will be up the street - a digital paintball arcade under the pseudonym of photography. Maybe I'm being a bit too skeptical, but I'm suspicious enough not to purchase a membership. There must be a reason why they shut down their classic art museum with framed things on walls; and the preliminary ad about it becoming something "interactive" certainly doesn't alleviate my fears. Let the kids have their drones and action cams. I'm perfectly content making flat prints intended to be viewed in frames or in a book; so I'll stick with that definition of photography or something analogous. The "alternative" types can stand in line at the electronics store, competing with backyard burglars and peeping Toms for the latest video drones and camera beanies.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It's a basic rule of logic that one cannot (credibly) claim something to be false without knowing for a fact its true case. Why? Because one has nothing of a known baseline to compare against. If you tell me something is wrong, by definition you must then also be able to tell me what is right.

By application of that rule if one cannot or will not state what they believe to be the truth of something, then they cannot later (credibly) pass judgment on the falsehood of other things purporting to be that truthful something.

It was not a trick question nor a baited question. There is no right or wrong answer, save those answers that violate physical laws of nature. Rather, it is an opportunity for those who strongly disagree with other's definitions to simply explain clearly what constitutes their own truthful baseline definition.

Physics aside, the only wrong answer is a no answer from anyone who has in the past criticized others for their differing definitions. Again, because how could they have criticized without knowing the truth to compare against? And if they know what they believe to be that truth, why would they be afraid to share it?

Remember, one definition of an anarchist is someone who desperately tries to tear down, but has nothing of substance to offer as a replacement.

Ken

 

[cliveh]

If the final image were all that mattered, no one would care whether a painting of the same subject by the same artist was done in oil, acrylic, pastel, or water color. But, many people do care. I'm one of them.

But preference about the medium makes the final image all that matters.

 

[jovo]

So in the area of photography I work in, which is not the area that most people here work in, the digital result was the same as the analog result I'd done for 35 years.

That's what I meant by the final image was all that mattered.

Obviously people here do different types of photography and this may not apply to their chosen avenue.

I've seen your work on line, and it's extraordinary. If I lived near you, and needed color images of the kind you make, I'd hire you in a second. And the imperative you maintain to keep your digital images as close to their analog antecedents as possible is terrific. What's more, if I made color prints, there is no doubt that I'd have switched to digital the moment it became credible. As you also observe, though, different types of photography result in images that can be visibly different when made on a printer or in a wet darkroom. Nearly all of my photographs are made on film and printed and toned in a darkroom, but I've also made some scans that I've processed in LightRoom and printed on my Epson 3800 printer. The difference isn't subtle (not that my digital skills come close to my traditional skills which is a factor), and I strongly prefer the former to the latter, but the digiprints don't suck, either. One is hanging by the door in our house, so I'm certainly not shunning that process.

 

[removed account4]

...

 

[blansky]

I've seen your work on line, and it's extraordinary. If I lived near you, and needed color images of the kind you make, I'd hire you in a second. And the imperative you maintain to keep your digital images as close to their analog antecedents as possible is terrific. What's more, if I made color prints, there is no doubt that I'd have switched to digital the moment it became credible. As you also observe, though, different types of photography result in images that can be visibly different when made on a printer or in a wet darkroom. Nearly all of my photographs are made on film and printed and toned in a darkroom, but I've also made some scans that I've processed in LightRoom and printed on my Epson 3800 printer. The difference isn't subtle (not that my digital skills come close to my traditional skills which is a factor), and I strongly prefer the former to the latter, but the digiprints don't suck, either. One is hanging by the door in our house, so I'm certainly not shunning that process.

Thank you.

I started in 1976 in color.

And restarted in 1990 in black and white. At the time I was shooting Hasselblad and only doing black and white darkroom prints usually toned in selenium.

When I merged into digital in around 2005, I was my goal was to copy the same look as the black and white prints and print on a 24 inch inkjet printer. At the same time I saw it as a way to go back and shoot color again, since in digital, everything is captured in color and converted later to black and white if chosen.

These days, seven years later, I'm sliding back to black and white almost exclusively after looking at my prints, and thousands of others on the internet, I've concluded what I once knew. That black and white offers more interesting, more surreal, more timeless looks, and more gravitas to an image.

That's where I'll probably end my career.

 

[blansky]

I think it might be a fascinating exercise to flip the logic. Instead of everyone stating what a photograph isn't (it's not an inkjet, it's not a negative, it's not an abstraction, etc.), allow everyone to explicitly lay out what their own definition of a photograph is.

In other words, to exist in the state of being a photograph, what unique characteristics and/or behaviors must a thing exhibit?

I say "unique" because if a thing shares a characteristic or behavior with something else, then the possibility exists that it might indeed BE that something else. We would be looking for an exclusionary definition. Meaning, I can't be that thing because that thing doesn't exhibit this particular characteristic or behavior, which I do exhibit, and without which I cannot be me.

Or put more simply, to be a photograph one must exhibit these characteristics or behaviors, which I do, he doesn't, and we both can't.

Any takers?

Ken

Personally, I don't care what a photograph is. When I started in 1976, and made a print, it was called a photography. And I was called a photographer. When I slid over to digital, I switched cameras, swapped out a darkroom for a "lightroom" and printed with an Epson printer instead of 20x24 trays, and more importantly, I could retouch with Photoshop instead of on the negative and on the print, the names didn't change. Perhaps they should have.

So I have no problems with specific names for specific media, it's just that I morphed over and in my world/business the names all stayed the same.

People wanted me, a photographer, to make a photograph of their family.

I absolutely realize that that simple transition, is not the same as what most people here did, and you who use older processes or other processes have issues with popular nomenclature. I get it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Personally, I don't care what a photograph is.

And that is as valid an answer as any other might be, I suppose. Although the question was more about opinions regarding defining characteristics than about simple nomenclature.

However, I do find it interesting that thus far the only answers seem to boil down to either implicit silence, or an explicit form of "I don't want to tell you..."

A bit unexpected (or perhaps not?) for a public forum where so many argue so strongly and self-assuredly that everyone else's definition is totally wrong.

Ken

 

[MattKing]

Sorry Ken, but the problem with what you propose is that it is expressed in the singular, and "photographs" are actually different things to different people.

Many different things, to many different people.

I think it might be a fascinating exercise to flip the logic. Instead of everyone stating what a photograph isn't (it's not an inkjet, it's not a negative, it's not an abstraction, etc.), allow everyone to explicitly lay out what their own definition of a photograph is.

In other words, to exist in the state of being a photograph, what unique characteristics and/or behaviors must a thing exhibit?

I say "unique" because if a thing shares a characteristic or behavior with something else, then the possibility exists that it might indeed BE that something else. We would be looking for an exclusionary definition. Meaning, I can't be that thing because that thing doesn't exhibit this particular characteristic or behavior, which I do exhibit, and without which I cannot be me.

Or put more simply, to be a photograph one must exhibit these characteristics or behaviors, which I do, he doesn't, and we both can't.

Any takers?

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Sorry Ken, but the problem with what you propose is that it is expressed in the singular, and "photographs" are actually different things to different people.

Many different things, to many different people.

Yes, my point exactly.

And that is—with the exception of those pesky she-who-must-be-obeyed physical laws of nature—exactly as it should be. But if someone tells me I'm wrong about my definition (and I've got the multiple bruises to prove those inflicted beatdowns), then they must by the rule of logic also be able to tell me what they believe is right. Right?

So Matt, you're a very clear thinker with matching expositional skills. What do you think are the defining characteristics and/or behaviors of a photograph?

Ken

 

[MattKing]

So Matt, you're a very clear thinker with matching expositional skills. What do you think are the defining characteristics and/or behaviors of a photograph?

Ken

The answer to this is going to be as initially positive as to my last "controversial" thread.

The defining characteristics and/or behaviors of a photograph are that, to me, the entity involved seems to me to be a photograph.

IIRC, that constitutes a tautology.

Definitions are useful sometimes, but I would much rather consider the qualities of a process, procedure or product, then discuss the terms we use to describe them - with one exception.

I am happy to discuss those terms that tend to mislead or confuse or are just plain wrong.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The answer to this is going to be as initially positive as to my last "controversial" thread.

The defining characteristics and/or behaviors of a photograph are that, to me, the entity involved seems to me to be a photograph.

IIRC, that constitutes a tautology.

Definitions are useful sometimes, but I would much rather consider the qualities of a process, procedure or product, then discuss the terms we use to describe them - with one exception.

I am happy to discuss those terms that tend to mislead or confuse or are just plain wrong.

Again, the question was not about terminology nomenclature. It was about real-world physical characteristics and behaviors. And to say that a thing must only "seem to be" a photograph leaves open the possibility that everything may at some point seem to be a photograph to someone. I certainly don't think my dog is a photograph. But perhaps that's only just me?

OK, here's a pump-primer behavior...

A photograph must, by definition, depict an event from the past. It cannot depict events from the present* or the future.

This, of course, serves to rule out any imaging artworks created by drawing or painting, since those images are created solely from the artist's imagination, which is unconstrained by the arrow of time.

Note as well that it does NOT serve to rule out either film or digital technology, as they both share this same behavior. Thus, they are both still in the game after applying this rule.

Any others?

Ken

* By the time the light reflected from the subject passes through the lens and strikes the film or sensor, the event realized on that film or sensor is already in the past.

 

[doughowk]

To be known as a photograph, the image should at least have the following:
1) The image (whether DOP, POP, latent or otherwise) should have a physical presence from its inception
2) No matter how heavily manipulated after the taking, the image should still be reality based and recognizable as such.
This would hopefully greatly restrict digital media inclusion as a photograph. Having recently retired as a computer programmer, I'm now having second thoughts about all things digital including its ability to imitate everything from food to photography. Unfortunately for the art of photograpy, the horse is already out before the gate could be closed.

 

[removedacct1]

To be known as a photograph, the image should at least have the following:
1) The image (whether DOP, POP, latent or otherwise) should have a physical presence from its inception
2) No matter how heavily manipulated after the taking, the image should still be reality based and recognizable as such.

I can think of plenty of pinhole photographs I've seen (and made) that do not meet the requirements for #2. The phrase "and recognizable as such" is the sticking point. An example: if you were to shoot a frame in very low light and make a long (many seconds or even minutes) exposure while waving the camera about, the resulting image on film would undoubtedly not be recognizable as "reality based", and yet I doubt anyone here would state that it is not a photograph.

Current dictionary listings define a fine a photograph as being:

• 1.
  a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
  
  
  
  

Whether or not this definition is granular enough to meet the needs of this discussion/context - it seems to me - is the core of the question we're asking ourselves.

I can think of an instance in which a new term was created to categorize an image-making process that omitted the camera/lens part of the process and yet still made use of recording light on film: the photogram. There is a process that clearly steps outside the boundaries defining "a photograph" - by leaving out the light-focusing hardware - and deserves a unique term to describe and define it. That suggests to me that a camera (there is a range of technologies that can be described as "a camera") must be involved in the creation of a photograph in order to meet the requirements of the definition. Again, this goes back to the hardware as modern dictionaries state it: a device that uses technology that focuses light onto a light-sensitive recording media, either by chemical means (film) or by a sensor/electronic storage. Both technologies require the use of hardware that does the same thing: a device that collects and organizes light in a meaningful way - to generate an image that represents something in the physical world as the camera saw it over a span of time (which may have been a very brief instant or over a considerably longer time of seconds, minutes, days or months*) and then somehow saves the image on some recording media.

So, I guess we want to know why (if at all) the technology used for electronic capture and storage of light-generated imagery is sufficiently different from film/chemical technology to warrant exclusion from the classification of "a photograph". (I'm not going to try to speak to this particular "why"; I would like to see what responses might be offered)

*consider a Solargraph made with a pinhole camera and photo paper, involving an exposure over weeks or months. Is that a photograph?? If not, why isn't it?

 

[removed account4]

a photograph is anything that has been darkened etched, engraved or drawn upon created through actions of light.
it could be something left on cheap construction paper where the sun changes the color made through
actions of "chemical rays of light" as described by early practitioners in the 1830s-40s
when they made retina prints, cyanotypes and talbot types / calotypes/salted paper prints / daguerrotypes &C
or a 2nd generation image created by using light sensitive emulsions that are stable or unstable, permenant or not.
it can also be what is made when you tape a negative or something to your skin and go out into the sun and you get
a natural sunlight tattoo, or what is made with lumi paints, or the stuff speedball makes to turn silk screens
into a stencil, or what is made by modern sensors, scanners and laser enlargers. photographs have to do with light
and drawing/image creation with light ... an ink print is a print, might not be a photographic print, but of a photograph \ i don't know, maybe its "a print"
(since it is made with a printer ).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Therefore skin cancer is a form of photography?

 

[blansky]

Therefore skin cancer is a form of photography?

The skin is the score and the cancer is the performance?


And more from AA.

"A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words."

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

"A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words."

I believe St. Ansel was referring to the artistic underpinnings—the subject—of a photograph. Not necessarily the photograph itself?

In earlier posts I have tried to draw a distinction between what a photograph is, and what a photograph does. The former being the so-called first level of abstraction that is related to compressing a 3-dimensional real world subject onto a 2-dimensional representation. That characteristic is shared by both film and digital photographs. And the latter being the second level of abstraction that is related solely to the physicality of the underlying process itself.

For the purpose of defining what a photograph is, I believe the first abstraction cannot differentiate between the two. Meaning it's a shared characteristic. However, I do believe that a differentiation can be made when applying the second abstraction.

Ken

 

[removed account4]

Therefore skin cancer is a form of photography?

i don't know about that,
but a shadow is an impermenant photograph in the primary sense of the word
photo ( light ) graph ( picture )

 

[blansky]

I believe St. Ansel was referring to the artistic underpinnings—the subject—of a photograph. Not necessarily the photograph itself?

True, I'm sure.

But with the statement:

"The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance."

With the suggestion made by some that AA would have embraced digital, and the quote above when he referring to the "print as the performance" was he referring to the print as as he held it in his had and admired the texture, and the vibration of the silver halide crystals suspended in .... etc, or was he referring to the impact and subject matter that the print conveyed to the viewer.

Is the performance the perfection and imperfection of the meshing of the various instruments, or is the performance the metaphor of the audiences ability to close their eyes and be moved, by the sound.

Or both.

We can all agree that if AA had moved into digital, his prints would have been pretty good. Would he have been happy with the performance?

How would he view this debate?

 

[Bob Carnie]

We can all agree that if AA had moved into digital, his prints would have been pretty good. Would he have been happy with the performance?


Not Necessarily:

He would have to spend the time to learn how to make prints work with digital... There seems to be a misconception here on APUG that digital is as easy just pushing a button.. but making a silver
print with an enlarger requires true genius..

Both take time and patience to master.