For you, is photography a form of expression or documentation?

When one uses a diffuser on the camera lens it's the highlights that flare over into the shadows. Using a diffuser on the enlarging lens flares the shadows over into the highlights. A decidedly different effect perceived by more than a few as somewhat ghoulish.

But not nearly as ghoulish as the Frankenstein digital filter that swaps heads...



Ken

Got to thinking about your question a bit more Maris. Had the thought that others may have thought about this before.

Maris said:

No! This is wrong. It is a miscast idea that a purely technical process, namely photography, includes among its characteristics all the human anxieties, foibles, and misreadings that may plague its practitioners and consumers.

Click to expand...

“The intensive use of photographs by mass media lays ever fresh responsibilities upon the photographer. We have to acknowledge the existence of a chasm between the economic needs of our consumer society and the requirements of those who bear witness to this epoch. This affects us all, particularly the younger generations of photographers. We must take greater care than ever not to allow ourselves to be separated from the real world and from humanity.” – Henri Cartier-Bresson -

Maris said:

A good test of a mistaken notion is that it leads to confusion, contradiction, and misunderstanding rather than clarity, understanding, and concensus. Witness this very thread as a sharp example.

Click to expand...

"Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution."
Ansel Adams

I don't think that HCB or Ansel would be confused by, nor see a contradiction, nor misunderstand, nor expect consensus in the answers to the question I posed. Seems to me that they thought photography was more than just a technical process; as I do.

Wikipedia, a consensus driven tool, says: "Photography is the science, art and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film."

Search for definitions of photography and answers like this "the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays." pop up.

Practice and art are part of the vernacular description of photography.

The question I posed isn't technical, it's human, and I think it's safe to say that the human condition is full of confusion, contradiction, and misunderstanding rather than clarity, understanding, and consensus.

Why would we want to narrow the definition of photography from the vernacular real world definition to a purely technical one?

Well since the OP started with "FOR YOU", then the answer can be almost anything.

It isn't possible to have any kind of universal "truth" in this context. Some (the usual suspects) have even divided the question into the process of photography and others the results of photography.

If your definitions are controlled by the process of photography rather than what the resultant image expresses/communicates to a viewer the thread becomes just another analog vs digital thread which most threads on this site devolve back into.

If the thread is about the visual communication of a final picture to a viewer, that too will be affected by the mindset/experiences/prejudices of each viewer and will also be affected by the same of the photographer, his intent.

If you consider photography to be a communication device or a pastime process exercise then a consensus is not possible.

And if you believe that a photograph documents truth, then you have to ask, whose truth.

A photograph documents what the photographer wants it to document. You and I can go take photos of the exact same rock, but a neutral third party examining them might not know it was the same rock at all because of the way in which we photographed it. It's the old blind men describing an elephant conundrum.

blansky said:

It isn't possible to have any kind of universal "truth" in this context. Some (the usual suspects)...

Click to expand...

The reason definitions are important is because they develop an accepted vernacular for a topic or area of expertise. If everyone involved uses and understands the common descriptors for that area of expertise, then intelligent and insightful discourse is possible.

But if no one agrees with the meanings of things, then discourse becomes impossible. It becomes instead an act of stepping through he looking glass. Someone will say "photograph" and 50 different participants will claim 50 different meanings, each person shocked and angry that 49 other people could be so woefully ignorant.

Which, come to think of it, sounds awfully similar to...



Ken

I selected Expression and Something else, that being a record of passing time and moment that may never be recorded again in truly archival form.

Ken Nadvornick said:

The reason definitions are important is because they develop an accepted vernacular for a topic or area of expertise. If everyone involved uses and understands the common descriptors for that area of expertise, then intelligent and insightful discourse is possible.

But if no one agrees with the meanings of things, then discourse becomes impossible. It becomes instead an act of stepping through he looking glass. Someone will say "photograph" and 50 different participants will claim 50 different meanings, each person shocked and angry that 49 other people could be so woefully ignorant.

Which, come to think of it, sounds awfully similar to...



Ken

Click to expand...

As individuals, do we get to define what photography is, or has society already done that?

markbarendt said:

As individuals, do we get to define what photography is, or has society already done that?

Click to expand...

One can define anything in any way one wishes. It's not the freedom to define that is at issue. It's the credibility of the resulting definitions that is at issue.

If a single individual in 50 defines "photography" to be something singularly unique to that individual, and the other 49 disagree, then that definition will carry less currency—less credibility—with those other 49, who will assume the definer to be ignorant on the subject.

The key to an accepted vernacular is not society's definitions. That is a phenomenon peculiar to the "thumbs-up" crowd on the Internet. Rather, it's the facts underlying those definitions that make up that vernacular. Facts are, by definition, demonstrable attributes accepted by all. And have become so through extensive histories of repeated testing for exceptions, and thus far always found duly wanting for them.

For example, if some ne'er-do-well named Einstein comes along and wishes to redefine gravity in a way unique only to his point of view, he is certainly allowed to do that and postulate Relativity. But one of the repeatedly tested and accepted facts of gravity is that it's acceleration as measured on Earth is 32 feet per second squared.

So any new definition he may eventually come up with must, if he wishes that definition to be credible and part of the accepted vernacular, also account for that pesky fact of 32 feet per second squared. If it does not, then he is always free to continue claiming his definition is superior. But those claims and that definition will then carry less credibility among those skilled in the art of gravity.

Ken

markbarendt said:

As individuals, do we get to define what photography is, or has society already done that?

Click to expand...

Neither! Photography was defined by the guy who invented the word and told us what he meant by it. And he can't, even in principle, now be wrong or eventually become wrong through the passage of time. But words can be misused, language may become muddled, and the thoughts supported by that language become muddled too. Witnesseth the convolutions of this very thread.

1839, "picture obtained by photography," coined by Sir John Herschel from photo- + -graph "instrument for recording; something written." It won out over other suggestions, such as photogene and heliograph. Neo-Anglo-Saxonists prefer sunprint; and sun-picture (1846) was an early Englishing of the word. The verb, as well as photography, are first found in a paper read before the Royal Society on March 14, 1839. Related: Photographed; photographing.
(online entymology dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=photograph

History of photography,
stereoscope [Credit: Joaquim Alves Gaspar]method of recording the image of an object through the action of light, or related radiation, on a light-sensitive material. The word, derived from the Greek photos (“light”) and graphein (“to draw”), was first used in the 1830s.

This article treats the historical and aesthetic aspects of still photography. For a discussion of the technical aspects of the medium, see photography, technology of. For a treatment of motion-picture photography, or cinematography, see motion picture, history of, and motion-picture technology.

(encyclopedia britannica: http://www.britannica.com/technology/photography )


not sure about any of the convolutions in this thread ....
they may be things you personally don't agree with,
but i am not sure how they are convolutions.

Ken Nadvornick said:

The key to an accepted vernacular is not society's definitions. That is a phenomenon peculiar to the "thumbs-up" crowd on the Internet. Rather, it's the facts underlying those definitions that make up that vernacular. Facts are, by definition, demonstrable attributes accepted by all. And have become so through extensive histories of repeated testing for exceptions, and thus far always found duly wanting for them.

Click to expand...

Facts per Merriam-Webster

Simple Definition of photography
: the art, process, or job of taking pictures with a camera

Full Definition of photography
: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor)

Click to expand...

I have been told Merriam-Webster is reasonably respected in the field of defining words.

Did check Cambridge too.

"photography" in American English
the ​skill or ​activity of taking or ​processing ​photographs

"photography" in British English
the ​activity or ​job of taking ​photographs or ​filming

Click to expand...

Those sources don't seem to disagree with each other.

Checked elsewhere too but I'm done calling witnesses.

IMO the breadth of the definition of photography isn't a problem.

Maris has answered correctly for himself. You, Ken, have answered correctly for yourself. Others have answered correctly for themselves. Differing answers about how photography fits into each of our worlds are okay by me.

markbarendt said:

Differing answers about how photography fits into each of our worlds are okay by me.

Click to expand...

Thumbs-up by me!



Ken

I actually don't like photography. I don't like taking pictures. But besides the sauna, the darkroom is the only place to hide.