Label for Genuine Photographs

[Kirk Keyes]

Think of a pinhole as a special case of a lens where the thickness of the lens element is infinitely thin.

 

[Q.G.]

Think of a pinhole as a special case of a lens where the thickness of the lens element is infinitely thin.

... and no refraction takes place.

Or to keep it both simple and correct: think of a pinhole as a hole, of a lens as a lens.

 

[JBrunner]

Does this mean that all those famous photographers that don't print their own work are not photographers after all?
And that those printers who never leave the darkroom to see the world through their own eyes are in fact (the only) photographers?

Photographer is a description of a vocation. It is connected only indirectly to the photograph, which is a thing. The people you refer to are photographers. Somebody else prints their photographs. That printer is in some respects a co-author of the photograph in a minor or major way, depending on involvement.

 

[Focus No. 9]

Ulrich, I agree it is disconcerting to see a digital image referred to as a photograph. I've debated this issue in my head for months. I hate the usage of "analog camera". that term must have been invented by a microwave baby. And I haven't a clue on how or why to address it but here goes:
I have a P&S digital camera. I have a film camera
I upload images from my DC. I upload images from a disk record of my film photos developed in a lab.
I have used a photo editor program on my computer to alter both types of images. (limited program, limited pp)
According to taste you can edit or adjust or manipulate in either a computer or darkroom. The difference being post processing of an "actual" image (DCI) or processing of exposed film to get an altered image(FCI).

Once I left the total manual system to an aperture priorty or shutter priority sytem did I not give up creative control?. Were we bottled fed with DCX coding? Auto focus? LED screens within the viewfinder or on the camera ( pentax N70 or Sigma SA-5)? Light meters?.
Using a camera to capture a moment is photography.
Using a camera to create vision (studio work) is photography.
Using a camera or darkroom to convey a moment or vision is art.
My desire is to be able to use a camera or darkroom to convey. If I can do that with either means of format I have succeeded. (positive critique)

So I have decided to involve people in my process by stating what it is. I will try to refrain from using the word photograph unless qualified. Instead I will try my best to use the word: image.

I think I will use the following acronyms.
DCI for Digital Camera Image (My Canon Sure Shot A590)
MFI for Modern Film Image ( My Pentax P3n or Sigma SA-5)
FFP for Film Format Photograph( My Kodak Motormatic, Retina I, Yashica GSN)

That's my original and humble opinion.
If y'all got this far thanks for reading.

a DCI by Focus No. 9 (if i can get it inserted here) (Guess not my images don't have URL's. )

 

[JBrunner]

Most curators do not provenance an image as a "photograph" although many types of images may be included in a "photography" section. They are much more specific, such as "silver gelatin contact print", platinum/palladium print", "inkjet print" or if they lean towards the affectation, "pigment on cotton rag" or some such. The point is that correct and honest provenance is the true measure of what something is. Every physical piece of artwork is genuine, and the insistence by the lay, dilettante, or uninitiated to change the meanings of words in common vernacular to serve their ego is largely moot in the real art world. Clear identification of the physical nature of the artwork is key, and is what all image makers should strive for, and should be merely a minor punctuation to the work taken as a whole.

 

[nolanr66]

I think the word "photograph" is a general term.

 

[removed-user-1]

I think the word "photograph" is a general term.

In a former life I was a music composition student; a running joke among my classmates was being asked "Is that a REAL song, or did you make it up?"

 

[chocomalk]

The image forming process in pinhole photography involves nothing that even with the richest of imaginations could be construed as focusing light.

I was going to stay out of this thread, but a hole does focus light, it's simple physics, it creates a limiting factor that forces diffused rays of light to become straighter. The smaller the whole, the straighter they become.

Instead of delving into physics look at a simple light modification tool used on strobes such as a reflector, a device created to focus light. Look at a grid spot that can be placed on a reflector that has a series of holes to focus the light even further.
How about a snoot?
These are all just holes that focus light on a large scale, just as a pinhole focuses it on a small scale suitable for exposing an image on a bit of photosensitive material.

 

[Q.G.]

I was going to stay out of this thread, but a hole does focus light, it's simple physics, it creates a limiting factor that forces diffused rays of light to become straighter. The smaller the whole, the straighter they become.

That, mr Nutricia, is called perspective, and it is not focussing.
All it does is just cut out light. The rays that aren't 'pointing' straight into that tiny hole are just lost.
No ray is straightened, or has its direction changed otherwise. No focussing. A hole is not a lens.

That's simple physics, and understanding simple physics.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

... that forces diffused rays of light to become straighter.

Bendy light?!

 

[Chiron]

It's already been shown that Q.G. obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He is just a troll. Please don't feed them.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

It's already been shown that Q.G. obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He is just a troll. Please don't feed them.

Whoa. I'll be the first to say that Q.G. and I
rarely agree -- he has this weird Hasselblad fetish
that clouds his judgment. But it is awfully harsh,
and incorrect, to say that he doesn't know what
he's talking about. One ought never confuse zeal
with ignorance. One can debate whether Q.G. did
himself any favors by arguing at such length the
metaphysics (and, in his last post, the physics)
of photography in this thread. But I, for one,
found merit in a number of his contentions.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Actually the materials are the only criteria that can be objectively defined. Anything else is subjective.
Light hitting a sensor or film does not create a photograph, it creates a latent image or in the case of a sensor it creates an analog signature that through other means, analog or digital, can be interpreted as an image. One can create an analog image through entirely electronic means. I used to do it every day. At no point did anybody lucid ever consider those electronic analog images to be photographs, even though the images were both originated with light and entirely analog. An image is not a photograph. An image can be used to create many things, including a photograph, but the information contained in a negative or file isn't a photograph. It doesn't matter one iota about where light was involved prior to the creation of the artifact called a photograph. Light and the interpretation of light is always involved in anything visual, painting, sculpture, or whatnot. A photograph is a physical object, a print is a description of a type of physical object that can include a photograph, inkjet, gum print, etc. A photograph is not in the strictest sense a print, just as a gum print is not in the strictest sense a photograph. Inkjet prints however, are quite clearly prints because "printing" simply describes a mechanical creation or replication of an image, something the creation of an inkjet print has in abundance, while conversely at no point does the creation of an inkjet print involve light. Witness an inkjet print that contains only text or CGI for reference. I or anybody else can easily make an inkjet print without light, all I need is information, and the printer cares not a bit how it was originated, manipulated or organised. I can not on the other hand make a photograph without light, no matter how my information is originated, manipulated or organized. Photographs are and always will be physical artifacts that are contain information inscribed by light on a substrate thereby rendering a visible image, except of course to the word crafter or ignoramus, or perhaps those with a misguided and thoroughly vested self interest.

In the Q.G. world the definition of "photograph" is, by necessity, broad (what it does, not what it is). If an inkjet print behaves in some way like a photograph, it must be one, and that interpretation serves to make him right.

I come back to this because, notwithstanding all of
Jason's gyrations in his effort to confine "photograph"
to what analog photographers make, Q.G. is indisputably
correct. The original Oxford English Dictionary, that most
analog and conclusive arbiter of the language, defines
"photograph" simply as: "A picture, likeness, or facsimile
obtained by photography." And no non-APUG user of the
English language would think twice about calling a picture
made by a camera anything other than a photograph, no
matter where it appears -- in a book, on a TV screen, in
an inkjet print, whatever.

I mean no disrespect to the community in noting that in
this instance the Church is almost comically off-base here.
Hat's off to Q.G. in calling bullhocky.

 

[Q.G.]

It's already been shown that Q.G. obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He is just a troll. Please don't feed them.

The defence of the clueless.

But i agree: better than showing more of your ignorance over here, read some books, educate yourself.
Don't try understanding the easy stuff first. Begin with training yourself to understand easy stuff.

 

[Q.G.]

Hat's off to Q.G. in calling bullhocky.

Thanks!

 

[Ray Rogers]

Whoa... I, for one,
found merit in a number of his contentions.

Yea, it is often nourishing to read a post that makes you think... and question!

I remember they used to sell "pinhole" glasses that aided or increased appearent focus... some used them to better see "scrambled" images - you know - where the speaker's face was messed up so you couldn't see who was speaking, or a body part could not be "enjoyed" with one's eyes....

and,

some people see better when they squint, or look through a pin hole.

 

[Q.G.]

By the way, though i know too much about that stuff, i do not have a Hasselblad fetish.
I merely recognise things of merit when i see them. Investigate to see whether i was correct when i recognise something of merit, so that i not only know the good things, but also the not so good (or downright bad) things about something.
And (and this may please you) that 'even' includes machines like Rolleiflexes. No sweat.

 

[Q.G.]

some people see better when they squint, or look through a pin hole.

Unles they take the lens out of their eyes first, what they do is use a smaller aperture.
And that does what it always does: increase DoF. Helps when you are short- or far sighted.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

True. But in those cases, the word does not mean "photograph" but means a picture captured (at least initially!) by a camera. We do this sort of thing all the time... We use the word "ship" to mean send. Shipping charges are collected even if the item is delivered by truck! One might say they are being "sloppy" and not coosing the proper word for the job, but someone else might say the word has acquired more than one meaning....

Hey, your argument is with the Editorial Board
of the OED, not with me. I gave the original OED
definition. Now, one might argue that time passes
and the world gets more complicated and now the
language changes to accommodate the complications
-- now that we have TVs and inkjet printers and
computer monitors (not omnipresent when the
original OED fascicles were issued), the definition
evolves to resemble Jason's definition. But that
reasoning is the death of Jason's definition -- the
world moves ineluctably to a digital platform, and
the language continues to evolve to accommodate
that evolution, and so now people speak of digital
images coming from a camera as, not surprisingly,
"photographs."

There is no foundation in usage or logic for
arbitrarily freezing and confining the definition of
"photograph" to Jason's definition.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Unles they take the lens out of their eyes first, what they do is use a smaller aperture.
And that does what it always does: increase DoF. Helps when you are short- or far sighted.

But if you asked them they would probably tell you that everything seems to be in "better focus".

 

[Ray Rogers]

Hey, your argument is with the Editorial Board
of the OED, not with me... There is no foundation in usage or logic for
arbitrarily freezing and confining the definition of
"photograph" to Jason's definition.

Jee, I thought I deleted that post so eye could get some sleep-
You are faster than the speed of light!

Yes language is alive! Unless you are French, might as well give up trying to Freeze Frame it.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I've worked with pinhole cameras for the last 15 years, and at times I've actually had to "focus" the camera. The formulae for optimal pinhole size vs projection length assumes the subject is at photographic infinity** (i.e. the light rays are parallel). However if I choose to photograph a diorama or other still-life setting that's close to the pinhole, then the image will be noticably softer. This effect can begin to be noticed with the subject as close as 1*f in front of the pinhole, at which point the blurr effect at the film plane is 2*x what it is with a subject at photographic infinity.

The method I use to compensate for this geometrical softening effect is to use a pinhole of 1/2 the recommended diameter. I call it a "close-up pinhole". Yes, it increases the diffraction effects; but at close-in shooting distances the image-softening effects of geometric projection overwhelm any diffraction. When I chose to capture images of far-away subjects, I revert back to the recommended pinhole size.

~Joe

**I've always been amused when people say that they're focusing on subjects at infinity. Due to the inverse-square law, light rays at infinity will be attenuated to nothing. Not to mention the red shift, and all kinds of other cosmological implications.

 

[Q.G.]

But if you asked them they would probably tell you that everything seems to be in "better focus".

Yes, yes. That's exactly it. I use(d) that trick myself often.
It works the same as how stopping down a lens increases the depth of field.

That doesn't say anything about how pinholes work, and how it is different from a lens, though.