Label for Genuine Photographs

[nick mulder]

A computer file.

I mean the original print from that computer file ...

What is it ?

 

[JBrunner]

I mean the original print from that computer file ...

What is it ?

IMO if it is rendered with pigments it is an technically illustration, if it is rendered with light it is technically a photograph. In any case it is part of your workflow, not the final product of your labor, which is usually the point of undertaking any process.

 

[JBrunner]

Pinhole? No lens.

Since we are splitting hairs, a pinhole is a "lens", because it focuses light at a particular distance. Just doesn't have glass.

 

[Q.G.]

It isn't important in the least, simply the actual definition: "drawn with light"

The "end" as you call and dismiss it, is what we labor to create. The whole point of the endeavor. The result. All else is process.

Indeed.
And i don't care very much how the markings end up on the final bit of paper (or plastic).

I doubt Fox Talbot or Niepce would consider depositing pigment on a substrate in a mechanical fashion drawing with light. I do think they would be fascinated with the process.

You're so focused on that end thing that you no longer see that that drawing with light thing is how it all begins?
If you want to see a photograph, ask about how something started. Not how somethng ended up.

I do know definitely from long experience that you are always right, so I'll leave it at that, and perhaps peruse your further gyrations around the definition if I feel inclined to do so. Enjoy.

Thanks.

 

[Q.G.]

Since we are splitting hairs, a pinhole is a "lens", because it focuses light at a particular distance. Just doesn't have glass.

While we are splitting hairs: a pinhole does not focus light at all. (Can't, because it doesn't have that glass.)
It just restricts the angle of view rather seriously.

 

[JBrunner]

While we are splitting hairs: a pinhole does not focus light at all. (Can't, because it doesn't have that glass.)
It just restricts the angle of view rather seriously.

A pinhole restricts the size of the circles of confusion, so if you are talking about points of light, yes that angle is restricted, and that is how it focuses the light. Depth of field is infinite. The pinhole is absolutely functioning as a lens. Your contention is that a lens must be made of glass? That's about as silly as ink making a photograph. In any case, you are of course, right.

 

[Maris]

You're so focused on that end thing that you no longer see that that drawing with light thing is how it all begins?
If you want to see a photograph, ask about how something started. Not how somethng ended up.

Q.G. in his reply to J.Brunner has certainly identified an important concept about when a photograph "happens". If I understand Q.G. correctly any picture making sequence that starts with an image hitting a sensor will yield photographs. The distance from the initial image/sensor event is immaterial, the number of intervening steps unimportant, and the physical composition of the final picture doesn't count either. It is literally possible to make photographs by writing with light with pigment; so it seems.

There is a difficulty with the "ask about how something started" approach and that difficulty is that all pictures, not just photographs, start the same way. Back in 1503 Leonardo da Vinci first set eyes on Lisa del Giocondo and her optical image landed on his multi-element image sensor, alias retina. But the Mona Lisa is not a photograph! Surely everyone considers it a painting and that on the basis of how it ended up; oil paint on panel.

It may not be illogical to declare things are photographs from the first step but it is no help in consistently distinguishing one kind of picture from another.

The J.Brunner idea of inspecting outcomes rather than beginnings can yield consistent results. If one points at a picture and asks "Is this the thing that bears picture forming marks as a consequence of it being struck by light"? a "yes" answer means "photograph" and "no" means "not photograph". The difficulty here is that most people, in normal discourse, refer to "photographs" (reproductions, print-outs, screen-lookers, for example) that aren't really photographs. And most people don't welcome being told that they are wrong.

 

[clay]

Remember in college when a bunch of people would sit around until the wee hours and come up with incredibly profound insights into the world? And then, the next morning, all that remained was a stack of empty pizza boxes and a bunch of bleary-eyed people passed out on a dirty carpet that smelled like bong water?

I get the feeling this thread has the same endpoint.

 

[Brian Legge]

I think we're arguing three positions -

- What are is the OP trying to differentiate?
- What is the definition of photograph?
- What does genuine mean?

I understand that part of the intent here is to create a label with its own meaning. That may be possible, but is a bunch of work as 'photograph' is already a commonly used and understood word. It is much harder to redefine a commonly used word than to generate a new label. Genuine is largely context free, except the opposite is generally 'fraudulent', which carries its own meaning.

If anything, the common definition of photograph to the average person is 'what a still camera create'. Realigning that definition would be challenging.

It may be much more palatable for people here (and simpler to to propagate) if the name was something either more descriptive or a new word. Yes, there is a backlash to Lomography, but its marketing success is pretty obvious. As Lomo wasn't a well known name (at least in the US), there wasn't a preconceived idea to fight against.

I'd suggest picking up a copy of the book Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. It some good ideas for efforts like this.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

A pinhole restricts the size of the circles of confusion, so if you are talking about points of light, yes that angle is restricted, and that is how it focuses the light. Depth of field is infinite. The pinhole is absolutely functioning as a lens. Your contention is that a lens must be made of glass? That's about as silly as ink making a photograph. In any case, you are of course, right.

In addition, a pinhole has an aperture, a focal length, and thus an f/number. It creates a circle of confusion and has infinite depth of field as mentioned above of focus, and thus it also has infinite depth of focus. And creates optical aberrations.

Sounds like a lens to me.

 

[Ray Rogers]

In addition, a pinhole has an aperture, a focal length, and thus an f/number. It creates a circle of confusion and has infinite depth of field as mentioned above of focus, and thus it also has infinite depth of focus. And creates optical aberrations.

Sounds like a lens to me.

Yes... and I thought I recall hearing they had a quartz lens for UV.
If that is too close very cheap cameras have plastic lenses... and I have two lenses in my head... not made of glass.

 

[Q.G.]

A pinhole restricts the size of the circles of confusion, so if you are talking about points of light, yes that angle is restricted, and that is how it focuses the light. Depth of field is infinite. The pinhole is absolutely functioning as a lens. Your contention is that a lens must be made of glass? That's about as silly as ink making a photograph. In any case, you are of course, right.

A pinhole does not focus light at all. It does not function like a lens.

A lens collects diverging rays of light, changes their direction i.e. turns the diverging beam of light coming from a point on your subject into a converging beam of light, coming together again in a point (ideally) in the plane of focus. Where that point is, where on film it lands, depends on the direction the rays are coming from, i.e. the light coming from the subject is mapped, by the bending action of the glass, into an image that has the same geometry (ideally) as the subject.
It does that best the bigger it is.

A pinhole does nothing of the sort. It cannot do anything like it.

A pinhole is a window.
Imagine you sitting a few meters behind a wide window, with a row of trees outside. At the distance you are from the window, you can see three.
To see the tree to the right of the rightmost tree you can see, you have to move to the left. To see the one to the left of the leftmost tree you can see, you have to move to the right.
The smaller the window, the more you have to move to be able to take in the scene.
That's how a pinhole works: it restricts the bit of the subject each bit of the film sees, mapping every single point (ideally) of the scene to a single point on the film from where it is visible through the tiny peep hole.
It does that best the smaller it is. Which is a problem (and why pinholes aren't as popular as lenses), because thoughthe principle 'works' you get a truck load of diffraction and interference that messes up the theory. Not to mention the lengthy exposures needed if you would want an image of approximately the same resolving power (assuming there is no diffraction) a lens offers.

Using a pinhole, there is no plane of focus. No focussing distance nor fixed hole to film distance. No focus at all, in fact. No "f-stop".
All the presumed lens faults it has (like diffraction) are in fact hole faults (a lens has a hole too, remember). All other lenslike attributes, like 'speed', are that too.

A pinhole works nothing like a lens at all.



I can't believe i had to explain that...

 

[Domenico Foschi]

Since we are splitting hairs, a pinhole is a "lens", because it focuses light at a particular distance. Just doesn't have glass.

How can a hole be a lens? A hole it's not even an object. in a sense it doesn't even exist. It's space.

 

[Rudeofus]

Using a pinhole, there is no plane of focus. No focussing distance nor fixed hole to film distance. No focus at all, in fact. No "f-stop".

The CoC of a pin hole is comparable to the hole diameter only if the incoming light rays are nearly parallel. As soon as your subject comes closer, your CoC gets larger. If object distance from the pin hole is equal to the distance between pin hole and film plane, your CoC has already doubled. You can't refocus a pin hole, but it does have a subject distance of minimal CoC: infinity.

I also wonder why a pin hole shouldn't have an f-stop. Given the reasoning outlined above, you even have a depth of field for given CoC-Limits, and yes, for larger pin hole diameters you get shorter DOF.

How can a hole be a lens? A hole it's not even an object. in a sense it doesn't even exist. It's space.

It becomes an object because of its boundary. Its the fact that it is surrounded by intransparent matter that creates its optical properties.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I like your style, mister.

But when you drill the pinhole, you actually drill a round edge. Which exists.

How can a hole be a lens? A hole it's not even an object. in a sense it doesn't even exist. It's space.

 

[JBrunner]

You see it doesn't act as a lens at all. It focuses light using magic. I can't believe I have to explain that.

 

[markbarendt]

... I believe that a photograph in the strictest sense is a physical artifact created by light on a light sensitive surface.

I agree completely.

A photograph is a thing, not a workflow, interpretation, or concept.

I agree completely.

An inkjet is an illustration, because it is an artifact made from ink and paper. Indeed an inkjet printer will make an illustration of anything you send it. That's what the thing does. It's very simple, can't be argued except obtusely, for all the harrumphing around doesn't change the physical properties of the things, which anybody can witness, unless they are so vested in validation that they deny actual physical reality. I'll say it again, it's not how, it's what.

I agree completely.

---------------------

The problem we face in using JBrunner's definition is simply that the word photography has already been bastardized by the world around us.

The world around us doesn't much care as long as the kids look good on the paper or the net or the cell phone; that's sad but real.

Can we reclaim exclusive use of the word photography for ourselves? Somehow I doubt it.

---------------------------

The option we are probably left with is a prefix, i.e. traditional, analog, film, found, straight, pictorialist, or Ferrotype photography.

The big problem I have with the "Genuine" prefix, as suggested by the genuine photography.org group is that it is a bastardization too. That definition of genuine photography is no more genuine than any other form of photography.

The reach of the "genuine" prefix is too great because, despite the protests by the genuinephotography.org group, the word "genuine" can't be redefined for the world by any statement on their website.

So, is it worthwhile trying to define our genres (the subset of the world's definition of photography that we fit in)?

Sure. Personally I want people to know that shooting film and using a wet darkroom has real benefits. This is pure selfishness on my part. It is what I like to use and I need Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji's film divisions to keep making the materials I need. I'm willing to "evangelize" for this.

I'd love to use JBrunner's definition to define "genuine photography", it is right for me.

Does it being "right for me" really matter to the world?

 

[Edward_S]

I suggest that we call a lens that bends rays of light by the process of refraction a "Genuine Lens". In fact, I've invented a label for it .

I'm not convinced that the question of photographing a digital composite has been fully addressed. It might indeed be possible to make a photograph of the composite and an inkjet print of the composite appear so similar as to be indistinguishable, in which case the concept of "Genuine Photograph" becomes less meaningful except in the strict technical sense. In fact, it's quite possible to deceive the viewer with a genuine photograph prior to releasing the shutter; it doesn't just have to be done by manipulation afterwards. For example, items could be selectively omitted from a picture by (in)appropriate framing, or the scene could be modified by introducing optical illusions using mirrors etc. So is it not also part of the "Genuine Photograph" concept that the photographer give an honest description of what it is that they have photographed?

 

[Ray Rogers]

How can a hole be a lens? A hole it's not even an object. in a sense it doesn't even exist. It's space.

Reminds me of Yellow Submarine... and the sea of holes.

I am not a pinholeographer... but I thought they just follow the F/stop formula for whatever distance from pinhole to film they have set up and do actually calculate an F-stop value from that... and while different distances COULD be used, there are optimum values for each pin hole size.

So, Q. G., you are certainly right, a hole is not a lens, but "pin holes" are sort of used like they are... if I am not mistaken... they even have pin hole cameras with interchangable pin holes... perhaps even 3 like the lens turret for a movie camera.

Genuine Word Salad?

 

[JBrunner]

I suggest that we call a lens that bends rays of light by the process of refraction a "Genuine Lens". In fact, I've invented a label for it .

I'm not convinced that the question of photographing a digital composite has been fully addressed. It might indeed be possible to make a photograph of the composite and an inkjet print of the composite appear so similar as to be indistinguishable, in which case the concept of "Genuine Photograph" becomes less meaningful except in the strict technical sense. In fact, it's quite possible to deceive the viewer with a genuine photograph prior to releasing the shutter; it doesn't just have to be done by manipulation afterwards. For example, items could be selectively omitted from a picture by (in)appropriate framing, or the scene could be modified by introducing optical illusions using mirrors etc. So is it not also part of the "Genuine Photograph" concept that the photographer give an honest description of what it is that they have photographed?

The best of phony name brand watches might only be discernible from the original by a person who knows a lot about watches. Does the difference cease to be meaningful?

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I feel like a rubber necker, just can't help taking a peek every time this train wreck shows up in my recent posts list...

Quite entertaining and I'll be looking for the new - We Have Deemed Your Photograph Worthy - label in my next issue of National Geographic! or Lenswork? B&W? or even Aperture? Well, maybe in two months?

 

[Shawn Rahman]

When is a photograph not manipulated?

Does pulling and pushing count? Development duration and contrast control? Choice of developer and/or film to influence grain? Filters used on the lens? The choice of paper grade? Spotting? Dodging and burning? 'Alternative processes'? Etcetera.

As it is, i think this a completely unusable, because empty, concept.

+1.

 

[Ray Rogers]

But the arguing process back then was a least enjoyable. This is more like getting a root canal and waking up with the throbbing pain that just won't go away.

Yea, I think the bong water being on the floor is the problem...

 

[Ray Rogers]

The best of phony name brand watches might only be discernible from the original by a person who knows a lot about watches. Does the difference cease to be meaningful?

I think it depends.
I always want to have access to the truth.
If all I want is a nice watch then a fake is fine, were it not illegal,
but if I were a collector, I would want the one with the better provenance....

 

[Edward_S]

The best of phony name brand watches might only be discernible from the original by a person who knows a lot about watches. Does the difference cease to be meaningful?

No, not if you've paid a lot for the phony watch when you thought it was the real thing. But my point is, just because something is a "Genuine Photograph", that doesn't necessarily mean it is portraying the "truth".

Maybe I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I'll get my coat...