"Photographs" vs. "Images"

[DannL]

It appears to me the interviewee did not want to be vague. But if that is all that he/she said, vaguer may they be. Although, I've learned around here, you can call something just about anything you like. As long as you're comfortable using it in a specific manner. It seems to me a word's past usage sets the precedent regardless of the definition. If I say "I altered a photograph", I must be fully aware the phrase is vague. The "source" of the image obviously is not known. If I wanted it known that the image being altered/manipulated was a digital file, I would need to be more specific. I don't believe today's crowd is very discriminating in these matters. Nobody here will fault you for improper word usage (though I have been drawn and quartered for not doing so. grin.) Call it what you want. Be adventurous.

 

[jstraw]

Both are affected, self-conscious terms that inevitably seem to lead to pretense.

Certainly not worth a lot of hand-wringing unless you have the incredibly mistaken notion that photos by themselves are somehow "factual " -- in which case noo amount of talk will get you to change that religion.

I dunno. I think "Is what you pointed your lens at the truth?" and "Is what's depicted, what you pointed your lens at?" are two very different and distinctly relevent questions.

 

[Chuck_P]

The world around us is full of images from which photographs are made. I've seen texts on photography that refer to the "image" as that which is simply seen in the viewfinder or on the groundglass. This is just one example, but AA's "The Camera"----one chapter is devoted to "Basic Image Management".

Why must a simple concept be so perverted just because one camera photographs digitally and one photographs with film? It just seems like a non-issue.

Chuck

 

[copake_ham]

The world around us is full of images from which photographs are made. I've seen texts on photography that refer to the "image" as that which is simply seen in the viewfinder or on the groundglass. This is just one example, but AA's "The Camera"----one chapter is devoted to "Basic Image Management".

Why must a simple concept be so perverted just because one camera photographs digitally and one photographs with film? It just seems like a non-issue.

Chuck

Good point.

I don't know what the weather is like for you today is western KY - here in NYC it's been raining all day. It's so dark and dreary you might think it was April, not July.

So reading and replying to a good old semantic "non-issue" thread like this is just the thing to drag one further down the road to despair and desperation.

Jeez, I hope it's sunny tomorrow!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good point.

I don't know what the weather is like for you today is western KY - here in NYC it's been raining all day. It's so dark and dreary you might think it was April, not July.

So reading and replying to a good old semantic "non-issue" thread like this is just the thing to drag one further down the road to despair and desperation.

Jeez, I hope it's sunny tomorrow!

It is sunny, blue skies, no clouds, just like yesterday ... really boring.

Steve

 

[Chuck_P]

Good point.

I don't know what the weather is like for you today is western KY - here in NYC it's been raining all day. It's so dark and dreary you might think it was April, not July.

So reading and replying to a good old semantic "non-issue" thread like this is just the thing to drag one further down the road to despair and desperation.

Jeez, I hope it's sunny tomorrow!

Not to make you feel bad, but it has been beautiful here---sunny, low humidity and a comfortable 85 deg . I've been "imaging" scenes on the GG of my camera to " photograph" because I'm new to LF and am practicing with the development procedures.

Ok, I've poked my fun, no more for me.

Chuck

 

[bjorke]

I dunno. I think "Is what you pointed your lens at the truth?" and "Is what's depicted, what you pointed your lens at?" are two very different and distinctly relevent questions.

But what's depicted? A flower? In bloom? Past it? Happiness? Dirt?

What is depicted here? Frontal lighting? How to not avoid getting your shadow in the frame? Central Park? Scarves? Or...... ?

Sure, a lot of family snaps and driver license photos are so minimal as to be easy stand-ins for the identity of the subject -- but they're still a long way from commercial magazine work or any other part of picture-making that would get people anxious about the distinction of whether their pic was an "image" or a "photograph"

 

[Charles Webb]

Perhaps it is simply the passing of time that causes certain words to change or take on a new meaning. Through my fifty years in professional photography the term "image"
and "photograph" were interchangeable with magazine editors, artists and camera technicians. When an editor
asked for a illustration to be made with a camera he/she
said get me a shot, image, glossy, picture, photograph.
I knew exactly what they were asking for or talking about, I grabbed my "box" and went to work.

I am sorry and apologize to any one I may have offended over the years by using one of the above tainted terms concerning their "photographs". I however will most likely continue my errant ways, but I will try to avoid using any of the offending words when I write my thoughts, opinions and compliments on future posted .....duh ah..er.. a well I guess now it is "photograph, artwork or perhaps a painting with light." if done with film .....

Charlie.............................

 

[copake_ham]

But what's depicted? A flower? In bloom? Past it? Happiness? Dirt?

What is depicted here? Frontal lighting? How to not avoid getting your shadow in the frame? Central Park? Scarves? Or...... ?

Sure, a lot of family snaps and driver license photos are so minimal as to be easy stand-ins for the identity of the subject -- but they're still a long way from commercial magazine work or any other part of picture-making that would get people anxious about the distinction of whether their pic was an "image" or a "photograph"

Hmmm...looks more like Morningside Park - probably taken around 1964?

Definitely not CP - the proximity of the fence on the left to the apartment buildings on the right seems more Morningside to my perspective. Taken right at the top near Morningside Drive - where it was "safe" then and really expensive to live now!

Cute "sixties" type scene - must have been before the Columbia riots in '68 over the gymnasium issue.

[Oh, the places we've been, the things we have seen. ]

EDIT: Oh, the shadow is kind of interesting - why oh why oh why oh - why did the photog come from Ohio? Must have been for the Columbia Univ. newspaper!

 

[bjorke]

Hmmm...looks more like Morningside Park - probably taken around 1964?

The contact sheet is available for review in the Winogrand archive.

Every viewer brings their own eye. It looks like the CP zoo to me but I never spent time in Morningside. No doubt there are some people who look at this picture, breathe a heavy sigh, shake their heads, and say something like "that's the way we were in those days... look at Mike, he looks SO young...."

IMO the tension between photography's seeming objectivity and its multifaceted interpretations are a great part of what makes it interesting. Time is sliced and stretched, space and color collapsed, sound and smell erased and still our eyes have the audacity to call this "real" even as we can't help but shuffle every pic we see through a vast internal deck of meanings, interpreting and categorizing faster than we know.



BTW, to people who worry about Faith Hill being retouched -- would you also prefer that she not wear makeup?

 

[jstraw]

But what's depicted? A flower? In bloom? Past it? Happiness? Dirt?

What is depicted here? Frontal lighting? How to not avoid getting your shadow in the frame? Central Park? Scarves? Or...... ?

Sure, a lot of family snaps and driver license photos are so minimal as to be easy stand-ins for the identity of the subject -- but they're still a long way from commercial magazine work or any other part of picture-making that would get people anxious about the distinction of whether their pic was an "image" or a "photograph"

The Winogrand is a perfect choice. When I say "depicted" I mean simply, that which is seen within the two dimensions and I have no reason to believe that what is depicted is anything other than what the lens was pointed toward. Now, is what's in the photograph true? This picture beautifully illustrates that this is no more certain in cases where the image was not altered after the taking. Even if one is certain that it's unaltered, is it documentary or masquerading as documentary? And in either case, as you rightly suggest...is it read based solely on its content or is it read through our own filters? Does the content manipulate our apprehension of it or de we manipulate the content with our minds? Could it be all of or none of the above?

Even Winogrand's shadow, while "real," could be a lie. Imagine it is. What function could that lie serve?

 

[Donald Miller]

Well, I will say that I would rather any woman wear makeup and if the sensibilities of someone is offended because of a photo retouch than I encourage you to wake up to my most recent ex-wife in the morning.

 

[jstraw]

Well, I will say that I would rather any woman wear makeup and if the sensibilities of someone is offended because of a photo retouch than I encourage you to wake up to my most recent ex-wife in the morning.

You mean let her stay the whole night?

 

[Donald Miller]

You mean let her stay the whole night?

I said "ex" didn't I?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

*Yawn*

So if anyone really feels like discussing the epistemology of photograph, I'd like them to read the following paper:
http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/AME/longphotos.pdf

And then maybe we would have something less silly to talk about.

 

[bruce terry]

*Yawn*

So if anyone really feels like discussing the epistemology of photograph, I'd like them to read the following paper:
http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/AME/longphotos.pdf

And then maybe we would have something less silly to talk about.

Good Lord, mhv, I don't know about you, but Cohen and Meskin really do clear things up!!

Seems a proper photograph uniquely provides "egocentric spatial information about the object", whereas a painting does not, and that is the difference between the two. But then they started epistemologically blathering about the location of the depictum (which all this time I thought was in the neighborhood of my large intestine) and allocentric location (which I thought was having one's head up one's ass) and seeing doxastically ( which sounds rather dirty) and exactly where on the earth's surface you might be looking at your grandmothers' photograph and on and on and by the end of the 19th page I was no smarter, but a lot more sillier.

So your suggestion didn't work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

:munch: :munch: :munch: :munch: :munch: :munch: :munch: :munch: :munch: :munch:

Steve

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Good Lord, mhv, I don't know about you, but Cohen and Meskin really do clear things up!!

Seems a proper photograph uniquely provides "egocentric spatial information about the object", whereas a painting does not, and that is the difference between the two. But then they started epistemologically blathering about the location of the depictum (which all this time I thought was in the neighborhood of my large intestine) and allocentric location (which I thought was having one's head up one's ass) and seeing doxastically ( which sounds rather dirty) and exactly where on the earth's surface you might be looking at your grandmothers' photograph and on and on and by the end of the 19th page I was no smarter, but a lot more sillier.

So your suggestion didn't work.

Too bad. It's not actual rubbish when you decipher the greek roots.

The point is this: people believe wrongly that a photograph has a special relationship to what it depicts. We often think that a photo gives essentially true information about its subject, and more precisely that it is "transparent" in the sense that it is an extension of our vision. We also believe that the photograph gives information about its subject that is much superior to a drawing or a painting.

The authors make a proper distinction between devices that actually extend your vision, like a telescope, and those that do not, like a photo. The difference lies maintaining the spatial relationship between yourself and the depicted subject. For instance, if you use binoculars and move yourself to the left, you will see in them what's more to the left. That's a real transparent system. That is one in which you see through, in which you are really looking at the thing itself.

In contrast, when you move away from a photograph, or sideways, you are not changing your relationship to the depicted object (yes, that's the depictum, not the rectum). In other words, you are just looking at a plain old picture that gives you no superior insight into the world, the way a telescope can. So this is not a transparent system, and there is no special epistemological relationship between you and what you see.

Finally, the authors concede that generally, photographs gives you better visual information about their subject than most drawings. However, they also argue that it is absolutely possible for a drawing to give you as good an information about its subject as a photo. In other words, there are no essential differences between a drawing and a photo. Only the statistically higher probability that a photo be accurate, compared to the average drawing, so to speak.

Get it? Photo != Truth.

 

[bruce terry]

Too bad. It's not actual rubbish when you decipher the greek roots ... so to speak ... Get it? Photo! = Truth.

I can't speak for the peanut gallery but yes, mhv ... I see the Light! A photograph is, if nothing else, spatially agnostic, non-transparent and depictumly unalterable ... kind of like me, the older I get.

 

[jstraw]

The point is this: people believe wrongly that a photograph has a special relationship to what it depicts.

You're better at conclusions than I am. Where you (and the authors) draw conclusions, I still form questions. Whether such a belief is right or wrong, the belief can be used as a tool and is one source of the power of photographs, for good or ill.

Get it? Photo != Truth.

Ah...but what artifact does = Truth? Witness testimony? An expert's interpretation of the forensics? Your personal experience?

Is Truth knowable...even if you stipulate the theorhetical existance of objective truth?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You're better at conclusions than I am. Where you (and the authors) draw conclusions, I still form questions. Whether such a belief is right or wrong, the belief can be used as a tool and is one source of the power of photographs, for good or ill.

Ah...but what artifact does = Truth? Witness testimony? An expert's interpretation of the forensics? Your personal experience?

Is Truth knowable...even if you stipulate the theorhetical existance of objective truth?

Er, sorry Jstraw, I admire your socratic attitude, but I'm not so keen on the Zen mystical tone.

The question they're answering is: do photograph have an epistemological relationship to what they depict that is different from the one possessed by a drawing. Answer is: no, not essentially. Some drawings will give you as much information as a photo. In other words, a photograph is not a privileged window into the world. It just happens to be better suited to provide you with visual information about its subject.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I can't speak for the peanut gallery but yes, mhv ... I see the Light! A photograph is, if nothing else, spatially agnostic, non-transparent and depictumly unalterable ... kind of like me, the older I get.

You can't be that ignorant to make such kind of humour, and therefore I must salute you, sir!

 

[jstraw]

Some drawings will give you as much information as a photo. In other words, a photograph is not a privileged window into the world. It just happens to be better suited to provide you with visual information about its subject.

In other words? Those may be viewed as contradictory statements. If a photograph is something that some drawings will give you as much information as...how do you reconcile that with a photograph being better suited to providing visual information.

Is there no relationship between the presence of more or better visual information and an epistemological relationship between photo and subject? I'm not convinced.

As for the zen mysticism, none was intended. My question was neither socratic or rhetorical. I agree that photo != Truth. But name something that does.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

In other words? Those may be viewed as contradictory statements. If a photograph is something that some drawings will give you as much information as...how do you reconcile that with a photograph being better suited to providing visual information.

Here's the keyword: "generally." Not "all the time." Not "essentially."

Is there no relationship between the presence of more or better visual information and an epistemological relationship between photo and subject? I'm not convinced.

cf. the telescope vs photo example I outlined above. Their representations stand in different epistemological relationships to their subject. Both give you visual information, but the telescope also preserves the spatial relationship between the observer and the subject, what the photograph cannot do. That is the extent of their difference.

As for the zen mysticism, none was intended. My question was neither socratic or rhetorical. I agree that photo != Truth. But name something that does.

Well, if I had to name all the things that are not truth, I am not going to bed tonight soon. You might have figured out by now that my point is that photographs are not essentially more or less truthful representations. That is the extent to which I am committed to say that they are not "true," in that they are not "the thing itself" like Bazin, Barthes, Sontag and so many others believed, and that they do not by default have more authority on claiming that they represent something that is real.

 

[Sirius Glass]

... If a photograph is something that some drawings will give you as much information as...

OT! OT! OT!
​

This thread is about photograph vs image, so where the heck did drawings come from? Are you saying that you can use drawings on digital images in PhotoShop and produce an image that is better that a photograph? What kind of mouse are you using?? :confused:

Interested readers want to know?

In the meantime how about sticking to the topic? This is not the Popular Photography site, you know. :rolleyes:

Steve