"Photography IS Film"

[ReginaldSMith]

I think the problem is that you are confusing photography with art. Take painting. Painting is (roughly) applying a color pigment to surfaces. You can paint model airplanes, or houses, or the Mona Lisa. You can use brushes or spray it on or apply it in a myriad of other ways. Robots can paint cars in factories. It is all painting. Photography is like that. It is (roughly) creating images with light. It can be done in all sorts of way for all sorts of purposes. You are trying to dress up a simple concept with a lot of unnecessary baggage.

And for you, the essence of photography is what then?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Is it that no one understands the meaning of essence? Or, is it that no one believes photography has an essence? Or, is it just too annoying to be asked to think about it?

 

[faberryman]

And for you, the essence of photography is what then?

Creating images with light.

 

[jtk]

I think the problem is that you are confusing photography with art. Take painting. Painting is (roughly) applying a color pigment to surfaces. You can paint model airplanes, or houses, or the Mona Lisa. You can use brushes or spray it on or apply it in a myriad of other ways. Robots can paint cars in factories. It is all painting. Photography is like that. It is (roughly) creating images with light. It can be done in all sorts of way for all sorts of purposes. You are trying to dress up a simple concept with a lot of unnecessary baggage.

Yes. Photography suggests meditation (e.g. Zen meditation) to some. That would be non-verbal. Zen masters sometimes strike students (a "kwat") who obstruct their own awareness with words, as opposed to seeing and hearing.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Creating images with light.

Thank you faberryman.
I think of that as the purely physical viewpoint. That so far is the dominant view here.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Yes. Photography suggests meditation (e.g. Zen meditation) to some. That would be non-verbal. Zen masters sometimes strike students (a "kwat") who obstruct their own awareness with words, as opposed to seeing and hearing.

But this is not a Zen session, and rather than meditating we are engaged in fleshing out an idea with language. I think that is pretty obvious, no? Heck, even faberryman has contributed to the question.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

"The essence of photography is the power to change minds." - - ReginaldSMith

When this power is lost, photography becomes meaningless. And that meaningless activity would deserve a new name so as not to be confused with what had gone before.

Of course I don't mean every photograph must change minds, I mean photography writ large. When people no longer trust photography, or there is so much that people just ignore it, it devalues into just more cultural noise. Maybe it has already happened?

 

[jtk]

But this is not a Zen session, and rather than meditating we are engaged in fleshing out an idea with language. I think that is pretty obvious, no? Heck, even faberryman has contributed to the question.

I don't think you're "engaged in fleshing out an idea" because you've not attempted to express any idea. Faberryman's post is fine as far as it goes, but you've rejected that kind of thinking repeatedly.

Ideas aren't mere words: That explains your dilemma.

 

[faberryman]

"The essence of photography is the power to change minds." - - ReginaldSMith

When this power is lost, photography becomes meaningless. And that meaningless activity would deserve a new name so as not to be confused with what had gone before.

Of course I don't mean every photograph must change minds, I mean photography writ large. When people no longer trust photography, or there is so much that people just ignore it, it devalues into just more cultural noise. Maybe it has already happened?

I think you have hijacked the term photography.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I don't think you're "engaged in fleshing out an idea" because you've not attempted to express any idea

Really?

I didn't count, but I am sure at least a dozen posts recently enticed people to answer the question, "what is the essence of photography."
It looks to me like your main purpose is a meta argument to simply combat the idea anyone should ask the question!

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I think you have hijacked the term photography.

In my world subjective expression isn't hijacking. Is Robert Frank hijacking the term photography in this famous quote: "Black and white are the colors of photography. To me they symbolize the alternatives of hope and despair to which mankind is forever subjected." - Robert Frank

This hijacking claim is reflective of the common belief that photography is a medium with no particular animating force, like a human brain. It's just a set of physics principles involving physical phenomenon.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

For me, the essence of "photography" is the creation of images directly with light. It is that direct connection between subject and image which makes photography more or less unique among artforms.

Thanks for the answer!

I'd like to understand your meaning a little more clearly. The direct connection you refer to is the "subject to the image"? Like a tree to the image of the tree? You're not referring to your connection to either thing, right?

 

[faberryman]

Thanks for the answer!

I'd like to understand your meaning a little more clearly. The direct connection you refer to is the "subject to the image"? Like a tree to the image of the tree? You're not referring to your connection to either thing, right?

I think he is talking about film, paper, and chemistry, intending to exclude digital.

 

[faberryman]

Just to be clear, I'm only attempting to get at a fundamental essence of photography. This says nothing about art, creativity etc., and is not meant to diminish digital/hybrid photography (to use the term colloquially) relative to the non-digital process. It's just that I feel like I need to define the word photography precisely in order to then talk about the essence of the artform.

So we have gone from "the essence of photography" to "the essence of the artform", or were we always talking about "the essence of photography as an artform". I am unclear on the scope of the discussion.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Correct. I'm not referring to the photographer's connection to either thing.

Ok, thanks. I'll put another check mark in the column of "just physics."

The pattern is getting a bit clearer. So far just anecdotally, but the 21st century versus the 20th century view of photography is changing from an idealized human process to a simplified objective physical process like "rust." e.g. Machines produce photography. It maps perfectly to my sense that the world will be awash in mechanistic images with "no particular origin" and no other purpose than filling the dead air between TV and Facebook with commercials - essentially.

This corresponds a little to the Youtube search results for "photography is dead."

 

[faberryman]

The pattern is getting a bit clearer. So far just anecdotally, but the 21st century versus the 20th century view of photography is changing from an idealized human process to a simplified objective physical process like "rust." e.g. Machines produce photography. It maps perfectly to my sense that the world will be awash in mechanistic images with "no particular origin" and no other purpose than filling the dead air between TV and Facebook with commercials - essentially.

People can use photography (as an objective physical process) for all sorts of purposes. You are confusing the thing itself with the purpose for which it is being used. It's as if you are taking a word, dressing it up, and then undressing it, and saying undressed it has lost its essence, when in fact the word itself hasn't changed. Metaphysics aside, it is a shell game. You are also arguing that the word photography can have only one meaning. We can use the word writing to mean both the letters on a page and literature without issue. Context matters.

 

[michr]

I think he is talking about film, paper, and chemistry, intending to exclude digital.

That's what I see a lot in these threads. They pick whatever obtuse reasoning they can in order to tease out the result that only analog processes could possibly be photography. They act like the latent image is more real than the charge on a sensor, as if expose, develop, expose through the negative, and develop isn't just as indirect as importing your SD card contents into Lightroom.

This is really a very tiny group of people who can't be convinced, and APUG was one of the few places I encountered them. Are there still people pining for the days of hot lead typesetting and sneer when someone mentions printing something from their inkjet printer? Maybe, and also just as irrelevant to the present.

People have been calling digital photography "photography" for at least 20 years now. It's pretty much set in stone, and a generation is growing up that has known nothing different. (edit) So changing people's mind on this matter is futile.

If you view photography from the perspective of the role it plays in society, how it informs culture, drives sales, tastes and opinions, the change is a matter of degree, not kind.

 

[MattKing]

Photography in all centuries to date has been a simplified physical process - some version of "you push the button we do the rest".
That is the essence of photography.
Any refinement or enhancement of that - human spirit oriented or whatever - is just that, a refinement or enhancement. It certainly isn't photography at its core.
The absolute power and strength of photography is its flexibility, its adaptability, its almost total lack of rigidity. You can make of it almost anything you wish. It is a medium without its own inherent message. It is a shape-shifter.
Why try to reduce its power and effectiveness by trying to pin it down to a few words?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

People can use photography (as an objective physical process) for all sorts of purposes. You are confusing the thing itself with the purpose for which it is being used. It's as if you are taking a word, dressing it up, and then undressing it, and saying undressed it has lost its essence, when in fact the word itself hasn't changed.

The main answers here have been "photography is a physics phenomenon" of light and some receptor. Which is like saying the essence of a tree is wood. If people had simply noticed that light can leave a latent image on light sensitive material and remarked, "there's an interesting physical process", we wouldn't have photographic images today. But they didn't do that. They immediately transcended the obvious physical process into something useful driven by human intentions. And they applied those intentions to such ideals as changing the world. So far then, we have physical process + human intention = idealized outcomes. All three of those terms comprise "photography" up through the 20th century. Since each term has many possible values, each practitioner finds its essence in alignment with their ultimate understanding. The greats of history found profound essence, others find essentially nothing but the physical properties of light on a sensor. If this were not so, each of the greats when asked about photography would have merely said, "it's light hitting a sensitive medium." Or words to that effect just describing the physical, unanimated process.

If you are totally happy with photography as a mere physics process, that's your belief and it's perfectly valid. But just know, that such wasn't the feeling of the acknowledged masters in the field. I'm simply collecting these beliefs to see how they compare to the past.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

in embracing access we've handed over ownership to those who mediate our pictures for their purposes, not ours.

What is uniquely ours is the creative experience and the consequent production of the image. The viewing is not solely ours.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Process

Process doesn't simply mean light on emulsion or light on a sensor. The process begins with a thought and ends with an image. What takes place in between involves far more than electronics or chemistry.

Great!

 

[nmp]

Correct. I'm not referring to the photographer's connection to either thing. I'm talking about the direct, physical connection between subject and image. So, for me at least, it is not enough to say "creation of images with light". If we're really talking about the essence of photography on a fundamental level, that direct causative connection between subject and image must exist. Of course that means strictly speaking, for me "photography" is non-digital.

So you don't think this guy does "photography" as you define?

https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/reuters-wins-pulitzer-for-photography-of-idUSRTX5QZXT

Perhaps Pulitzer committee needs to rethink their rules.

 

[faberryman]

The main answers here have been "photography is a physics phenomenon" of light and some receptor. Which is like saying the essence of a tree is wood. If people had simply noticed that light can leave a latent image on light sensitive material and remarked, "there's an interesting physical process", we wouldn't have photographic images today. But they didn't do that. They immediately transcended the obvious physical process into something useful driven by human intentions. And they applied those intentions to such ideals as changing the world. So far then, we have physical process + human intention = idealized outcomes. All three of those terms comprise "photography" up through the 20th century. Since each term has many possible values, each practitioner finds its essence in alignment with their ultimate understanding. The greats of history found profound essence, others find essentially nothing but the physical properties of light on a sensor. If this were not so, each of the greats when asked about photography would have merely said, "it's light hitting a sensitive medium." Or words to that effect just describing the physical, unanimated process.

If you are totally happy with photography as a mere physics process, that's your belief and it's perfectly valid. But just know, that such wasn't the feeling of the acknowledged masters in the field. I'm simply collecting these beliefs to see how they compare to the past.

In erecting your normative schema, you overlook entirely that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I think the problem is that you are confusing photography with art. Take painting. Painting is (roughly) applying a color pigment to surfaces. You can paint model airplanes, or houses, or the Mona Lisa. You can use brushes or spray it on or apply it in a myriad of other ways. Robots can paint cars in factories. It is all painting. Photography is like that. It is (roughly) creating images with light. It can be done in all sorts of way for all sorts of purposes. You are trying to dress up a simple concept with a lot of unnecessary baggage.

A nice view from some distance. It confronts a tendency to beg the issue as has been done much here. We have a lot of work to do here to drill down to the most notable factors.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Why try to reduce its power and effectiveness by trying to pin it down to a few words?

May I presume that you DO understand the answers to "what is the essence" are intended to be personal and individual? That's why I quoted famous photographers, to demonstrate that such answers varied widely.

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but it appears I must. We have dictionaries for establishing some universality of meaning in language. But dictionaries are not philosophical expositories. I'm not here trying to re-write dictionaries guys. I am asking about the human activity you regularly engage in called photography. If it has no essence to you beyond light striking a thing, then that's YOUR answer.