Photography- The OED Dictionary Definition

[keithwms]

Well, this very issue (is digital photography "photography" or something else) turns out to be a serious matter of debate among some critics and academics.

So it seems to me to be an apt topic for the philosophy section. I mean, I personally am not bright enough to discuss it. But I can't talk about electrons either. It does seem to me that it should be open for those that want to talk about it.

Just my opinion.

-Laura

My problem with this is the tendency for people to consign that which they do not understand, on a technical level, to ethics, morality, religion. I do think that I could effectively argue that, at least to the point of the latent image, the silicon and the silver processes are technical identical.

Of course, I am not opposed to any discussion. I am just saying that there is a technical way to approach this topic and it is very rich in detail. I would not expect the OED to be able to represent this completely. An encyclopedia, perhaps... but I don't see how to capture it all in one dictionary-style definition. I mean, we might as well look up "love" in the OED and debate that... how many different kinds of love are there... etc.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Electronic ones and zeros held within a piece of silicon are not an image. I agree with the OP that digital does not fit the true definition of photography. It better fits the definition of videography. Just because an electronic image is static does not mean it is not video.

Indeed yes.
M'lud in this country refers to digi pictures as pseudo photographs.

 

[Q.G.]

Just because an electronic image is static does not mean it is not video.

Wow! So i have been a cinematographer all along!

Do our photographs, uhm..., static motion picture films qualify for consideration by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? Maybe we can all try for an Oscar!

 

[Bob F.]

Anyone living in the UK should check their local Library - many have a deal with the OED to provide on-line access from home (mine does ). There is a list of areas that have an agreement somewhere on the OED site.

 

[John Koehrer]

Wow! So i have been a cinematographer all along!

Do our photographs, uhm..., static motion picture films qualify for consideration by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? Maybe we can all try for an Oscar!

No! You have been a static videographer unless you're using film.

 

[alexmacphee]

I've seen this consideration expressed even in distant pre-digital days, for I remember someone telling me that Polaroid pictures were not true photographs, that they were images created, not photographically, but by molecular diffusion. Words do change and adapt over time, usually through processes involving analogy. Whilst it's not an argument that has much useful going for it, as some here have already expressed, I have seen legal documents phrased in such a way that the distinction is recognised between conventional photography and digital photography, and I'm sure most here will have seen the sort of thing I mean.

At a wholly practical level, digital photography counts as photography. Dictionaries function as records, not prescriptions ; they record how language is currently used, rather than specify how it should be used. (I'll bet somebody finds a convincing exception to that.)

 

[Q.G.]

No! You have been a static videographer unless you're using film.

Which, of course, i am.
So i am a cinematographer!

Who else? Surely i'm not alone?

 

[keithwms]

It sure would be nice if we could get Oscars for photographs. Well, maybe we can just string all the 'still video images' together and make a film and at least have a shot...

All kidding aside, you people are nuts!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think the ultimate point is that an English dictionary does not define anything, it reflects usage.

The dictionary is just a snapshot - and an incomplete one, at that - of how the language happens to be used at that time. It doesn't really define anything - if enough people start using the word "photograph" to mean "a yellow curved fruit" then eventually the dictionary will reflect that.


I say "English dictionary" advisedly - compare and contrast with French and the Académie Française.

Perfectly true. There is no argument about that. I hope we all understand that.

 

[Q.G.]

Well, maybe we can just string all the 'still video images' together and make a film and at least have a shot...

No need to. "Just because an image is static [...]".

All kidding aside, you people are nuts!

That was what i was thinking.

 

[Q.G.]

Perfectly true. There is no argument about that. I hope we all understand that.

From your mouth to your ear.

 

[kennethcooke]

In general with my own beliefs the word Analogue placed after the word photography is a bit of a misnomer as I do not accept that the digital imaging process is photography. Digitization in anything is a manufacturers way of dumbing down the public into accepting inferior quality be it in cameras, music or radio broadcasts. The pre digital era offered better quality and more soul in all areas. An issue which has not gone unnoticed within high fidelity circles

 

[RalphLambrecht]

From your mouth to your ear.

There never was an argument about that, but it doesn't mean that you can make up definitions as you go to suit your case, or talk about issues without defining what you are talking about.

There is a fine line between flexibility and chaos!

 

[Q.G.]

There may be indeed.

Seeking for definitions for things we all are familiar with, pointing to dictionaries even to 'help' us know what we know, however shows a fear for chaos that is several orders of magnitude too great.

 

[Q.G.]

In general with my own beliefs the word Analogue placed after the word photography is a bit of a misnomer as I do not accept that the digital imaging process is photography. Digitization in anything is a manufacturers way of dumbing down the public into accepting inferior quality be it in cameras, music or radio broadcasts. The pre digital era offered better quality and more soul in all areas. An issue which has not gone unnoticed within high fidelity circles

To be clear, what you are saying is that you do not accept digital photography as being photography, because it has quality issues.

Which becomes a problem when the quality issues go away.
(And there is no reason to assume they cannot.)

It is very relevant though, since it highlights what is wrong with digital photography.
Something which is real, and more important than futile attempts of finding a stricter, more narrow redefiniton of something we understand, only to exclude something we may not like for non-related reasons.

What does the OED say about photography and quality?
Is using a Holga - with film in it - photography?

 

[Andy K]

To be clear, what you are saying is that you do not accept digital photography as being photography, because it has quality issues.

Which becomes a problem when the quality issues go away.
(And there is no reason to assume they cannot.)

It is very relevant though, since it highlights what is wrong with digital photography.
Something which is real, and more important than futile attempts of finding a stricter, more narrow redefiniton of something we understand, only to exclude something we may not like for non-related reasons.

What does the OED say about photography and quality?
Is using a Holga - with film in it - photography?

Such an expert... and yet nothing in the gallery to show for it? Ever heard the expression 'Talks a good game...'

 

[Q.G.]

I have something of the sort.
So what are you doing talking here? Why are you not strictly a 'no words' thread person?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

There may be indeed.

Seeking for definitions for things we all are familiar with, pointing to dictionaries even to 'help' us know what we know, however shows a fear for chaos that is several orders of magnitude too great.

Not at all, only trying to establish a baseline for discussion. I think the fear is all yours. Just relax.

 

[Q.G.]

What fear would that be, Ralph?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What fear would that be, Ralph?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.G.
Seeking for definitions for things we all are familiar with, pointing to dictionaries even to 'help' us know what we know, however shows a fear for chaos that is several orders of magnitude too great.

I'm not sure. You brought it up!

 

[Peter de Groot]

Interesting discussion. My question is always this. Why are 0 and 1's no photograph? Because you need electronic devices to see the picture? Then a latent image on film is not a photograph either. Without the need of chemicals you will never see the image.
So to me it is this. Analoque and digital is Photography. For both you need light sensitive surfaces and some technique, electronical or chemical, to make it visible to the human eye.