What is a photograph ?

[DannL]

I am sorry, but you deserve a full philosophical slap on the face for that statement! Realism and claims to truth in depictions are not at all universals, and Albertian perspective is surely not the best representation of reality. In current Western practices of art, yes, so-called "straight" photo is a potent statement of truth and accuracy in representation, but when Alberti brought up his new technique of representation with points de fuites and converging lines, not everyone got it right at first. There is a certain level of cultural entrenchment that comes with the issue of realism.

To show that I'm not a damn relativist, just compare a drawing of a cube made according to the standards of Renaissance perspective, and one made according to axonometric projection, as is used in technical drawings and blueprints. Which one is more realistic? The one that gives you an optical illusion or the one that reproduces faithfully all distances between every points?



Sure is. I'm just blockheaded enough to believe that there are some facts, also.

Uhhh, Excuse me. Why did I receive the glove to the face? Although I may be somewhat "unrefined" and definitely "assertive by any standard" by my own judgements . . . but please, a slap to the face! And a full philosophical slap at that. Por Favor, ¡Qué desgracia! Tis "not I" who continues to compare apples to oranges. An honest mistake by the way, I was actually in search of "enlightening conversation". Dabbling in dribble is not my forte. ;-) En Garde!

Cheers.

Dann

 

[firecracker]

Case in point: fiction. Stories about unicorns are not necessarily making claims to truth, neither are they a machine of brainwashing. They are make-believe, just like when you and your buddies were kid and you pretended that a box of cardboard was your space shuttle.

That's exactly my point: it's the truth to the kids' vision, not accuracy in any physical sense in the eyes of others. But when the kids' vision is perceived by the audience, it's no longer just a piece of cardboard that these kids are playing with. And I think, mhv, you're in the audience already.

I was responding to the post of "straight photography" as being the best approach to represent the reality, but I don't think it is. It's not about the method or a techinique. But that doesn't mean Ansel Adams' photos miss out the truths from the reality: They indeed seem to contain some.

It's not an either/or kind of argument. That's my point. I think you and I are saying the same thing, essentially.

 

[firecracker]

ISatire is popular because there are so many idiots like the Right Brothers trying to shove propaganda down people's throat.

I'm not aware of the group you have mentioned. But satire pieces do what conventional news reportings can't these days.

 

[Maris]

Photography is an invented word with an invented meaning. In spite of there being many ways to make pictures that superficially resemble photographs real photographs are unambiguously defined. See signature below. Original sources are decisive.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

That's exactly my point: it's the truth to the kids' vision, not accuracy in any physical sense in the eyes of others. But when the kids' vision is perceived by the audience, it's no longer just a piece of cardboard that these kids are playing with. And I think, mhv, you're in the audience already..

So were you meaning to say that if "straight" photographers weren't accountable to truth by some standard then they would be propagandist? I have a bit of a hard time understanding what it is you are exactly saying, and about what.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Uhhh, Excuse me. Why did I receive the glove to the face? Although I may be somewhat "unrefined" and definitely "assertive by any standard" by my own judgements . . . but please, a slap to the face! And a full philosophical slap at that. Por Favor, ¡Qué desgracia! Tis "not I" who continues to compare apples to oranges. An honest mistake by the way, I was actually in search of "enlighting conversation". Dabbling in dribble is not my forte. ;-) En Garde!

Cheers.

Dann

À moi, maraud! Monjoie! Saint-Denis!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

What is a photograph? Photographs are made through a lens or pinhole aperture which control the ultraviolet, visible, and/or infra-red wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (light) onto a surface sensitized to react with light in a controllable manner. The sensitized layer of this surface, (its primary sensitized constituent being metal, electronic, or other), can be the final product, or it could be the first of several steps between the initial and final images, all of which are also made with light sensitive materials. The subject or artistic interpretation rendered as a photograph is limited only by the imagination of the photographer...not by rules adopted by others.

Blah-blah-yada-yada

Murray

 

[firecracker]

So were you meaning to say that if "straight" photographers weren't accountable to truth by some standard then they would be propagandist? I have a bit of a hard time understanding what it is you are exactly saying, and about what.

I was meaning to say artists convey truths in their work, and the method of straight photography defined by the artists like Ansel Adams is not necessarily the answer to it. I just gave Ansel's name here because I still have a fresh memory of what I saw at the exhibit about a week ago.

I don't know if all the straight photographers and their students are accountable for representing the truths in their visions. That's a bit off topic, and I'm not one of them.

I think part of the comment posted by fellow APUGer Dannl, on the technique such as burning-in and dodging, implied that may be those techiniques are used too much in some particular styles of photography therefore these styles of photography don't represent truths. But to me, straight photography no different from those styles in his mind.

Meanwhile speaking of the propagandists, how about Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will"? It's a famous Nazi propaganda film, but it still conveys the truths about what that regime was all about. It has many layers of facts as well as artistic inputs of the filmmaker. Maybe we have to put art work in a historical context to examine what it is that we are looking at.

That's why it's hard or almost impossible to measure "accuracy" in one's perspective in photography. Even the new security cameras have problems with accuracy.

 

[digiconvert]

What a wonderful pace this is ... from a fairly mundane, rambling post by moi has developed a really good discussion about this art form. It has helped me see some things in a better perspective and made me more comfortable with my own efforts.
Interesting how propoganda has been discussed-it demonstrates just how IMPORTANT art is in life.
As to my original question I still believe that a photograph needs some interpretation by the person taking the image, even if it is one made with a 2Mp camera 'phone (yes I do do that for my snapshots). However I think that the attitude of 'shoot more and keep less' is slowly erroding that ideal, I just feel worried that on my College course the attitude is very prevelant and that some of those who find it harder than I do would have benefited from some 'short term pain long term gain' teaching of the basics with fully manual film cameras. That said the pressure to produce good work quickly may well have turned them off photography for good.

As for me I will keep on trying to reach the standards of my fellow APUGERS, keep enjoying my MF work, try to become a competent darkroom worker in colour and mono, get the 35mm out more often --- and save up for that Crown Graphic I have promised myself

Thanks for all the inputs !
Cheers CJB

 

[leeturner]

It's not just in photography where digital makes people lazy. I meet many people who can't spell and don't even try because the spell checker will fix it. Mental arithmetic? Why bother just use a calculator. I realised when writing out the cards for the postcard exchange that I hadn't handwritten a communication for a long time.

We live an age whereby everything is instant. People get peed off when you don't answer (or even worse don't own) a mobile phone. News is beamed into our living rooms within seconds of the event happening. Email must be replied to immediately etc. Ebay is a perfect of example. Prices are sometimes way over the top because the buyer has to have it now and won't wait for a better deal.

We can't deride people for taking digital photographs and processing them in the manner that they do. The only thing I do question is do they enjoy it or is it all a matter of the final result? The fact the the D5 guy will take a couple of hundred shots then spend 4 hours per image in front a computer in order to produce a "perfect" image just sounds too stressful. I also get the impression that these perfect images will be enjoyed briefly before moving on to the next "perfect" image. The thought of only producing 3 or 4 good prints a year would be an anathema to this mindset.
Part of photography for me is spending time by myself and enjoying that time and the environment. I played music professionally and when I didn't enjoy touring any more I stopped. That's not to say that I don't get frustrated with photography but it took me years to learn to play the piano competently and photography will be no different. It may even be that I don't have a natural ability for seeing and producing a photograph but that will certainly not lead me to fabricate an image any more than I could play a song by inputting the music note by note into a computer. Maybe that is the dissatisfaction that D5 user is experiencing. When he looks at his images is he seeing a complete image or the individual parts of his composite?

 

[roy]

Henry Peach Robinson used several negatives in his picture "Fading Away" of 1858. This technique, also used by others, ultimately led to the foundation of the "Naturalistic or Realism" movement in photography by the pictorialists. Not quite the same thing as described in the opening posting but along similar lines.

 

[steve]

Where to start? You know, when I graduated from photography school we all thought anyone using one of those new fangled cameras with a built-in meter was cheating and didn't know anything about photography.

Then came auto-focus and I almost gave up on photography as a being a serious image making medium because now you had people who couldn't be bothered to actually learn how to focus a camera making photos.

You're ranting about digital? Haaaaahhhh. Sorry, the slipperly slope's already been passed.

Talk about a "cop out for lazy" to quote a previous post = auto metering with auto focus.

The problem with the attitude is that it doesn't matter when it comes to the final image. I use auto focus cameras plus auto metering for a number of different applications and I'm damn glad it's available.

Digital does not make you lazy unless you're inherently lazy to begin with. The fallacies ascribed to digital photography speak more about the person making the claim than the medium itself.

Working digitally is as challenging as working with film when you pursue it to the fullest extent. If you don't, it's no different than working with film and dropping your film off at the nearest photo processing lab, then coming back to pick up the prints.

Wow, that's REAL photography all righty because you're using F.I.L.M.

Really, just how difficult is it to make a print? I can teach anyone to properly expose a print, and how to process it in less than 1 hour. Dipping a print through 3 chemicals and washing it is not the pinnacle of difficulty.

Can I teach a person to see a unique image? No. Can I teach a person to make an expressive print of an image? No. That holds true whether it is done with film or digitally.

Sour grapes? Just sounds like you're resentful. Do you feel you're in competition with this person for some reason?

At a personal level, photography is a lot like golf. The only person you're playing against is yourself regardless of the golf course. If I were you, I'd quit worrying about what other people do and how they do it; and just try to make the best images you can.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

Digital does not make you lazy unless you're inherently lazy to begin with. The fallacies ascribed to digital photography speak more about the person making the claim than the medium itself.

Wow, sweet post. I couldn't agree more.

 

[DannL]

. . .
I think part of the comment posted by fellow APUGer Dannl, on the technique such as burning-in and dodging, implied that . . . .

Thanks for the plug, I appreciate all the free advertising I can get. But I don't recall writing on the subject of burning-in and dodging. It must have been "my other self". Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is the downside of being famous. You are accused of saying and doing some fairly fantastical things. But that's cool. I'll just have to sleep on it and then deal with it in the morning. LOL!

On the different note . . . I wonder if Ansel, when he started consulting for Polaroid, said . . . Polaroids suck, they're for the lazy people. No more developing, no more darkrooms, handheld cameras, NO WAY!. This will ruin the art!

 

[steve]

I can tell when I'm looking at a digital image.

No, you can't if the image has been produced correctly unless you want to use a 10X loupe on the print's surface.

The human eye can resolve 120 megapixels.

Can you give me the source for this?

I don't keep up with digital technology, but I'm guessing the high end cameras record 20 megapixels.

More like 40 mp for medium format and more for large format.

I think at some level my eye sees pixellation, even though it's not obvious.

Really? How? What level would that be?

Then there are the shades of gray. Digital records a discrete number of shades per "photosite" on the image sensor.

No, that's not how a sensor works. Each pixel site records only ONE signal level which can be used to produce a color level that can equate to a shade of grey. If the image is recorded as a 16 bit image there are about 65,000 shades of grey. The eye can discriminate a little over 256 individual shades of grey - do you really think you can see the difference in 65,000?

Our eyes are used to seeing more variation. Film's shades are continuous, not discrete, more like what the eye sees.

Not really, look closely at a B&W print. Use a 10x loupe or grainy film. There's only oxidized silver (black) and paper base white. There are NO shades of grey - it's all an illusion.

Look closely at a color print - you see dye cloud blobs in cyan, magenta, and yellow. So, no photo print is actually continuous tone - they all simulate it.

Film capture and traditional printing, when done well, can make the image feel three-dimensional. That's what digital lacks, and that the main reason why I shoot film.

Then you've never seen a really well done digital print. While different than a wet darkroom print, digital prints can be every bit as 3D.

What you've seen is apparently the low end home inkjet printers and is not indicative of the capabilities of fine digital printing. Believe me, learning to get everything out of the digital print process is exacting, challenging, and not as easily done as you imagine.

I see many, many bad digital prints of all types including some done by "professional" print services. But, I've also seen hundreds if not thousands of examples of bad wet darkroom work - so, I'm not surprised.

When digital is done well it can be really, really, good. When it's not - it sucks badly. But, then the same can be said of traditional photo process printed images.

 

[firecracker]

Thanks for the plug, I appreciate all the free advertising I can get. But I don't recall writing on the subject of burning-in and dodging. It must have been "my other self". Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is the downside of being famous. You are accused of saying and doing some fairly fantastical things. But that's cool. I'll just have to sleep on it and then deal with it in the morning. LOL

That's not what you said exactly, but you mentioned something about straight photography, that I thought that had to do with the techinique.

What did you mean in your second post?

Artists very rarely paint the truth, and most artists know it. It's nearly impossible to find artist that doesn't take liberties with their subject. Removing a wrinkle here, a blemish there, a scare from there, add a wonderful backdrop there and some clouds there, fix that shadow. In fact I think "straight photography" is the best anyone can do to represent the truth. Normally I would say "whatever" when confronted with the apples/oranges chicken/egg thing. But it's still fun to talk about it. With regard to Giovanni, I trust he painted to please his benefactor and not the painter, as do most artists.

Alright, give me some free advertising, too.

 

[firecracker]

As to my original question I still believe that a photograph needs some interpretation by the person taking the image, even if it is one made with a 2Mp camera 'phone (yes I do do that for my snapshots). However I think that the attitude of 'shoot more and keep less' is slowly erroding that ideal, I just feel worried that on my College course the attitude is very prevelant and that some of those who find it harder than I do would have benefited from some 'short term pain long term gain' teaching of the basics with fully manual film cameras. That said the pressure to produce good work quickly may well have turned them off photography for good.

You should travel abroad with a camera and ask the same question you're asking yourself right now. That might give you a hint.

Having a camera is a privilege in life, and understanding how to use it for your vision is not so easily achived by many people out there. No matter how many digital cameras and camera phones they consume, I have a strong feeling that this won't change so soon.

 

[digiconvert]

You should travel abroad with a camera and ask the same question you're asking yourself right now. That might give you a hint.

Having a camera is a privilege in life, ..............

WOW that put me back in my box . Thanks for that perspective, here's me with the UNICEF subscription, Fairtrade coffee in the kitchen etc. etc. and I'm whining on because my photos are not perfect and the world's going to hell in a handcart with the onset of digital. Thank whichever God you are comfortable with that we can worry about such things and not about where the food is coming from !

THANK YOU Firecracker

 

[firecracker]

WOW that put me back in my box . Thanks for that perspective, here's me with the UNICEF subscription, Fairtrade coffee in the kitchen etc. etc. and I'm whining on because my photos are not perfect and the world's going to hell in a handcart with the onset of digital. Thank whichever God you are comfortable with that we can worry about such things and not about where the food is coming from !

THANK YOU Firecracker

Just to be able to use film is a real privilege. I'm serious.

And no god is on my side.

 

[DannL]

What did you mean in your second post?

Artists very rarely paint the truth, and most artists know it. It's nearly impossible to find artist that doesn't take liberties with their subject. Removing a wrinkle here, a blemish there, a scare from there, add a wonderful backdrop there and some clouds there, fix that shadow. In fact I think "straight photography" is the best anyone can do to represent the truth. Normally I would say "whatever" when confronted with the apples/oranges chicken/egg thing. But it's still fun to talk about it. With regard to Giovanni, I trust he painted to please his benefactor and not the painter, as do most artists.

Alright, give me some free advertising, too.

Not a problem. I will be glad to assist in any way I can. LOL! Please take everything I say “with a grain of salt”.

I can appreciate the work that went into creating any specific work. Whether it is a painting or a photograph or whatever form it takes. I also understand the labor on the part of an artist and/or photographer to create a work that will "appeal" to it's intended audience. That aside, I prefer the journalistic approach to photography. Maybe that is not the best word for it, and somewhat ambiguous. But, for me a photograph "can be made" as an honest record of a specific moment in time. I feel paintings on the other hand are an artists interpretation of a specific subject. Their labor is filtered through their training, education, likes, dislikes, feelings, emotions, etc. I should know, having been raised by an artist and dabbling in that field.

Here's a tough one to get to . . . I believe Harry Mellon Rhoads was a good example of a straight shooter. Try the following link below, and you should have access to 2500 photos of what I'd consider "good honest straight photography shot from the hip". Even his "canned photography" is quite truthful.

Go to http://photoswest.org and hit SEARCH menu item on the left side. Then click the CONTINUE in the middle of the next page. On the search page type in "Harry Mellon Rhoads" on the search line and hit the SEARCH button . . .

Hey, how many more posts do I need to get my free APUG tote-bag? I don't think I can keep up this pace much longer. LOL!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Looking at the Harry Mellon Rhoads photos, his work looks like primarily newspaper journalism. While he may have striven to impart some of his own personality into the photos he took, I would argue that they are "artless". This is not to pass judgement on their quality or their historic importance. They are also very much artifacts of their time in the posing, costuming and framing of the images.

I wouldn't place any greater (or lesser) value on these photos because they are "straight" than I would on Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother (which IS manipulated- she removed the mother's hand from the lower corner of the image for the sake of composition), or a Jerry Uelsmann photo which is heavily manipulated. Both Dorothea Lange and Jerry Uelsmann tell a particular truth using their photographs, even if it isn't the "truth" you're expecting. In the Dorothea Lange case, it is an intentional emotional manipulation through the physical manipulation of the image, to get to a greater emotional truth about the dust bowl. In the Jerry Uelsmann case, he is manipulating his images to show you an internal truth, the specific quirks of his vision of the world.

Nobody gets a free Apug tote bag. You have to shoot one

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Where to start? You know, when I graduated from photography school we all thought anyone using one of those new fangled cameras with a built-in meter was cheating and didn't know anything about photography.

Then came auto-focus and I almost gave up on photography as a being a serious image making medium because now you had people who couldn't be bothered to actually learn how to focus a camera making photos.

You're ranting about digital? Haaaaahhhh. Sorry, the slipperly slope's already been passed.

Talk about a "cop out for lazy" to quote a previous post = auto metering with auto focus.

The problem with the attitude is that it doesn't matter when it comes to the final image. I use auto focus cameras plus auto metering for a number of different applications and I'm damn glad it's available.

Digital does not make you lazy unless you're inherently lazy to begin with. The fallacies ascribed to digital photography speak more about the person making the claim than the medium itself.

Working digitally is as challenging as working with film when you pursue it to the fullest extent. If you don't, it's no different than working with film and dropping your film off at the nearest photo processing lab, then coming back to pick up the prints.

Wow, that's REAL photography all righty because you're using F.I.L.M.

Really, just how difficult is it to make a print? I can teach anyone to properly expose a print, and how to process it in less than 1 hour. Dipping a print through 3 chemicals and washing it is not the pinnacle of difficulty.

Can I teach a person to see a unique image? No. Can I teach a person to make an expressive print of an image? No. That holds true whether it is done with film or digitally.

Sour grapes? Just sounds like you're resentful. Do you feel you're in competition with this person for some reason?

At a personal level, photography is a lot like golf. The only person you're playing against is yourself regardless of the golf course. If I were you, I'd quit worrying about what other people do and how they do it; and just try to make the best images you can.

Well now, that was worth reading again! I don't know though Steve...if you keep up this blistering pace of two posts a day you just might hit 1000 by 2008

Murray

 

[firecracker]

But, for me a photograph "can be made" as an honest record of a specific moment in time. I feel paintings on the other hand are an artists interpretation of a specific subject. Their labor is filtered through their training, education, likes, dislikes, feelings, emotions, etc. I should know, having been raised by an artist and dabbling in that field.

So, you mean artists' interpretations of specific subjects are not nearly as honest as the honest records of specific times created by photographs?

I think it's not the medium they use, but how they express their experiences. But just by looking at someone's photographs without reading any text, I cannot examine how honestly they are taken. I can only guess and/or hope they are, though.

About Harry Mellon Rhoads photos, I'm led to think that having the persons pose in front of a camera in 1910 must have been quite a labor for the photographer as well as the subjects. Those indoor shots are nice, but I wonder how still the those subjects had to be. And making photographic prints from that, may have been...

To me, printing photographs on paper is much like painting images on canvas as I work on the same negs and subjects repeatedly. I actually started darkroom photography with drawing and oil painting at the same time back in college. I had almost no prior skill or traning in any of them at that time, so it was a fresh start for me, and I learned what you mean by the labors that are required to do in the process.

Anyway thanks for your response and the link for the photographs. I enjoyed them very much.

 

[Christopher Colley]

Whether it is a digital capture device in my hand or a 4x5 in a box at my feet I still see the same photograph in my minds eye before looking through a view finder or at groundglass...

A photograph is what I see in that moment before the camera equipment is even a part of the equation. When my eye see's something and my mind thinks "that would make a great photo!", after seeing that photograph in my minds eye I then know what focal length I need for the idea, what emulsion would be best or if it might be more appropriate to work digitally..

I make the same photographs no matter what system I use. My mind generally is interested in seeing the same things as photographs whether I have a 4x10 pinhole camera with me, a plastic holga, a 35mm camera, a 4x5 monorail or no camera at all!

If the fellow mentioned in the first post of this thread saw a different sky with the foreground what is wrong with that?

BUT what's the point in shooting a scene then making it better with part of another scene.

The point is they can make a photograph exactly how it was invisioned by them. I believe this is called photography whether it is more than one photograph or not.. it was still created with photographs. Surely you arent proposing that we NOT make our photographs (what we invision them to be) better if we could!

I need to have thought about it, considered the exposure, differential focus, metering etc. etc.

Does this mean to imply the photographer who spent about 4 hours working on making a convincing print with a sky from a seperate photograph didnt have thought about the work he was creating?

 

[Woolliscroft]

There seems to be a tendency amongst some contributors to imply that if a photograph does not depict reality, it cannot be art. Art can, but actually seldom does depict reality and as someone else said photomontage is hardly new. I have been putting different skies on pictures for decades, because I thought they looked better, whilst most of us use dark room manipulation to some degree. To say that making changes in either the darkroom or a computer stops a picture being art is about as logical as saying that putting paint on canvas stops it being art.

It is true that a lot of digi users use even very advanced cameras as point and shoots, with auto everything, but so do many users of modern film cameras. I only use digital cameras rarely, but when I do, I use them like my old manual film cameras, with all the automation switched off, and take much the same pictorial approach. I hate the fact that I don't have a depth of field scale, because this is something I normally use all the time, but then, few AF film cameras have them these days, which is why I tend to use 1970's/80's cameras.

I use film because I prefer it, but I have never thought that being pro analogue means that I have to be anti digital, or deny it the possibility of it rising to art. If I liked using oil paints, I wouldn't feel that water colours couldn't be art. They just wouldn't be my art.

David.