What is your definition of photography ?

[dpurdy]

Graphically capturing photons.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not using FauxTow$hop to have sharks jumping out of water to eat a helicopter.

 

[wiltw]

Drawing with light. Way too broad, granted, and not too original, either.

Not 'too broad'. The definition should not necessarily be overly restrictive, either. That way, when photographic plates evolve to film which evolves to digital sensor, it can still be called 'photography'.

• 'photography' captures a scene
• A lens is a key element to capture of a scene, and a pinhole does act like a glass or plastic lens in the deflection of light rays that come thru the tiny opening
• The photosensitive medium is also a key element for capture of a scene.

nclusion of 'a camera' is NOT necessary, as one could record a photograph in any darkened space. Imagine a space capsule with lens part of the outer shell, and the photosensitive medium is a plate on the interior of the capsule mounted opposite the location of the lens, so that the capsule itself behaves like a camera body would.

That, I feel, is the reduction of 'photography' down to the most basic, and not overly restrictive, definition.
I

 

[Vaughn]

"Capturing a scene", for my definition is only a part of photography. Using light to draw directly onto photopaper, for example. No scene, no camera, no lens, no film, yet drawing on paper with light occurs.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

"Capturing a scene", for my definition is only a part of photography. Using light to draw directly onto photopaper, for example. No scene, no camera, no lens, no film, yet drawing on paper with light occurs.

For that matter, to draw on paper (or film), one doesn't strictly need light. A fogging chemical agent like dithionite/thiourea/thiourea dioxide can be used in place of light.

 

[Vaughn]

To me, that would be drawing with chemicals rather than light, but I have seen it used in conjunction with photographic methods of reproduction.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Sooooo.... do I get the popcorn now, or is someone else bringing it?

 

[eddie]

I do these without a camera, but with film, a lens at the enlarging stage, and oil paints.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I do these without a camera, but with film, a lens at the enlarging stage, and oil paints.
View attachment 269975

Really nice! Size?

 

[eddie]

Really nice! Size?

I do an 8x10 for scanning purposes, and 16x20/20x24/26x30/and 32x40 framed sizes.

 

[Craig75]

I do these without a camera, but with film, a lens at the enlarging stage, and oil paints.
View attachment 269975

Very cool.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I do an 8x10 for scanning purposes, and 16x20/20x24/26x30/and 32x40 framed sizes.

I'll bet they look great in person!

 

[eddie]

I'll bet they look great in person!

The ones that don't never see the light of day.
There are others done similarly in the Gallery. I'm working on more for the Cityscape Series.

 

[wiltw]

"Capturing a scene", for my definition is only a part of photography. Using light to draw directly onto photopaper, for example. No scene, no camera, no lens, no film, yet drawing on paper with light occurs.

That, to me, is a dividing point...to me that is more of a non-photographic 'graphic art'. Our opinions differ, no need for a debate on this point.

My view is based on the fact that the camera obscura had an image of the scene projected upside down, then optics were invented to transmit a higher quality image , then photosensitive materials iwere developed n the 1700's, then the camera obscura was used to record the image on photosensitive material, and finally the camera became portable device embodied in a camera of the late 1800's. The rest is evolutionary advancements to the fundamental concept.

I do not find that aiming a penlight at a piece of photosensitive paper can be construed as 'photography' even though literally speaking that is what is reflected in the entymology of the word. "Would you post that on a photography forum?" is the final criteria...and stand in its defense as a 'photograph'?. I would not post an image created by penlight on photopaper and defend it.
Perhaps you have some other example in mind that meets your criteria, and I would love to see that...it might make me change my mind on the subject.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

using a mechanical and/or chemical process to form an image in response to light. That's about as broad a definition as possible.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I guess it is fun to take a definition and twist it with weasel words to distort it into the opposite of the original definition and the claim faux victory.

No salt please.

 

[BradS]

Sooooo.... do I get the popcorn now, or is someone else bringing it?

scooch over and make some room for me on the couch.

 

[Vaughn]

For that matter, to draw on paper (or film), one doesn't strictly need light. A fogging chemical agent like dithionite/thiourea/thiourea dioxide can be used in place of light.

And another thought along the same lines -- if someone were to consider 'chemograms' to not to be photographs, then are x-ray images not photographs because they are not made by light, but by x-rays, which are not considered to be light. Although using the term "visible light spectrum" seems to cry out for the existence of invisible light, which would fit x-rays well. And in reality, the x-ray film does not need to get its exposure from the x-rays, but from a fluorescent screen that is excited by the x-rays -- so light gets involved.

Does not really matter what definition someone wants to use, as long as we can communicate. It might get a little sticky with 'photo' competitions, I suppose.

 

[removed account4]

exactly!

 

[pbromaghin]

what exactly is your definition of photography?

I just like taking and making pictures. I try not to think about stuff like this too much. It ruins the fun.

 

[removed account4]

I just like taking and making pictures. I try not to think about stuff like this too much. It ruins the fun.

 

[wiltw]

And another thought along the same lines -- if someone were to consider 'chemograms' to not to be photographs, then are x-ray images not photographs because they are not made by light, but by x-rays, which are not considered to be light. Although using the term "visible light spectrum" seems to cry out for the existence of invisible light, which would fit x-rays well. And in reality, the x-ray film does not need to get its exposure from the x-rays, but from a fluorescent screen that is excited by the x-rays -- so light gets involved.

Does not really matter what definition someone wants to use, as long as we can communicate. It might get a little sticky with 'photo' competitions, I suppose.

Both visible light and low energy X-rays employ a 'Photon' to make exposure, they differ in wavelength and energy. Even higher energy photons are used in conventional radiation therapy for cancer treatments.

You are correct about use of intensifying screens that actual cause the image recorded on X-ray film. OTOH, CT scanners for checked baggage (and now also used for carryon bags) use higher intensity X-rays which do damage ordinary photographic film even without use of a scintilation agent layer!
And X-ray technology also can use electronic detectors in place of film, and these detectors do not need a scintillation layer to record an image.

 

[Vaughn]

So you agree that x-rays (and UV, infrared) are invisible light. I love the idea. Sort of like bread is cake because both are made of the same stuff, only for some reason you can't taste the cake.

 

[wiltw]

So you agree that x-rays (and UV, infrared) are invisible light. I love the idea. Sort of like bread is cake because both are made of the same stuff, only for some reason you can't taste the cake.

I am not saying the outcome isn't inherently different. Just pointing out the fact that visible light and X-rays and CT scans and radiation therapy ALL use photons.
And not all X-rays employ the use of a scintillating layer.

 

[MattKing]

So you agree that x-rays (and UV, infrared) are invisible light. I love the idea. Sort of like bread is cake because both are made of the same stuff, only for some reason you can't taste the cake.

A purported quotation from Marie Antoinette comes to mind.