What is your definition of photography ?

removed account4 · Mar 20, 2021

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

most of these covers were made before photoshop existed in a computer

https://www.google.com/search?q=wee...bGFkFHZ-HBokQ_AUoAnoECB0QBA&biw=2191&bih=1242

and Hannah Hoch did this in the 19-teens
https://smarthistory.org/hannah-hoch-cut-kitchen-knife-dada-weimar-beer-belly-germany/

and jerry uelsmann did many things with enlargers
https://uelsmann.net

Henry Peach Robinson did this in the 1800s
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1537511/4._Fading_Away_Henry_Peach_Robinson.jpg

Sirius Glass said:
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.

collage has been around for a long long time,

Sirius Glass said:
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.

I specifically asked for personal definitions of photography not trolling about digital photography
2005 is a long time ago, this is phoTRIO ( film digital hybrid ) and this is the philosophy and ethics forum, no one really wants to read anti digital trolling veiled insults and name calling this isn’t the soapbox...

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Mar 20, 2021

Vaughn said:
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.

Some time ago I saw a video of a photographer presenting and talking about prints she made by developing unexposed but age fogged photo paper. Interesting abstract images. Note that neither light nor chemical fogging agent involved in the process. Patterns left on the paper are due to age fogging. Unfortunately , I'm unable to recollect her name nor able to get the link to the YouTube video.

tballphoto · Mar 20, 2021

Interestingly this thread was created right about when my 90% similar one was pulled to a different forum.

Ill shoot, photography is capturing an image. NOT using a computer program to replace every little bit of it.

tballphoto · Mar 20, 2021

jnantz said:
most of these covers were made before photoshop existed in a computer

https://www.google.com/search?q=wee...bGFkFHZ-HBokQ_AUoAnoECB0QBA&biw=2191&bih=1242

and Hannah Hoch did this in the 19-teens
https://smarthistory.org/hannah-hoch-cut-kitchen-knife-dada-weimar-beer-belly-germany/

and jerry uelsmann did many things with enlargers
https://uelsmann.net

Henry Peach Robinson did this in the 1800s
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1537511/4._Fading_Away_Henry_Peach_Robinson.jpg

collage has been around for a long long time,

I specifically asked for personal definitions of photography not trolling about digital photography
2005 is a long time ago, this is phoTRIO ( film digital hybrid ) and this is the philosophy and ethnics forum, no one really wants to read anti digital trolling veiled insults and name calling this isn’t the soapbox...

ETHICS NOT ethNics....

The thought that "anti digital" thoughts are instantly evil vieled insults or name calling is a rather bad insult for anyone who doesnt care for digital manipulation of photos. Its one thing to duplicate in a computer something simple like a dodge or burn, but what is the line when the digital manipulation gives you a "photo" of the sphinx, a hot tub, and a tropical sunset rolled into a vapid collage? What is it supposed to be a photo of?

For decades early photography was about showing us what was there. Disregarding the carefully staged photos that used props to make a person look like they were the cowboy or soldier riding into battle with a lance in hand on a nice horse.

removed account4 · Mar 20, 2021

tballphoto said:
ETHICS NOT ethNics....

thanks for realizing I had a spelling error !! FIXED it

tballphoto said:
Its one thing to duplicate in a computer something simple like a dodge or burn, but what is the line when the digital manipulation gives you a "photo" of the sphinx, a hot tub, and a tropical sunset rolled into a vapid collage? What is it supposed to be a photo of?
usually people have a reason for doing something, if someone is interested in knowing what that collage is about might be worth asking the person who made it ? I've been making photographs of things using film and emulsion for years that are not photographs of anything, they are just photographs .

For decades early photography was about showing us what was there. Disregarding the carefully staged photos that used props to make a person look like they were the cowboy or soldier riding into battle with a lance in hand on a nice horse.

IDK. photography even when it shows what was there is more about fantasy than anything else even when its about bat boy living in a cave, Sasquatch shopping at Kmart, the sphinx, a hot tub and tropical sunset too.. Fonzie jumped the shark in IDK 1979 and that's still fantasy

Sirius Glass · Mar 20, 2021

tballphoto said:
Interestingly this thread was created right about when my 90% similar one was pulled to a different forum.

Ill shoot, photography is capturing an image. NOT using a computer program to replace every little bit of it.

Things can be defined by defining what it is not. The quote does that well.

guangong · Mar 21, 2021

vedostuu said:
Maybe the big question is why do you want to separate film or digital capture?

Compared with the other methods of creating a picture, photography allows the least freedom for manipulation of the scene or landscape. From my observations, those who are committed to digital capture tend to overwork their images with Photoshop and similar programs, so more freedom, like painting or drawing. Nothing against digital capture;'use it myself for certain applications. But I feel it's just not the same as film. For overworked digital images, visit the Hasselblad web site.

removed account4 · Mar 21, 2021

guangong said:
Compared with the other methods of creating a picture, photography allows the least freedom for manipulation of the scene or landscape. From my observations, those who are committed to digital capture tend to overwork their images with Photoshop and similar programs, so more freedom, like painting or drawing. Nothing against digital capture;'use it myself for certain applications. But I feel it's just not the same as film. For overworked digital images, visit the Hasselblad web site.

I see where you are coming from guangong ,
interesting stuff!

radiant · Mar 21, 2021

guangong said:
Compared with the other methods of creating a picture, photography allows the least freedom for manipulation of the scene or landscape. From my observations, those who are committed to digital capture tend to overwork their images with Photoshop and similar programs, so more freedom, like painting or drawing. Nothing against digital capture;'use it myself for certain applications. But I feel it's just not the same as film. For overworked digital images, visit the Hasselblad web site.

You are gluing the post-processing to the digital photography itself and making assumptions. Yes, digital photography is more post-processed for sure. But is post-processing part of photography itself? I think it is separate process. And you can make great photographs with digital capture without excessive post-processing.

One can post-processing film photographs with digital platform easily also. And that is happening when the negatives are being scanned. Is that part of "photography" ?

eddie · Mar 21, 2021

tballphoto said:
Ill shoot, photography is capturing an image.

Wrong. Photography is about MAKING an image.

removed account4 · Mar 21, 2021

eddie said:
Wrong. Photography is about MAKING an image.

eddie
isn't the making for most people done by the camera or the act of using something to block light and make a stencil?
a daguerreotype is made directly in a camera, like a slide, tin/ambro/ferrotype or negative, solar graph, retina print or digital file. &c &C...
I agree some of photography is making something with what was made in-camera ( or whatever ) but making an image disregards many different things
that since 1798 were considered photographs or the pre-cursers of photographs.

Sirius Glass · Mar 21, 2021

eddie said:
Wrong. Photography is about MAKING an image.

Photography is about taking a photograph of something as it is. If one changes it to something else, that is NOT photography.

eddie · Mar 21, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
Photography is about taking a photograph of something as it is. If one changes it to something else, that is NOT photography.

Only for the uncreative.

Sirius Glass · Mar 21, 2021

eddie said:
Only for the uncreative.

One one has lost the truth of the scene, you have lost your soul. When one adds or removes major items from the frame, it is no longer photography; one might as well use a paint brush.

eddie · Mar 21, 2021

I'm glad I don't share your definition. It limits what can be done with all that photography offers.

radiant · Mar 21, 2021

eddie said:
Wrong. Photography is about MAKING an image.

Define "making" - it can mean so many things.

eddie · Mar 21, 2021

vedostuu said:
Define "making" - it can mean so many things.

Using light sensitive materials to create an image.

radiant · Mar 21, 2021

eddie said:
Using light sensitive materials to create an image.

Why does it have to be light sensitive material in particular?

edit: or do you count digital camera sensor as light sensitive material?

wiltw · Mar 21, 2021

guangong said:
Compared with the other methods of creating a picture, photography allows the least freedom for manipulation of the scene or landscape. From my observations, those who are committed to digital capture tend to overwork their images with Photoshop and similar programs, so more freedom, like painting or drawing. Nothing against digital capture;'use it myself for certain applications. But I feel it's just not the same as film. For overworked digital images, visit the Hasselblad web site.

If I follow your logic, 'photography' uses film, it apparently does not use digital sensor. What was it called, in the days of Dauggerotypes or ambrotypes and tintypes or glass plates...'photography', or not'?

eddie · Mar 21, 2021

"Photo" comes from the Greek for light.

radiant · Mar 21, 2021

eddie said:
"Photo" comes from the Greek for light.

.. aaannd? We are waiting

eddie · Mar 21, 2021

vedostuu said:
.. aaannd? We are waiting

Waiting for what? Photography, by definition, requires light to create an image. What don't you understand?

Don_ih · Mar 21, 2021

Photography - using light to produce an image that can be shown to others later. You don't have to show it to others, but it has to be possible.

radiant · Mar 21, 2021

eddie said:
Waiting for what? Photography, by definition, requires light to create an image. What don't you understand?

Why "capturing" is wrong and "making" is right if eventually both mean creating something with light?

BrianShaw · Mar 21, 2021

Wordsmithing...

What is your definition of photography ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency