What is your definition of photography ?

[radiant]

Wordsmithing...

Well taking account that the topic is "What is your definition of photography ?" it might include wordsmithing

 

[BrianShaw]

Well taking account that the topic is "What is your definition of photography ?" it might include wordsmithing

Most definitely! I wasn’t being negative... just answering a question.

 

[eddie]

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

"Capturing" is just the start- what you do to get it on a light sensitive material. "Making" is what comes next- turning the captured image into a finished product. Whether on film or digital, this is when you create the image.
I take photos with my cameras. I make photos in my darkroom.

 

[removed account4]

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

as soon as the image is in the lens camera it changes into something else. I understand what you are saying but to me it is such a narrow definition it makes very little sense. it is a bit extreme because manipulation is inherent in the entire photographic process. the camera has to be manipulated to get a satisfactory exposure and then the film has to be manipulated to get an image on it &c.

what sort of image manipulation is allowed before it goes over the edge ?
and are processes that require hands on, like a carbon print or tri chrome gum print considered photographs ?

 

[MattKing]

I take photos with my cameras. I make photos in my darkroom.

I prefer to say I make photos using my camera, any film or sensor in it, plus whatever I do to turn all that into the final form of the photos.

 

[eddie]

I think it's just semantics, Matt.

 

[MattKing]

I prefer to say I make photos using my camera, any film or sensor in it, plus whatever I do to turn all that into the final form of the photos.

I think it's just semantics, Matt.

Eddie,
Probably.
Although I expect that you too probably think of the process as a continuum.
For some people, "photography" is complete immediately after the shutter is released. I would say that their "definition" is different than ours is.

 

[eddie]

Although I expect that you too probably think of the process as a continuum.

I do. Even when I press the shutter, I'm thinking of how I want the completed image to look.
Getting the image on film is like shopping for groceries. It's not a meal until all of the ingredients are combined.

 

[tballphoto]

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

Actually the need for people to spend an hour in photoshop to manipulate an image is what shows a lack of creativity. And it shows to me a lack of basic understanding.

People will spend 150$ for a copy of photo shop/luminar, etc, and about 20$ a month for monthly fees, to alter images the same way that putting a CPL or ND filter onto the lens does. Who is smarter or better? The person with a CPL on it, or the person who spends 3 hours on the computer with photo shop to remove lens flares from final images?

 

[eddie]

I can't speak to how long people spend using photoshop. I don't do any digital. I can say that spending an hour manipulating an image in the darkroom is not uncommon.

 

[BrianShaw]

Which is better or more creative depends a lot on the final product.

 

[Vaughn]

We are using the energy of the photons captured by our devises or methods to record their patterns created by the release of their energy as it collides with an energy-sensitive surface.

 

[Don_ih]

Photography is something some people do with cameras to get money. Also, it is something people do with money to get cameras.

 

[removed account4]

Actually the need for people to spend an hour in photoshop to manipulate an image is what shows a lack of creativity.

What if using photoshop or whatever else it is is part of their photographic process not really sure how that is a lack of creativity

 

[Don_ih]

What if using photoshop or whatever else it is is part of their photographic process not really sure how that is a lack of creativity

Agreed - I've seen lots of creative use of Photoshop. And many people actually enjoy doing it.

 

[wiltw]

Photoshop can be used VERY creatively... to create 'graphic arts' which is 'not photography'

 

[wiltw]

We are using the energy of the photons captured by our devises or methods to record their patterns created by the release of their energy as it collides with an energy-sensitive surface.

'photography'!
OTOH, if we use X-ray film to capture a chest film, should we consider that to be 'photography' too? If not, why not?

 

[BrianShaw]

Photoshop can be used VERY creatively... to create 'graphic arts' which is not related to 'photography'

An image captured with a camera, film or digital, can be manipulated in photoshop and in a darkroom and result in a photograph. At some point either manipulation approach could get so extreme and warrant being declared “photography-based graphic arts”.

 

[wiltw]

An image captured with a camera, film or digital, can be manipulated in photoshop and in a darkroom and result in a photograph. At some point either manipulation approach could get so extreme and warrant being declared “photography-based graphic arts”.

I do not disagree, but I do wonder what defines the crossover, in such a sequence...when does it cease to be a 'photograph' and becomes a 'graphic art' product?

 

[Vaughn]

'photography'!
OTOH, if we use X-ray film to capture a chest film, should we consider that to be 'photography' too? If not, why not?

Substitute 'electromagnetic waves' for protons, I suppose...fine with me!

PS -- I was disappointed to learn that photography is a graphic art...according to dictionaries and such. I thought we were special.

 

[eddie]

I don't think using extreme examples of photoshop (sharks eating helicopters... dinosaurs eating New York City... etc. ) makes anyone's case that digital is not photography.

 

[removed account4]

I don't think using extreme examples of photoshop (sharks eating helicopters... dinosaurs eating New York City... etc. ) makes anyone's case that digital is not photography.

I know, that is why I uploaded front pages of the weekly world news

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

It merely limits the label. There is never a reason for using one method as the name for another. Are you too blind to see the advantages of truth in advertising? If you are not true to yourself, are you ever honest?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Wordsmithing...

Weasel wording. Also know as just lying.

I think it's just semantics, Matt.

No lying nails it quite nicely. Just do not call masturbation photography. How pathetic.

 

[BrianShaw]

I do not disagree, but I do wonder what defines the crossover, in such a sequence...when does it cease to be a 'photograph' and becomes a 'graphic art' product?

I’m not sure that can be quantified. I think that has to be quite subjective.