What is your definition of photography ?

[eddie]

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

Pathetic is being a buffoon on a website. If you're that insecure about your photographs that you need to demean the way others make their photographs, maybe you should just sleep with your Hasselblads.

 

[Arthurwg]

A photograph? I made one just the other day. I put my Hasselblad 500mm CF lens on a tripod, attached my 503cw to the lens, put some FILM in the back and aimed the rig at a tree a long ways off on the banks of the Chama River. After processing and enlarging i produced a picture that I rather like.

 

[removed account4]

Pathetic is being a buffoon on a website. If you're that insecure about your photographs that you need to demean the way others make their photographs, maybe you should just sleep with your Hasselblads.

its too bad he has to act like that, I agree
I'd be interested in knowing where mr glass draws the line?
he inferred to manipulation before but never responded to my question
about how much is allowed seeing the whole process from start to finish has to do with manipulation
and if UV processes that require hands on technique are still considered photographs by his rigid definition
the way see it is no where in the name photography does it suggest chemical only
his definition is like suggesting a slide rule isn't a type of computer...

 

[removed account4]

No, you were ok before - photon is correct.

as long as the magnetron isn't involved. I need to make a soft boiled egg later

 

[Sirius Glass]

Pathetic is being a buffoon on a website. If you're that insecure about your photographs that you need to demean the way others make their photographs, maybe you should just sleep with your Hasselblads.

Poor eddie got his knickers all knotted up because he got caught in a lie with his widdle pants down. When you grow up, hopefully you will not need to weasle word.

 

[MattKing]

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

Those should be used in a thread about whether something in a newspaper constitutes news.

 

[MattKing]

There is never a reason for using one method as the name for another.

I wonder whether you would have corrected people back in the days when a lot of people referred to all cameras as "Kodaks".
Do you consider cinematographers as photographers? Does it anger you when others consider them together?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wonder whether you would have corrected people back in the days when a lot of people referred to all cameras as "Kodaks".
Do you consider cinematographers as photographers? Does it anger you when others consider them together?

Calling cameras Kodaks was common speech; calling cutting objects out and pasting in other objects to change the meaning of the presentation is not photography. One should invent a label for their work style, but it is not photography.

 

[markjwyatt]

Calling cameras Kodaks was common speech; calling cutting objects out and pasting in other objects to change the meaning of the presentation is not photography. One should invent a label for their work style, but it is not photography.

Graphic arts.

 

[markjwyatt]

No, you were ok before - photon is correct.

The particle/wave argument never ends...

 

[removed account4]

Calling cameras Kodaks was common speech; calling cutting objects out and pasting in other objects to change the meaning of the presentation is not photography. One should invent a label for their work style, but it is not photography.

are these images photographs ?
https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/lincoln-calhoun-composite/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fading-Away

and if not why not ?

 

[markjwyatt]

are these images photographs ?
https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/lincoln-calhoun-composite/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fading-Away

and if not why not ?

Interesting and historical early graphic art's composites using photographic negatives as component materials ("graphic arts"). When it occurred does not change its nature. Just because the final product is a silver emulsion print does not make the work a photograph.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/horror-slide-duplication-and-enhancement-techniques.182216/

 

[BrianShaw]

The particle/wave argument never ends...

Arguments never ends...

 

[wiltw]

A long time ago, I heard, "Opinions are like rectums....everyone has one."
And then someone embellished with, "...and all of them stink, except your own."

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I use still camera to get the picture. This photography. The rest is individual salad dressing.

 

[eddie]

Poor eddie got his knickers all knotted up because he got caught in a lie with his widdle pants down. When you grow up, hopefully you will not need to weasle word.

I didn't lie.
You're just a pompous, ignorant ass.
Do you really take photos, are do you just fondle your Hassy like Gollum saying, "My precious"?

 

[eddie]

The cityscapes were my favourites.

Thanks. I've had a lot of fun doing them.

 

[removed account4]

Interesting and historical early graphic art's composites using photographic negatives as component materials ("graphic arts"). When it occurred does not change its nature. Just because the final product is a silver emulsion print does not make the work a photograph.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/horror-slide-duplication-and-enhancement-techniques.182216/

the final result were photographs
it is only modern terminology that refers to these as graphic arts
as it was pointed out by mr glass like kodaking was a common speech
photograph and photography were as well.

 

[removed account4]

When AA had the giant LP spotted out of his Winter Sunrise prints, how is that different than using a healing or cloning function in Photoshop?

its no different other than a modern computer wasn't involved. its hypocrisy as far as I can tell because the whole idea of making photographs or taking photographs or whatever terminology is that describes the act of doing whatever it is the person is doing involves manipulation from start to finish. back in the 1800s when people were head swapping, people swapping making composites, it was part of the photographic trade, it was photography .. and like today it ruffled some feathers. I can understand why,, the whole purity thing but
the well was never pure .. .. I like making photographic images too much to draw a line in the sand anywhere

 

[markjwyatt]

its no different other than a modern computer wasn't involved. its hypocrisy as far as I can tell because the whole idea of making photographs or taking photographs or whatever terminology is that describes the act of doing whatever it is the person is doing involves manipulation from start to finish. back in the 1800s when people were head swapping, people swapping making composites, it was part of the photographic trade, it was photography .. and like today it ruffled some feathers. I can understand why,, the whole purity thing but
the well was never pure .. .. I like making photographic images too much to draw a line in the sand anywhere

Ok, that is fair enough. There is common language and there are more specific descriptions using some types of standards. Without some standards, we can never pass on to others what something is and how it was created.

You are correct in the sense for instance of a portrait photographer. If he wants to get paid, often he will need to soften the image, or spot out zits and other natural features that the subject does not want portrayed. A photograph that was retouched is referred to in the trade as a "retouched" photograph (or a print made from a retouched negative in most cases). The fact it was retouched is not hidden in the statement that the result is a silver emulsion (or color) print, at least among photographers. The teenage girl who loves her portrait may not be told that zits were spotted out (or she might- her dad will when he receives the bill). referring to any silver emulsion (or ink jet) print as a photograph, is somewhat just common language. And that is really not a big issue. A bigger issue is what we refer to as "photography" vs. "Graphic arts". The standards are not perfect. We generally accept a zitless portrait as a photograph, even though it was manipulated, but to be precise we should specify it was produced from a retouched or spotted negative. We may even connote the resulting field as "commercial" photography, in some senses indicating that that other standards are at play then perhaps artistic photography.

These types of quandaries are part of the reason I proposed photographic standards a couple of years ago. It removes the value judgement, and just creates accepted standards about what to call things so everyone can know, and if they want, they can apply their own subjective/value criteria.

 

[removed account4]

Ok, that is fair enough. There is common language and there are more specific descriptions using some types of standards. Without some standards, we can never pass on to others what something is and how it was created.

You are correct in the sense for instance of a portrait photographer. If he wants to get paid, often he will need to soften the image, or spot out zits and other natural features that the subject does not want portrayed. A photograph that was retouched is refereed to in the trade as a "retouched" photograph (or a print made from a retouched negative in most cases). The fact it was retouched is not hidden in the statement that the result is a silver emulsion Or color) print, at least among photographers. The teenage girl who loves her portrait may not be told that zits were spotted out (or she might- her dad will when he receives the bill). referring to any silver emulsion (or ink jet) print as a photograph, is somewhat just common language. And that is really not a big issue. A bigger issue is what we refer to as "photography) vs. Graphic arts. The standards are not perfect. We generally accept a zitless portrait as a photograph, even though it was manipulated, but to be precise we should specify it was produced from a retouched or spotted negative. We may even connote the resulting field as "commercial" photography, in some senses indicating that that other standards are at play then perhaps artistic photography.

These types of quandaries are part of the reason I proposed photographic standards a couple of years ago. It removes the value judgement, and just creates accepted standards about what to call things so everyone can know, and if they want, they can apply their own subjective/value criteria.

Interesting stuff! I didn’t know there actually were standards. I know there are in photojournalist works, and over the last decade photographers got in trouble for changing elements
Funny thing is that pre-standards Brady adjusted bodies and created a tableau in the civil war.., and Fenton did the the whole move the canon balls around thing before that...( Crimean war )
Funny thing you mentioned retouching.. I learned from a master and we used to regularly retouch split 5/7 ( so 3.5/5) negatives on an old adams desk and sometimes enlarge them to 16/20 .. lots of work but you couldn’t see a thing.. and diffusion with tea box plastic was a regular occurrence... there was a book I had that I sold with my adams desk that showed step by step removal of a teenagers’ orthodontics
funny thing is no different between any of these retouching things now or back then except its easier now but still if the person doesn't know what they are doing it looks not so good.. just like in the old days
... one teenagers liking looking like a movie star/ tick tock influenza is an elitist Luddite’s over the top night mare
Good times

 

[MattKing]

This thread reminds me of a macabre joke.
A grandfather was mortally injured and died as a result of an automobile collision. The body was delivered to the funeral home, and the family indicated that they wished to have an open casket funeral.
The funeral director was concerned about this, because the injuries were quite severe, but the director and the staff did their best work, and the body was very presentable when they finished.
On the day of the funeral, the turnout was large and respectful, and the atmosphere was hushed. The family joined the procession to view the body. One by one they walked up to the casket to pay their respects.
The youngest grandson was near the end of the procession. As he stood on his toes to look into the casket, he blinked and disclaimed out loud, so everyone could hear:
"Mom, Grandpa's finally got his ear back!"
Somehow I don't think Sirius would approve.

 

[wiltw]

I didn't lie.
You're just a pompous, ignorant ass.
Do you really take photos, are do you just fondle your Hassy like Gollum saying, "My precious"?

Discuss points, do NOT engage in PERSONAL ATTACKS

 

[eddie]

Discuss points, do NOT engage in PERSONAL ATTACKS

When you're attacked respond how you wish. I choose to respond accordingly.

 

[removed account4]

Discuss points, do NOT engage in PERSONAL ATTACKS

You might want to suggest the same thing to mr glass