what the heck is a photograph anyways?

jnanian said:

in another thread an image was posted to show a developer and film "worked" it was suggested
that it should have full contrast ( blacks and whites ) because this " isnt victorian england" ....
why does this even matter ?
its like suggesting all color photographs have to have the vivid color pallet as velvia or grain like tri x or autochromes. ....
or they are terrible / not real photographs.

this isnt a what is art post, or a photograph just has to be made with light sensitive material
and chemical rays of light ( which excludes digital image making ).
over the years i have heard wacky studff like color photographs arent real photographs, or if something isnt a portrait it isnt a photograph...

do you have any biases or prejudices about what a photograph is or isnt ?

Click to expand...

Ghostman said:

And what is an x-ray? I think they're photographs and very beautiful ones too.

Click to expand...

E. von Hoegh said:

Technically, they aren't because light is not used. Another term for X-ray is "radiograph" - drawing or writing with radiation.

Click to expand...

DWThomas said:

Um, even that distinction is blurred! It seems in modern x-ray practice, the film holder has a coating of phosphor that emits visible light in response to radiation - a sort of image amplification function. I only recently learned about this when I got entangled with x-ray film for my big pinhole camera. I'm using green sensitive -- there are also blue sensitive x-ray films.

Or perhaps we could say photos are written with light of wavelengths potentially outside the visible spectrum. Frankly, thinking too much about these details makes my aging brain hurt!

Click to expand...