When is a photograph created?

[Allen Friday]

In post 78, page 8 of the thread, I argued that creation is a process. My argument was based on the definition of "creation" and "create." Being a process, it does not have a definite point of time that can be called the nanosecond of creation. It can have a definite end time when the project is finished. But leading up to that point in time we create the object.

Lets put this in terms of painting. A painter desires to create a landscape painting. He goes out and buys his brushes, stretches a a canvas, drives to the edge of the Grand Canyon, mixes paint, wets his brush, starts applying the paint to the canvas. Suppose he takes the canvas back to the site for months on end and works on the canvas a little bit each time. After a year, he leans back, puts a dab of paint on the canvas and decides, "It's done." He signs the work. Someone asks him when he created the painting. He says, "I created it over a years time, starting on January 12, 2008. I finished it February 23, 2009."

There is no moment of creation. It took a year. There is a moment of completion. The finished painting did not exist until the final dab of paint was put on the canvas. But the first dab of paint was just as important as the last. The painting was created over time.

The problem we have in this thread is that too many people are trying to take a process (which takes place over time, albeit a very short period of time in some types of photography) and to define the process by a single step in that process, usually the completion of the object.

 

[removed account4]

i think the problem is
that there is no real answer
photos are started at different times for different people ...
and that doesn't even take into consideration
that everyone's definition of "a photograph" is different.
some believe it is the single step of exposing something to light and creating an image
others believe it is after one or more steps in a long chain of events ...
and still others believe it is even before the image enters the lens of a camera.

i have no idea what a photograph is, and i have no idea when one is created ...
all i know is i sometimes have the urge to use a camera and make stuff ...
sometimes that stuff makes it to paper, and sometimes
it is trapped on celluloid, and that is good enough for me ..

 

[donbga]

Philosophical question. :confused:
What do you consider your creation date of a photograph? When you take it or when you print it? Would this change if you reprint a negative using a different process?

The 'Born On Date', IMO, is when the latent image is successfully developed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

i think the problem is
that there is no real answer
photos are started at different times for different people ...

There is no correct answer. The answer is what each person does.

Steve

 

[minox59]

It ain't your thread, buddy, it belongs to the forum...

And besides your original question has been already beat to death -- we are looking for more victims (and I think we found one!)

Vaughn

Actually, very few people responded to the second part of the question which was the whole point of the thread and the thread was already off track when I posted the follow up question.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Actually, very few people responded to the second part of the question which was the whole point of the thread and the thread was already off track when I posted the follow up question.

I've asked this before. Please fill us in as to the reason for the question. It may help to answer it. But, let me try without it first:

I already hinted at a solution to the second part of your question. Brooks Jensen from Lenswork (also and advertiser here) proposes an open edition system, which would solve your issue, I think.

He lists the 'date photographed', which he defines as the date when the film was exposed (it really helps when people define what they're talking about). As soon as he is done with what he calls the 'creative work', he starts with the 1st edition and prints a few prints in a 1st printing session. Printing again without creative changes becomes the 2nd printing of the 1st edition. If he makes a change to the interpretation of the negative, he sets the counter to the 1st printing of the 2nd edition. I'm sure, you get the drift. Every print is numbered and dated. This way, every print has it's own creation date and the negative has one as well.

Do you see why I wanted a definition for the word 'photograph'? In the above workflow, there are several 'candidates' who qualify as a photograph and deserve that title, but an answer to your question is not possible without a clear definition of what is meant by 'photograph'.

I have now changed from limited editions to Brooks's open edition system. The system works extremely well for me.

Hope this helps.

 

[Robert Budding]

So now I know what happens to Philosophy majors after college . . .

 

[Q.G.]

We still don't need definitions.

The second part of the question wasn't about 2nd (or following) editions of the same print, but about using a different process.
That would be a new, fresh creation. The moment its creation starts would be the moment you decide you want to do the thing differently, and start working to get it done, etc.
The answer doesn't really change. So i think it has indeed been answered already.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

We still don't need definitions.

The second part of the question wasn't about 2nd (or following) editions of the same print, but about using a different process.
That would be a new, fresh creation. The moment its creation starts would be the moment you decide you want to do the thing differently, and start working to get it done, etc.
The answer doesn't really change. So i think it has indeed been answered already.

That depends entirely on the definition for 'edition'.

After all, there could be a silver-gelatin edition, a bromoil edition etc., or simply several interpretations of the same negative. This is completely up to the artist.