When is a photograph created?

[BobNewYork]

I think this is a little like "When is a child created?" For some there is a thought process behind starting, (or enlarging) a family. In other instances two people just "get lucky" with consequences that may, or may not be to their liking.

Then comes the gestation period - which developer?, how long? and all the other similar thoughts, (or, perhaps 'related' thoughts) of an expectant couple, (or person.)

Finally, there is the birth, (print coming out of the wash?) and from that point you play with the print, (child?) to make it into what you think it ought to be. This may be successful manipulation or not. Eventually the image, (child) becomes beyond further manipulation and is what it is. Admired or reviled by others - something over which, by this stage, you have no control.

Holy Crap Batman - that's getting a little deep !!!

Bob H

 

[Shaggysk8]

So what about the fixer? and do you agitate I think you may get arrested for that

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

After reading all the responses, I think you need to define a few terms first.

1. image
2. negative
3. print
4. photograph

The answer maybe different for each one! Let me start with the definition for 'photograph' as given by the Oxford American Dictionary:

photograph |ˈfōtəˌgraf|
noun
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

Clearly, 'the moment the light strikes the film' is out. The same with any moment in the visualization process. Just doesn't fit.

Negative or print is still in the running, though!

Interestingly enough, digital doesn't fit very well either!!!

 

[Vaughn]

BTW; lying in wait for the right moment is the ultimate gift, something Galen Rowell made famous.

In the case of one of his most well-known images (rainbow over the Tibitian monestary), he had to drop everything but one camera and run like hell...but the important thing was that he knew when and where to run!

Vaughn

 

[2F/2F]

I don't know when it is created. I do know that when it is created has little to no bearing on its quality or on what I do with it...or on anything, I might say.

 

[KWhitmore]

That's the last straw, I am putting you on my ignore list.

LOL

 

[minox59]

You people are great! When I made this post I was hoping for at least one response and when I logged in today and saw pages of responses I was thrilled.

Related to this, I am often at least slightly irritated by calls for submissions for "recent work" sometimes they define the time limit.

This is what I am debating within myself. I'm starting to work with Lith printing and in the course of this I naturally will be reprinting some old negatives some 25 or more years old. The resulting new print will be vastly different from the original print. There is a show I am planning on entering that states "Submitted works must be original prints created within the last two years" Would these new Lith prints qualify? What if the image I print can be dated by the subject matter?

 

[BetterSense]

People seem to make a distinction between "photographing" and "printing".

I don't. I only "photograph". In the field, I photograph subjects. In the darkroom, I photograph negatives.

I think it makes sense to consider that photographs are made when they are exposed, or maybe after they are processed. But I don't think it's productive trying to figure out if making negatives or making prints constitutes "making the photograph" because both of them are different photographs of different subjects.

 

[KWhitmore]

By saying the negative is just the middle stage you've admitted that the creation begins with the negative

As many have written the negative is the score, the print is open to different interpretations.

It's exceedingly difficult to produce a good visual image from a poor negative.

Ian

Perhaps creation begins first with the desire to make a negative and reproduce something you saw...no desire, no negative, no print. What creates the desire? A job, a vacation...a dream?

Lots of times I'll go for a walk with my camera but decide not to pull it out of the bag. No desire, no photo. I bet it's even more difficult to produce a good visual image from a poor imagination.

Kathy

 

[Ian Grant]

Perhaps creation begins first with the desire to make a negative and reproduce something you saw...no desire, no negative, no print. What creates the desire? A job, a vacation...a dream?

Lots of times I'll go for a walk with my camera but decide not to pull it out of the bag. No desire, no photo. I bet it's even more difficult to produce a good visual image from a poor imagination.

Kathy

Kathy that ties in with my first post in this thread:

When a collection of thoughts makes me go to a place, position the tripod (if I'm using one) pre-visualize the image and press the shutter. It's quite mundane really.

But often you know the instant you've taken the image that it's special. . . . . . I've never been wrong.
Ian

Like you say it's about being there, not necessarily making images, if there's nothing that inspires me the camera stays in the backpack regardlesss of how olng I've been out or how far I've walked, I don't take an image just for the sake of it.

Ian

 

[Q.G.]

photograph |ˈfōtəˌgraf|
noun
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.
[...]
Interestingly enough, digital doesn't fit very well either!!!

That's just because the definition is outdated.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That's just because the definition is outdated.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Well, the dictionary is a computer dictionary and is copyright 2007. Maybe they make a difference between 'photography' and 'digital imaging'.

 

[Q.G.]

Did Niepce make his image permanent by chemical treatment?*
Fox Talbot didn't either initially.

So neither of the two pioneers where photographers when they created photography, according to the dictionary.

"The question is, which is to be master", and all that.
A dictionary certainly is not.


*
Edit: he of course did.
The thought is the same though: a dictionary does not take precedence over reality.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

People seem to make a distinction between "photographing" and "printing".

I don't. I only "photograph". In the field, I photograph subjects. In the darkroom, I photograph negatives.

I think it makes sense to consider that photographs are made when they are exposed, or maybe after they are processed. But I don't think it's productive trying to figure out if making negatives or making prints constitutes "making the photograph" because both of them are different photographs of different subjects.

The original question was about the creation of a 'photograph', which is a noun and not the verb. That's why I asked for a definition. If it is the object I can hold in my hand, it starts in the darkroom by making the print. If, on the other hand, it is the image, which I cannot touch, it may start much earlier.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Did Niepce make his image permanent by chemical treatment?*
Fox Talbot didn't either initially.

So neither of the two pioneers where photographers when they created photography, according to the dictionary.

"The question is, which is to be master", and all that.
A dictionary certainly is not.


*
Edit: he of course did.
The thought is the same though: a dictionary does not take precedence over reality.

The invention of photography, as outlined in the patent of 1839, was a chemical process. I'm unaware of any Talbot work that was not chemical-based. Please enlighten me. You're right, Niepce's process was not really photography per that definition, but Daguerre certainly changed that.

A dictionary is never the master, it is merely a reflection of the current usage of language. Heck, you got to start somewhere to come to a common understanding, and a dictionary is not a bad place to start.

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

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?

I've always thought of "creating" a negative and "creating" a print as two seperate processes. The negative is created when there is a permanent fixed image on the film and the print is created when there is a permanent fixed image on the paper. The steps leading up to "creation" determine what the final image on the paper or film looks like, but those steps are steps that lead up to the final image on the film or paper. Does that make sense?

When I expose a negative, I first meter the light, determine the contrast of the scene (by means of spot metering a landscape or adjusting the lights in a still life or portrait), then decide on how to expose and develop the film based on how I want the final image on the film to look (Do I want a "normal contrast" image with nice gradual changes in tonality (from lack of a better explanation) or do I want to push my film and overdevelop to give a high contrast look?).

I like to control everything I can when exposing and developing the negative because I like printing to be easy and trouble-free. I dont like screwing around with different contrast papers or dodging or burning. I want to expose the film on the paper, develop, wash, and be done.

Because of that view on printing, the act of "creating" a print for me is very straightforward. I expose the paper, develop, and let it dry. I look it a few days later and judge the contrast, exposure, and such. If I find it needs "tweaking" I do what I need to do and look at it again a few days after it dries. Finally, I tone my print if I think toning makes it look better. If I think it looks best as an untoned print, I ignore the arguments of archivability and leave it alone.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[ntenny]

I think this is a little like "When is a child created?" [....]

Finally, there is the birth, (print coming out of the wash?) and from that point you play with the print, (child?) to make it into what you think it ought to be.

Dang. I think I've known some people who needed to get acquainted with the "bleach and redevelop" concept!

-NT

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

If this question is aimed at competitions, asking for 'recent work', I think the receivers will frown on new print interpretations of older negatives.

 

[removed account4]

i wonder what william henry fox talbot would say
he invented the negative/positive process.
did he consider the negative to be the photograph
or just a step in the process of making a photograph.

other early processes like the heliograph were single step processes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras

 

[Sirius Glass]

What about photographing slides? Does one date the slide when it was taken or when it was processed. Maybe one should date it the first time the photographer looks at it. What if the photographer never looked at a particular slide, would the slide not have a creation date?? And hence not exist?

If one took a photograph and never made a print of the negative, would the photograph not exist because it does not have a creation date?

When one does not consider the moment of exposure of the film to light as the date of creation, then that person opens themselves to endless possibilities of logical silliness.

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

The original question was about the creation of a 'photograph', which is a noun and not the verb. That's why I asked for a definition. If it is the object I can hold in my hand, it starts in the darkroom by making the print. If, on the other hand, it is the image, which I cannot touch, it may start much earlier.

Which brings to mind, are Kodak and Kodaking nouns, verbs, adjectives, gerunds, or gerundives?

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

The invention of photography, as outlined in the patent of 1839, was a chemical process. I'm unaware of any Talbot work that was not chemical-based. Please enlighten me.

Chemical based is not the only requirement per dictionary definition.
It talks about making the image permanent too.

If you don't fix your prints, are they not photographs?
According to the Oxford dictionary they are not.
Photography 1 : Dictionary 0.

You're right, Niepce's process was not really photography per that definition, but Daguerre certainly changed that.

A dictionary is never the master, it is merely a reflection of the current usage of language. Heck, you got to start somewhere to come to a common understanding, and a dictionary is not a bad place to start.

I agree (up to a point: dictionary makers like to decide themselves whether usage conforms to what they think is common usage a lot. )

Anyway: i don't think it interesting what the dictionary has to say.
It will not do even the smallest thing to help decide the question in hand.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

i wonder what william henry fox talbot would say
he invented the negative/positive process.
did he consider the negative to be the photograph
or just a step in the process of making a photograph.

other early processes like the heliograph were single step processes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras

Actually, he made a big point out of the fact that his process was able to make many photographs from one negative, something Daguerre was not able to do.

Again, to add more value to this discussion, we need to define what is meant by 'photograph'. I sense that some participants think of print, image, negative or the process of photographing when they mention 'photograph'. This confuses things.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What about photographing slides? Does one date the slide when it was taken or when it was processed. Maybe one should date it the first time the photographer looks at it. What if the photographer never looked at a particular slide, would the slide not have a creation date?? And hence not exist?

I do the same as with negatives, creation date is the date of exposure.

If one took a photograph and never made a print of the negative, would the photograph not exist because it does not have a creation date?

You can't take a photograph (unless you pick it up), you make a photograph! Comes down to the definition again. What do you mean by photograph; image, negative or print.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Which brings to mind, are Kodak and Kodaking nouns, verbs, adjectives, gerunds, or gerundives?

Steve

I want what Sirius is drinking!