Should realities of the city be the realities of the picture?

Should realities of the city be the realities of the picture?

 

No, of course not. The picture should be whatever the picture maker wants and is able to contrive.

 

But there is a serious and crucial limitation and it lies in the nexus between "picture" and "photograph". In loose speech (and in loose thought) the terms are used interchangeably. However all photographs are pictures but not all pictures are photographs.

 

I suggest if one adds a mark to a photograph, and the mark did not arrive via the agency of light, then one still has a "picture" but not a "photograph". Conversely if one removes a light generated mark from a photograph then again "picture" but not "photograph".

 

It is a question meriting consideration (beyond trenchant opinion) as to whether it is possible, even in principle, to remove power lines from a photograph and still have that thing remain a photograph.

Am I a photograph?

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5112709-md.jpg

 

Am I a picture?

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5112712-lg.jpg

 

You decide. :)

<i>I suggest if one adds a mark to a photograph, and the mark did not arrive via the agency of light, then one still has a "picture" but not a "photograph".</i><p>So are bleached and sepia-toned prints no longer photographs? And who decides? Now that you have eliminated sepia toning from the tools of photography, what do we do with all those great, ummm, pictures, taken by some of the greatest, ummm, picture takers of all times? And if photography is some extremely restrictive practice only practiced by the elite, who really cares about it?

The question seemed so simple to me (meaning wording) but I see some of colleagues went to debris of semantic.

I'm not an English native, I speak absolutely different language and definitely will be glad if somebody speaks my language fluently to describe different items. But I thought we are not at language courses.

For me this was obvious but if you insist on different meanings - no problem. Let it be photographs.

Anyway speaking abt. meanings of words you did't give me any clue.

I'm not a fan of Photoshop and digital cams. I'm an "old school guy". That's why I asked.

I know that Photoshop can change reality dramatically. But is the reality worth to be changed in such a way?

"I'm not a fan of Photoshop and digital cams. I'm an "old school guy"."

 

If it helps, I'm an old school kinda guy and manipulation of the wet print has been part and parcel to the process since photographic time began. To me, the only difference between dodging, burning and spotting a print in the lab vs doing it digitally on the computer, it's easier on the computer but the net result is the same, the basis of the exposure has been manipulated away from an accurate representation of the original scene before the photographer and their photographic efforts.

 

Nothing wrong with that either.

 

Photogaphy is painting with light and anything goes as to the final artistic outcome as opposed to images of record that are supposed to represent "accurately" (without interpretation) that what is in front of the camera operator as opposed to that which is in front of the "photographer." Photojournalists are not into accurate photographic representation but are into that which sells and makes editors happy; a biased point-of-view.

I realize that when I make the point that there must be limits on how a photograph is defined, it sounds like I am trying to preserve some noble or minimal purity of the old "art". While I don't mind that implication, my purpose for the exploration is really just more for the fun of the debate so that everyone, including me, comes away with something new to think about.

 

Art Y has now said that he meant "photograph" as much as he meant "picture." The question could then be restated as "Should the realities of the city be the realities of the photograph?"

 

Isn't it worthwhile to acknowledge that with many customs or technologies, terms are created to capture the essence of the thing, and the term continues in usage even when it must be stretched as the custom or technology changes, but a point finally arrives when the term is inadequate to describe the fully evolved or utterly altered custom or technology. At that time, the old term can only continue in usage for the sake of tradition. This is fine except in the cases when continuing to use the old term in a new vastly broader application significantly diminishes an appreciation for the essential attributes of the original thing because the new thing falsely claims the tradition of the old thing.

 

My earlier point was that the very early aspect of the photograph that differentiated it from painting or other arts was that it was expressive primarily to the extent that the photographer had to choose his film, camera, lens, scene, position, and moment to interpret what was actually happening in his presence. In the printing process, he/she would attempt to bring out all that was captured on the negative. For various purposes including marketing applications and artful endeavors that would appeal to people, including bleached and toned and water colored prints, printers and artists quickly developed ways to alter the final image. It does not rewrite history to acknowledge that these treatments already stretched the term "photograph". Further, an image of a downtown city scape being inundated with a 1000 foot tidal wave as created in photoshop might be wonderfully interesting, but it isn't a photograph.

 

My answer therefore to Art Y is that the essence of photography is that the realities of the photograph must directly correspond to the realities of the city as it can be interpreted with whatever equipment, perspective, judgement, and vision the photographer can bring to task at the moment of exposure. This is the difficult challenge of that specific art. However, photographers may well choose to use their photographs to later create worthwhile works of expression and art in "works" or "pictures" that have an even greater significance and value.

<i>at the moment of exposure</i><p>I don't think you get it. Didn't you read the Adams books? Photography has always been as much, and sometimes more, about what happens after the moment of exposure. This has been true since the beginning. Go look at some Avedon "In the American West" prints. Nobody says they're not photographs, and they are heavily altered. It's the altering that turns photographs into art, not the simple act of snapping the shutter.

"...already stretched the term "photograph"."

 

In truth, my opinion, based upon what I've read here and many other sources, I think that the term "photography" has been romanticized into something it's not.

 

Photography is about recording light and nothing more. What one chooses to do with the act of recording light, manipulated or un-manipulated, it's still about the act implied by the term "photography." Not intending to be polemic, this even includes waves and shopping centers; known as a blend or composite photography.

 

http://www.uelsmann.net/flash.html

 

http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/uelsmannexhibition.htm

Jerry Uelsmann has a unique vision of the world but never tried to pass it off as reality, often incorporating negative and positive images into his composite creations. Many of the photographs were printed from three or more negatives in as many enlargers an his use of paper negatives was unique at the time. I don't think that there's any validity in comparing his images to a cityscape wth bothersome wires.

"I don't think that there's any validity in comparing his images to a cityscape wth bothersome wires."

 

Which I wasn't doing as I was responding to the quoted comment and my comment regarding the romanticizing of the term "photography." :)

I don't know why anyone would assume that a photograph accurately displays what was present at the time the photographer released the shutter. For a hundred years, almost every photograph lost the dimension of colour, so it was a lie right there. Then there's the question of context: what's outside the frame, which is influencing that within the frame? It's all about three things: choice, choice and choice.

I am not as opinionated about this whole this as I might sound in my attempt to make a good arguement. I will look into the book Jeff mentions and the links.

IMO we have got to change the reality. Preferably for better. I see no meaning in just copying it. The change of reality is the purpose of creative mind after all.

I find it ironic that this discussion pops up regularly and the anything-goes-group meets the manipulation is not photography group. I think this proves that the concept of the unmanipulated photograph being a work of art is, much to the dismay of the anything-goes people, a thought which lives and resurfaces time and time again. Personally the picture vs. photograph distinction should be brought out in the presentation of the image otherwise there will always be a shadow of doubt and a discussion like this.

 

I agree with those who say that if you change the picture in such a way that it is not a direct projection of the scene then it ceases to be a photograph. What gives photography some of its value in many eyes is the fact that it is a projection of reality. Things that are rare need great skill and timing to get into photographs, while they may be trivial to recreate in PS. For example, an unmolested landscape without electrical wires is hard to find these days. To create a photograph of such a scene one has to have the perseverance to find it first, and then be there at the right time when the light is special and conductive to a good photograph. This is to me a good part of the art and skill of photography. Drawing on a computer gives no points from me, it just tells that the artist was unable to photograph his vision and had to create it by drawing in PS. It's like using doping in sports.

 

But I agree that people should not impose their ideas very strongly on others. There clearly are people on both sides of the argument. What annoys me is that the pro-manipulation crowd think that we have no right to our opinion and then go on and repeatedly and consistently ridicule us.

<i>I agree with those who say that if you change the picture in such a way that it is not a direct projection of the scene then it ceases to be a photograph.</i><p>So are you in the Avedon was not a photographer crowd? Just wondering, his stuff was heavily manipulated but most of the people who see it consider them photographs.<p> <i>What gives photography some of its value in many eyes is the fact that it is a projection of reality</i><p>Some, many - then there are some and at least a few who don't value that projection of reality, in your view. So there is no way to draw the line, because those that are in the other group are there. It seems like you have just set this up.<p><i>it just tells that the artist was unable to photograph his vision and had to create it by drawing in PS.</i><p>Oh come on, there are people who like doing this, that doesn't mean they can't photograph. This statement is just ridiculous, you don't know what was going through every person's head when they decided to use the computer.

<i>I will look into the book Jeff mentions</i><p>Are you saying you haven't read the most basic texts on photography but are prepared to make pronouncements on what it is and isn't? Have you been to museums and galleries to study what photography is and where it has come from?

<i>It's like using doping in sports.</i><p>Sports, popular entertainment for the masses, played with strict sets of rules, is like art in what way?

"This is to me a good part of the art and skill of photography."

 

This is what is called a bias and what you're saying, without saying it, your bias is senior to all other's bias'.

 

Photograph how you will and work the set of rules which make you happy; let others have the same leeway.

 

Photography is writing with light and at it's time of inception, there were no "preconceived" rules (bias) of authorship. Now some have drummed up rules of authorship which serve their bias' and now all must march to their beat or be declared "socially unacceptable."

 

Hmmmmmmm!<div></div>

If the definition of a word is subject to interpretation by the artist then what determines the meaning of words? What is "photography"?

<p>

Perhaps it is that there are different subcultures of people who have different meanings for words. For example, in Estonian (which is closely related to Finnish) some words look the same but have opposite meanings in Finnish. In a similar way words change meanings over time and not everyone chooses to use the same word in the same way as other people. Would you like to contact the publisher of Merriam-Webster dictionary and tell them that "Photography involves drawing with light in some form but may include any alterations by drawing, chemical manipulation, digital image processing chosen by the practitioner." Do you think the general population accept this alteration? Maybe.

<p>

If someone can call a digital drawing a photograph then just the same I can say that it is not. And neither of us can be claimed to be wrong if words have no strict meanings and anyone can establish a new meaning to a word.

<p>

<i>Oh come on, there are people who like doing this, that doesn't mean they can't photograph. This statement is just ridiculous, you don't know what was going through every person's head when they decided to use the computer.</i>

<p>

I was just describing my point of view. I accept that many people have different POVs. Just because I prefer to do it in the outdoors, that doesn't mean that I could not move a bear from a picture to a landscape. It's just that to me that doesn't feel right. And it wouldn't give me any satisfaction. And from a natural scientist point of view, the light would just not ever be quite right if I did that. Since the original bear was photographed in a different light (which would usually be true).

<p>

Still, I think that a lot of artists set artificial limitations on their working methods. Nothing wrong with that, is there? :-)

<p>

The doping analogy may be a bad one. Still it's an analogy which closely describes how I feel.

<p>

Anyway, this debate will never die. Or perhaps it will when digital image manipulation becomes so commonplace that everyone with a computer manipulate their images. Then we have lost a method which once had the ability to show people how things were. Which I think is a sad thing.

<p>

Why then use photos for illustrating a news article? If a photograph is no different from a drawing by an artist? They might as well just show what they want us to see instead of how things were.

"What is "photography"?"

 

A composite word. "photo" and "graph"

 

Literally, it means, by definition, light writing and nothing more. What one chooses to do with the instruments which records and displays the captured light, is user choice.

I thought that it translates roughly into drawing with light, not writing. In any case if you draw shapes instead by mouse, it's not photography. This seems very obvious.

 

Another definition which I found is the art of producing images on photosensitive surfaces. This clearly excludes digital manipulation, but not darkroom manipulation.

 

Yet another definition says that it's the recording of light on a medium on which an image is produced. Again changing the image after it was recorded is not included in this definition.

 

Another: "One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others... The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer."

 

I was unable to find a definition of photography which included digital image manipulation. I was surprised by this. Perhaps it is only the active members of the photo.net philosophy discussion forum who think photography includes these.

 

Why then can't you accept that it's not photography!?

>>> But I agree that people should not impose their ideas very strongly on others.

 

and then a bit later

 

>>> Why then can't you accept that it's not photography!?

 

 

Interesting, but not too surprising, that only non-photographers, ie people with no photographs, feel the

need to restrict what photography is and have a peculiarly strong desire to define it for others with rules.

Everyone else makes photos. Shrug...

Brad, I understand what I wrote above looks self-contradictory. I'm not saying what other people should do when they practice their art. I'm just talking about correct use of terminology. If you wish to, you can manipulate your pictures all you like! I'm sure it is good work. But if it doesn't fit any of these definitions, it's not photography, although photography may have been used as part of the process. Now if you wish to redefine the term, fine. I'll wait until your new definition becomes standard. A suggestion: since photography is already in the dictionaries with an existing meaning, why not invent a new word for something which is not included in the meaning for the existing word?

 

Why do I bother about this? It's because the common people might be misled to think that something an artist presents as photography is actually not what is conventionally meant by the word. That's all. How is a naive viewer supposed to view a work presented as something? Or is it something to be wondered, how something was done. I guess ...

Ilkka-- Tell me, is that reality that photography is projecting 2-dimensional or 3-

dimensional? Is that reality exposed at a shutter speed of 60 or 400? F-stop 2.8 or 4? Is it the

one that you framed when you looked at it or the one that I framed when I looked at it?

<i>Why then use photos for illustrating a news article?</i><p>You're kidding, right? Have you compared the price of a photograph to the price of a drawing? The time that it takes to produce a drawing versus a photograph? Or the ability to send a reporter out with a camera? How many reporters would be able to sit down and draw the scene?<p>

 

And the Avedon question goes unanswered, I guess because it does show the point. Nobody ever said Avedon ever did anything but photography. His photographs were heavily manipulated and some look positively "unreal", by any definition. <p>

 

The history of photography is the history of changing processes and materials. We could say that anything after glass plates is a fraud. But we don't, we accept the changes, it's the nature of the beast.