Image vs Photograph

<p>Per the recent thread posted by Arthur Plumpton - http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00bS6N - is there a significant distinction between an image and a photograph? </p>

<p>The term 'image' seems to have broader reference than the term 'photograph'. The latter refers specifically to the outcome of engaging the shutter of a camera. 'Image', on the other hand is sometimes used in connection with one's mental processes, i.e., "I have an image of the bombing at the Boston Marathon." It also is used interchangeably with 'photograph.'</p>

<p>Your thoughts? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Context. <br /><br />I suppose that I generally refer to what pops right out of the camera (speaking, here of current digital bodies) as being what I now normally think of as a "photograph," while I think of photographs that I've spent a little (or a lot) of time massaging to be "images." Yes, I can tell the camera to do no small amount of processing, thus doing the same thing.<br /><br />When I worked in a studio years ago, and we produced heavily manipulated photos (lots of dodging, burning, negative retouching, etc), we didn't call it an image - we called it a <em>portrait.</em> Or a re-touched photo. Or whatever seemed appropriate given the person we were talking to. Because all they really cared about was the result, not the label the photographer uses to describe it. </p>

<p>All photographs are images, but not all images are photographs... ;-)</p>

<p>Yes! That.</p>

<p>I think Matt nailed it with the idea of context. I know I use the two words in different ways but then it depends on the purpose of what I am trying to say. I might use both words to mean the same thing but that meaning/intent is also dependent on the rest of the context of the usage. But I do think that I would probably use the word image more often to express the idea that it is not a documentary intent but an expressive one.</p>

<p>What William said.... "photographs" are a sub-class of "images". I tend to use both words, but there is subtle difference, not related (to me!) to post-processing of any kind.</p>

<p>The image is the impression. It's what I see, what I connect with, what communicates with me. The technique used for the image could be a painting, a photograph, a cross-over... the image is what etches itself into my brain. In a sense, you could say the image is richer and more personal, as it also contains my emotional responses. The photograph is what I see on my screen, the print. The image is the total result of presentation and experiencing that photograph.<br>

<em>(since English is not my native language, my distinction could well be 100% mistaken, but it's how I tend to use both words and the meaning I give to them)</em></p>

<p>Of.</p>

<p>Using the word "image" <em>requires</em> the word "of" ("image of") whether stated or implied. Using the word "photograph" does not.</p>

<p>Once you recognize the "of," then the OP's statement, "The term 'image' seems to have broader reference than the term 'photograph'" is not true and William Kahn's statement, "All photographs are images, but not all images are photographs..." is false.</p>

<p>If a photographer sets out to do a portrait of me and some of the pictures do not look like me, then while they are photographs of me, they are not images of me. They may still be images of "a woman" but they are not images of me. If they are really terrible, it may not be possible to discern gender. They will still be photographs; they will no longer be images of a woman. We can take this to the extremity where there is just a blurry blob shown with the "of" deteriorating to "blurry blob" at which point "of" becomes meaningless and we can then argue if there can be a meaningless "of." All are photographs. Each is or is not "of" according to its intent/requirements. The DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles) has a rather narrow "of" for its photographs (it has to be "of" me; "a woman" won't do). Many artistic photographs are deliberately and happily ambiguous in their "of" but even these can fail.</p>

<p>Which brings me to my conclusion. For me, "image" (of!) is about success or failure. The word "photograph" is not.</p>

<p>Of the two words, only "photograph" can be correctly used as either a noun or a verb. When used as a noun, both words require the use of the preposition "of"; as in, "This is an image of a building", and "This is a photograph of a building". When "photograph" is used as a noun, "of" is not required; "I will photograph this building". "I will image this building" is not a normal usage, and would probably prompt the question, "What medium?", followed by the guess-what response, "Photography".</p>

<p>I stand by my original statement...</p>

A photograph of William Kahn in which he cannot be recognized as William Kahn is not an image of William Kahn.

<p>An "image" is a photograph with pretensions.</p>

<p>Julie, so if you show a photograph of me to someone who recognizes me, it suddenly becomes an image?</p>

<p>Sanford, as Matt said, it's the context, much like the (over)use of <em>giclee</em> to describe an ink jet print...</p>

<p>"Julie, so if you show a photograph of me to someone who recognizes me, it suddenly becomes an image?"</p>

<p>... <strong>of you</strong>. Exactly.</p>

<p>Somebody sees the Madonna in a piece of burnt toast. It suddenly becomes an image. Somebody sees a horsehead in the shape of a Nebula. It suddenly becomes an image. Somebody sees a dragon in the shape of a cloud. It suddenly becomes an image. Etc. etc.</p>

<p>Julie: If I read you correctly, it is a mistake to use the term 'image' while commenting on a photograph. Did I get this right?</p>

<p>Julie, every photo taken looks like you, just maybe not how you want to look or be represented. They aren't of something else but what was presented to the camera. We choose, develop our image, which may or may not represent reality and often isn't what the subject is.</p>

<p>"An "image" is a photograph with pretensions."</p>

<p>Well, that depends on if it was successful moving past just being a photograph or not while it's being asserted that it did...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael, what have I written that would lead you to ask that?</p>

<p>John A, the burden of proof is on the other foot; it is on the photo, not on me. It is a photograph; it is *not* an "image of" anything in particular until it is recognized as such. Before that it is dye, ink or silver on a piece of paper.</p>

<p>Julie, let's not confuse a photograph for the thing photographed. A photograph, even if blurred or your back turned or a questionable likeness, from a camera that is pointed at you is a photograph of you even if you can't be recognized. In that sense, and in your use of the word "image", it is an image of you in all of those circumstances--what else is it? I don't agree that it is <strong>just</strong> ink, paper and/or silver--or pixels, that ignores what influenced the form those things take.</p>

<p>I don't really take any issue in your meaning/application of the word "image" as I do think it can be used in a lot of different ways.</p>

<p>But I think the use of the word "image" is often used in a more transformative way and is a bit more loaded than "photograph", although, as I said above, they can, in context, be used in similar ways.</p>

<p>For instance, we may project an "image" of ourselves that differs on whether we are at work, at home or off with our friends. Often, these are different to some extent and none of them are probably--except in rare cases--completely who we are inside. We have facades we create to show others.</p>

<p>In a similar way, I think it would be rare to hear someone suggest that "I took an image" or "I take images". What we do hear is that "I created-or made--an image" The inference is most often that they have created (or attempted to create) something more, or maybe different than a facsimile of what appears as the simple subject.</p>

<p>It is clear that all of those words: take, took, create, created, made or make can be applied to the word photograph, but the fact that one can't really use the two more passive words, took or take, with "image" and that can just make its usage a bit more loaded or clear as to intent.<br /> <br />In the final analysis, it is the whole context of the usage of the words that probably makes the real difference as to the meaning, but using "image" can just emphasize the point of difference in meaning.</p>

<p>The ambiguous lexicon of <em>imaging</em> doesn’t help. I make photographs from <em>pictures</em> I <em>take</em>. <br /> What do you make with someone else's images? Photographs? Prints? Does it all have to do with data exchange?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouter: The photograph is what I see on my screen, the <a href="/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00bZp0">print</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do not - can not - see a <em>print</em> on a screen. You see an image. <br /> I don't think I've ever picked up a camera and said or thought I was about to <em>image</em>.<br /> Going to go take me some pictures! When I get back I'm going to make me some pictures!</p>

<p>Alan, the comma obviously indicated that what I see on my screen or a print are two examples of how to experience the photo. I know perfectly well you do not see a print on a screen, thank you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You see an image</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this is still a reaction to my earlier post, I doubt whether you read my full post, or whether you've understood what I wrote. I think I did a decent attempt at describing in which ways I distinguish between seeing a photo, and seeing an image. Just because you use the words different, does not invalidate what I said. If this quote above is meant to nullify what I wrote earlier, great discussion technique.</p>

<p>But probably I mistook this thread for something of substance, instead of "<em>look, my clever definition of the word is thus, so you're all wrong and the question should be ridiculed or interpreted extremely literally</em>". John A's posts seems to discuss the substance as well, too bad, there is an interesting lead there to dig a bit deeper and gain understanding on how images communicate and how photography can be used to do so.</p>

<p>Sorry W.W. Was just joking with you! I said I agreed with everything you said! <br>

There IS a point to thinking about print v. screen image. Some, I would say <em>most, </em>believe the two are no different. <br>

The deal about "imaging" was to point out that the lexicon changed to imaging from "taking" a picture.<br>

The term was also used <em>before</em> photography for sketching a picture. I'm gonna go out and take a picture with my pen. PENtax? Olympus PEN? No, my pen!</p>

<p>Well here's my 2 cents worth:</p>

<p>A photograph is the result you get when you press the shutter.</p>

<p>An image is what you get after you FUBAR the photograph in post processing, or what I loving refer to as creating "Frankenphoto's". </p>

<p>I guess my humour-detector got broken, then.</p>

<p>Film for the aesthetic of "Photo". I believe images can be anything visual. But a photo is more specific, although can be an image. What it is rather than what it represents! =]</p>

<ul>

<li>I certainly wish the photography world would firm up the language that's used. In the art world, these sort of things have been nailed down. A photograph (my definition, not necessarily the art world's, as this is where it's fuzzy) involves a chemical process using some sort of light sensitive material or emulsion, and is something an individual does. A digital image is digital capture, and must by very definition be printed on something w/ a machine of some sort. You do not need a machine to make a "photograph" in my definition (some film and a box w/ a hole in it is about it, and you could do it w/ just film and no box), and this is usually how most museums/galleries see it, although not necessarily by these guide lines. They have the same idea though. The term photograph means "painting with light", roughly but accurately. I cannot imagine how capturing an image w/ an electronic machine and transferring that to another machine has anything to do w/ painting with light.</li>

</ul>

<p>In art, an etching HAS to be done a certain way, or it's not an etching. It's the same w/ a mono print, a lithograph, a signed edition vs an unsigned one, numbered vs unnumbered, painting (original, only one of) vs a print (unless it's a mono print, it is not an original, and an original mono print it is not a painting either). These terms are very useful. It's way too fuzzy in photography.</p>

<p>Steve, you are right, that it is certainly important that we have a precise vocabulary when communicating on our work. My worry is however not to differ between what can be called film-based photography and digital photography, because both are "painting with light".<br /> No, my condern is about other types of imaging involving photographing.</p>

<p>Personally, I do now a-days only digital photography and call always the result: <strong>photographs</strong>, independently of the media of its display and of whether the photo has been enhanced as post-processed in-camera or on screen.<br /> However, I also, and mostly, presently, do "<strong>images</strong>", which also involves photography. In my case, they are mix-media images based on my paintings, drawings, collage etc, which are photographed and post-processed on screen, or based on my photographs, which is radically changed on screen by layers, distortion, flipping etc.<br /> A side remark: my images are selling very well, whereas I have never sold any of my photographs. I'm sure it say nothing in general about the future of neither photographs, nor images.</p>

<p>Long before digital, photographers were showing their work and referring to it "this image" and "that image".</p>