There may be no rules, but there ARE definitions...

<p>There may be, as some claim, no rules in photography. There are, however, definitions...</p>

<p>All of the following are reproduced from wikipedia.org:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A <strong>photograph</strong> (often shortened to <strong>photo</strong> or <strong>pic</strong> (picture)) is an <a title="Image" href="../wiki/Image">image</a> created by <a title="Light" href="../wiki/Light">light</a> falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually <a title="Photographic film" href="../wiki/Photographic_film">photographic film</a> or an electronic imager such as a <a title="Charge-coupled device" href="../wiki/Charge-coupled_device">CCD</a> or a <a title="Complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor" href="../wiki/Complementary_metal%E2%80%93oxide%E2%80%93semiconductor">CMOS</a> chip. Most photographs are created using a <a title="Camera" href="../wiki/Camera">camera</a>, which uses a <a title="Photographic lens" href="../wiki/Photographic_lens">lens</a> to focus the scene's visible wavelengths of light into a reproduction of what the human eye would see. The process of creating photographs is called <a title="Photography" href="../wiki/Photography">photography</a>. The word "photograph" coined 1839 by <a title="Sir John Herschel" href="../wiki/Sir_John_Herschel">Sir John Herschel</a> and is based on the <a title="Greek language" href="../wiki/Greek_language">Greek</a> <em>φώς</em> (<em>phos</em>), "light" + <em>γραφίς</em> (<em>graphis</em>), "stylus", "paintbrush" or <em>γραφή</em> (<em>graphê</em>), "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".<sup id="cite_ref-0" ><a href="#cite_note-0">[1]</a></sup></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>(Interestingly...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A <strong>pseudo-photograph</strong> is an <a title="Image" href="../wiki/Image">image</a> produced manually which is indistinguishable from a real <a title="Photograph" href="../wiki/Photograph">photograph</a> produced using a camera.<br>

Although the term <em><strong>pseudo-photograph</strong></em> can be applied regardless of what it depicts, in law its meaning is especially relevant regarding <a title="Child pornography" href="../wiki/Child_pornography">child pornography</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> )</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Photography</strong> (<small>IPA</small>: <a title="Wikipedia:IPA" href="../wiki/Wikipedia:IPA">[fә'tɒgrәfi]</a> or <small>IPA</small>: <a title="Wikipedia:IPA" href="../wiki/Wikipedia:IPA">[fә'tɑːgrәfi]</a><sup id="cite_ref-0" ><a href="#cite_note-0">[1]</a></sup>) (from <a title="Greek language" href="../wiki/Greek_language">Greek</a> φωτο and γραφία) is the process, activity and <a title="Art" href="../wiki/Art">art</a> of creating still or moving <a title="Image" href="../wiki/Image">pictures</a> by recording <a title="Radiation" href="../wiki/Radiation">radiation</a> on a sensitive medium, such as a <a title="Photographic film" href="../wiki/Photographic_film">film</a>, or an <a title="Image sensor" href="../wiki/Image_sensor">electronic sensor</a>. <a title="Light" href="../wiki/Light">Light</a> patterns reflected or emitted from objects activate a sensitive chemical or electronic sensor during a timed <a title="Exposure (photography)" href="../wiki/Exposure_(photography)">exposure</a>, usually through a <a title="Photographic lens" href="../wiki/Photographic_lens">photographic lens</a> in a device known as a <a title="Camera" href="../wiki/Camera">camera</a> that also stores the resulting information chemically or electronically. Photography has many uses for business, science, art and pleasure.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Image editing</strong> encompasses the processes of altering <a title="Image" href="../wiki/Image">images</a>, whether they be <a title="Digital photography" href="../wiki/Digital_photography">digital photographs</a>, traditional <a title="Photographic processing" href="../wiki/Photographic_processing">analog photographs</a>, or <a title="Illustration" href="../wiki/Illustration">illustrations</a>. Traditional analog image editing is known as <a title="Retouching" href="../wiki/Retouching">photo retouching</a>, using tools such as an <a title="Airbrush" href="../wiki/Airbrush">airbrush</a> to modify photographs, or editing illustrations with any traditional <a title="Art medium" href="../wiki/Art_medium">art medium</a>. <a title="Graphic software" href="../wiki/Graphic_software">Graphic software</a> programs, which can be broadly grouped into <a title="Vector graphics editor" href="../wiki/Vector_graphics_editor">vector graphics editors</a>, <a title="Raster graphics editor" href="../wiki/Raster_graphics_editor">raster graphics editors</a>, and <a title="3d modeler" href="../wiki/3d_modeler">3d modelers</a>, are the primary tools with which a user may manipulate, enhance, and transform images. Many image editing programs are also used to <a title="Artistic rendering" href="../wiki/Artistic_rendering">render</a> or create <a title="Computer art" href="../wiki/Computer_art">computer art</a> from scratch.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Photo manipulation</strong> is the application of <a title="Image editing" href="../wiki/Image_editing">image editing</a> techniques to <a title="Photograph" href="../wiki/Photograph">photographs</a> in order to create an <a title="Illusion" href="../wiki/Illusion">illusion</a> or <a title="Deception" href="../wiki/Deception">deception</a> (in contrast to mere <em>enhancement</em> or <em>correction</em>), through analog or <a title="Digital" href="../wiki/Digital">digital</a> means<sup id="cite_ref-0" ><a href="#cite_note-0">[1]</a></sup>. Its uses, cultural impact, and ethical concerns have made it a subject of interest beyond the technical process and skills involved... <br>

Photo manipulation is often much more explicit than subtle alterations to color balance or contrast and may involve overlaying a head onto a different body or changing a sign's text, for example. Image editing software can be used to apply effects and warp an image until the desired result is achieved. The resulting image may have little or no resemblance to the photo (or photos in the case of compositing) from which it originated. Today, photo manipulation is widely accepted as an art-form.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I am seeing is a reluctance on the part of some to differentiate between a <em>photograph</em> and a photographically-derived <em>image</em>. When a photographer produces a photograph and then subjects it to manipulations which create the aforementioned "illusion or deception", he enters a realm beyond and/or apart from photography <em>per se</em>, and the image created can no longer be considered a photograph without also being considered manipulated (as opposed to enhanced or corrected). The word "photograph" itself is used in specific contexts which clearly render its meaning, such as <em>photographic memory </em>("the ability to <a title="Memory" href="../wiki/Memory">recall</a> <a title="Image" href="../wiki/Image">images</a>, <a title="Sounds" href="../wiki/Sounds">sounds</a>, or objects in <a title="Memory" href="../wiki/Memory">memory</a> <strong>with extreme accuracy</strong>..." per wikipedia.org), <em>photorealism</em> ("In Photorealism, change and movement must be frozen in time which must then be <strong>accurately represented</strong> by the artist...", <em>ibid</em>), and <em>photographic integrity</em> ("Editing should <strong>maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context</strong>....", National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics), etc. etc. (Emphases mine).</p>

<p>I don't think any participants in such discussions would disagree that photo manipulation and its practitioners often produce stunning, beautiful, and artistic results (see the absolutely amazing work of Hipgnosis -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipgnosis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipgnosis</a> -- if you have any doubts). On the other hand, the image produced by such manipulation is not in itself a photograph any longer, but an image derived from a photograph.</p>

<p>Does this distinction mean that the image manipulator is not a photographer? Nope, and nobody has claimed as much. He is both a photographer and a photo-manipulator. It does mean that the image is in many ways not comparable to an "unmanipulated" (by these defined criteria) photograph -- they are apples and oranges. The blurring of these kinds of distinctions denigrates both photography and image manipulation as forms of artistic expression, and turns what could be a fruitful debate into an emotionally charged argument. Clarifying these distinctions may point to why a number of pnet members question this site's avowed commitment to emphasizing photography by lumping it <em>en masse</em> with digitally altered images, some of which bear no resemblance whatsoever to the photograph from which they were derived.</p>

<p>I see a number of implications in related threads that "the other side" (whichever, depending on where one's own inclinations lie) is less an artist and/or less a photographer. More level heads would agree, I think, that photo manipulation is indeed a viable part of a photographer's toolkit, but to what extent one manipulates is dependent on whether one wishes to produce a photograph or a photographically derived image. There is a difference, but there is no necessary conclusion to be made that the difference is one of artistic quality. That distinction is ONLY in the eye of the beholder.</p>

<p>The thread to which this was intended to be posted was shut down before I could finish this long-winded diatribe and contribute it. Sorry, Josh Root, for bringing it all up again so soon. For the purposes of attempting to defuse the emotional volatility of this ongoing, multi-thread discussion, I simply ask for well-considered and non-defensive comments on the above. Thanks in advance for remaining civil!</p>

<p>Why does everything have to be boxed, categorized, and defined. What does it really matter? </p>

<p>Mike, you're right. It really doesn't matter. Art is what you make it. If enough people like it, you're famous. If you're not famous, well, there's always pnet..... :-)</p>

<p>And you are certainly free to adhere to and live your life according to wikipedia "definitions."</p>

<p>I feel no need to.</p>

<p>>>> What I am seeing is a reluctance on the part of some to differentiate between a <em >photograph</em> and a photographically-derived<em >image</em>. </p>

<p>Why do you care so much about what others do?</p>

<p>That's a lot of definitions!</p>

<p>I like abstractions and such, but sometime a concrete example can help clarify things.</p>

<p>Specifically, is the attached image a photograph?</p>

<p>It was "created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface", but it certainly isn't "a reproduction of what the human eye would see" (at least not without a band-saw).</p>

<p>Post-acquisition manipulation was limited to the calculations necessary to convert the raw data to an two-dimensional image, followed by some mild contrast & brightness adjustments and a little bit of sharpening.</p><div></div>

<p>If someone "derives" an image from their camera by way of Photoshop, how is that any different than choosing to use a nice surfaced, archival photo paper to print on versus using the output from Wal-Mart's labs?<br>

If I choose to lay a contrast filter on so that the image is enhanced, that is not the same as drawing something that isn't there (I could just throw my cameras away and just get the brushes back out), but is using the photographic process to complete my vision. Why is anyone so concerned about what process I'm (or anyone else for that matter is...) using? Go out and make your own images, and stop being so judgemental of everyone else.<br>

Life ain't fair. Get used to it.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter. Does it make a difference if the dividing line between a "photograph" and a "not a photograph" is placed between the tenth and eleventh angel on the pin or the twelfth and thirteenth?</p>

<p>OMGNA</p>

<p>Brad- you and I are on the same page on this one ;)</p>

<p>Completely missing the point, all of the above... I made no judgments whatsoever, nor do I care what you or any other photographer does. It doesn't make a hill of beans to me or the rest of the world. What I do care about is how misuse of language or failure to make distinctions of definition cloud the issues being discussed to the point that it turns into what ALL of the above have immediately determined to be an argument against something.</p>

<p>Again, is there any <em>thoughtful</em> discourse to be had on this subject?</p>

<p>>>> I made no judgments whatsoever, nor do I care what you or any other photographer does.</p>

<p>Hah, quite the contrary. Starting with: </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> What I am seeing is a reluctance on the part of some to differentiate between a <em >photograph</em> and a photographically-derived<em >image</em>. When a photographer produces a photograph and then subjects it to manipulations which create the aforementioned "illusion or deception", he enters a realm beyond and/or apart from photography <em >per se</em>, and the image created can no longer be considered a photograph without also being considered manipulated (as opposed to enhanced or corrected). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I made no judgments whatsoever. I simply have adhered to definitions of words (pick any authoritative text on words and their definitions, you don't have to settle for wiki). Where in the above is any value judgment made? I fail to see the reason for your "hah"...</p>

<p>To clarify... what bothers me in this and similar discussions is the belief that one can define words any way one wishes. Words mean specific things. If we begin haphazardly altering definitions to suit our tastes and support our arguments, we end up with another teetering Tower of "Babble" that Josh is destined to shut down for lack of productive dialog. I would just like to see a discussion on this that is constructive in nature. I'm not defending or attacking any particular approach to photographic expression, I'm just defending the accurate use of language to communicate, hopefully constructively, about an apparently contentious issue.</p>

<p>Kevin - I find your posts on this issue thoughtful and well reasoned. </p>

<p>I believe your windmill in this controversy is human nature itself. Lewis Carroll covered the same ground in 1871 when his Humpty Dumpty said to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." </p>

<p>The utility of definitions in resolving conflict depends upon the propensity of the antagonists to agree on them. With sincerity, good luck.</p>

<p>Kevin has a point: Without some kind of consensual language, we're left like the crew at the Tower of Babel, with grunts, chirps, etc. to discuss photographs. If we read the reviews here and elsewhere, it's not too far from that. Most photographers -- and viewers -- are visual illiterates whenever they veer an inch from the worst of cliches.</p>

<p>OTOH, Kevin seemed to be interested in enslaving truth to categories, and life has a way of breaking out of all efforts to subjugate it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree about the importance of consensus on terms of real, serious consequence. Terms used in photography seldom have such a need, at least until someone confuses developer and fixer.</p>

<p>But the premise of this thread smacks of unfinished business. Someone didn't get the resolution he wanted from a previous discussion and is determined to continue to raise the same issue until we all agree.</p>

<p>Apart from distinguishing between two categories of photography - the needs of journalism, forensics or other scientific documentation, and virtually everything else - I don't see any pressing general need to define photography to the nth degree. There may be occasional situational specific needs, such as when categorizing images for critiques, galleries and contests.</p>

I'll add my voice to the 'Who Cares' line of reasoning.

<p>I did not read the definitions. It is to much to ask.</p>

<p>Actually, Lex, I'm not concerned about whether we all agree. I'm concerned that issues such as this one (and we all know of plenty of others), which are apparently of interest to individuals on BOTH/ALL sides of any given issue, never seem to get far before they become needless shouting matches and get shut down. I see the primary reason for this in the observation that definitions to words we all use are apparently not held in consensus, sometimes even remotely so. We talk past each other rather than with each other, as a result, and nothing can be meaningfully explored because we're all speaking different languages, as it were. I don't really believe that only issues "of import" are worthy of being discussed intelligently and thus of having a useful language for discussion. I'd just like to see one forum thread on ANY contentious subject that actually makes some attempt to explore the issue instead of trash the "opposition", and I only see that happening if we all use the same words to say at least roughly the same things.</p>

<p>Luis, thank you for attempting to understand my point. I'm not really interested in enslaving anything, though -- just wishing (perhaps pointlessly) that some of these discussions could actually enlighten rather than serve as our daily barroom brawl.</p>

<p>Robert, thank you for the bitter medicine of reality! I find it unfortunate but probably true that the antagonists have little propensity to agree on definitions. I suppose that would spoil the fight... </p>

<p>For those who don't care... that's perfectly ok. I sometimes wish I didn't. Thanks for your 2c as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd just like to see one forum thread on ANY contentious subject that actually makes some attempt to explore the issue instead of trash the "opposition",</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What issue? We all agree that you hate Photoshop, Composites or any attempt to make a photo look interesting if it changes what was seen in the view finder. You probably hated it when film cameras came out with built in multiple exposure capabilities to I would imagine.<br>

<!-- --></p>

<br />

 

<p>As soon as you draw rigid boxes, you kill creativity. Art would still be cave paintings if people didn't think about expanding the definitions. I doubt any artists were attacked by the box-ers when they started using brushes instead of sticks and fingers. It's unfortunate that photographers get attacked as soon as they try to expand the art.<br>

<br /> But, as Bernie says, who cares.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd just like to see one forum thread on ANY contentious subject that actually makes some attempt to explore the issue instead of trash the "opposition", and I only see that happening if we all use the same words to say at least roughly the same things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So we can only have a civil discussion about what photography is or isn't if every accepts your definition of what photography is or isn't? Well, maybe so, but do you see the absurdity of requiring everyone to accept the same premise when the <strong>premise is the conclusion</strong> you're trying to reach?</p>

<p>(It's kind of like having a "discussion" with my girlfriend. It's only going to be a pleasant and productive "discussion" if I accept that she's correct before we even begin.)</p>

<p>There is a line, but it's broad and not very bright. Many non-photographers care. One of the most frequent questions I get when a viewer looks at what they consider a "stunning" image is whether I captured those stunning qualities with my camera or whether the qualities that make it stunning are a result of my use of photoshop.<br>

However, the definitions above fall short. I can take a 4-minute exposure of a boiling ocean, and straight from the camera comes a peaceful, flat, dreamy ocean surface. That's very deceptive illusion, yet I didn't edit or manipulate it If you call this in-camera manipulation, then what shutter speed is needed to avoid calling it in-camera manipulation? At what shutter speed do we see? Certainly not 4 minutes, and certainly not 1/8000. Similarly with f-stops. A photo straight from the camera taken a f/1.2 does not produce a picture that I can ever see with my eyes, and it can be very deceptive. Isn't that also in-camera manipulation? Yet who would deny that it's photography?</p>

<p><em>So we can only have a civil discussion about what photography is or isn't if every accepts your definition of what photography is or isn't? Well, maybe so, but do you see the absurdity of requiring everyone to accept the same premise when the <strong>premise is the conclusion</strong> you're trying to reach?</em></p>

<p>You beat me to it.</p>

<p>Kevin - did you actually read and really think about your definitions? The first one gives the source, the true meaning, of the words "photograph" and "photography": <strong>drawing with light.</strong> That's a broad definition which would encompass pretty much anything that starts with a recording made using a light sensitive surface.</p>

<p>Maybe you should accept that and move on.</p>

<p>Well, some pics are more representative of an image originally recorded by a camera than others... Like many people I know, I only tend to think of the more faithful representations as "real" photographs.</p>

<p>Anyone can be a photographer. I'd much rather be a photographically derived image manipulator.</p>

<p>http://www.d-log.info/timeline/index.html</p>