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

[profhlynnjones]

<p>How tiresome!</p>

<p>Some people make photographs, some people talk the subject to death. </p>

<p>The only reason to be definitively pure is for basic understanding such as: Film/Digital, Contact/Projection, Inkjet/Silver Gelatin, etc., other than that, just enjoy th medium , regardless of whether you're a pro or amateur.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>Luca, I'm very surprised that any person with a mathematical education, particularly with application to physics, would argue that precision in definition is not critical to discussion, even when the confusion of lack of precision is deemed by some to be harmless. Additionally, I'd be glad to discuss any of these issues using new definitions, if and when they are updated -- until then, these are the definitions we have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you are missing (part of the) point. Precision in definition is critical in mathematics and physics. But we are doing neither here. One of the differences is that in mathematics you have tools to recognize a bad definition, and you better have, since ill-defined concepts in mathematics, lead often to wrong deductions. Mathematicians are scared by bad definitions, because they are traps, and sooner or later you fall in. Lack of precision might be harmful, illusion of precision surely is. Can I remember you that in more than one occasion, definitions of what an "human being" is, and most important, what is NOT, have been used to rather nasty ends?<br>

In reality, on the other hand, you often do not have a sharp tool to recognize a bad definition, although the principle stays the same: a bad definition is one that is unfit for its purpose. You first choose the purpose, and only after you set your definitions. So: what is your purpose?</p>

<p>So no mathematician, or physicist (at least I hope) will tell you that any definition is better than no definition. The point is not to have a definition of photography. Every fool can have one. The point is to have a GOOD one. If it is not good, it does not exist, it is just an illusion. Do you think this one is good? and if yes: WHY?<br>

To paraphrase Anton Ego in Ratatouille: I do not like definitions, I LOVE them. If I don't love them, I don't swallow ;-)</p>

<p>Forgive me. I love this kind of philosophical blabber. All in all, I think you have the same problem that many have with salami: you try to cut too thin slices.<br>

Still, as above, my humble opinion.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Jennifer... I won't respond further to people who neglect salient portions of the dialog. See the definition I copied, or any other (for that matter), for the word "photomanipulation". The camera may see the rock in the foreground of an image "differently" than my eye does, but the rock is still there, and it is still a rock. The grass may a bit more or less green (my camera may only see it in B/W), but it is still grass. None of the "my eye saw a different photon than the camera sensor did" quibbling is helpful, as it is irrelevent to the definitions cited, which have yet, by the way, to be replaced by ones more palatable to those who wish to make up their own.</p>

<p>Lynn, you're right... It's very tiresome being told by those who know better than I what the ONLY reason for this, that, or the other is. Some people make photographs, and some people like to know a bit more and dig a bit deeper into what they're doing and why, beyond the manipulation of whatever machine(s) they use. And, every one of us is quite free to forgo participation in discussions we find tiresome.</p>

<p>Daniel, again thanks... I surely hope that the attitudes we confront in these forums is not representative of photographers as a whole. I'm rather surprised, to be honest... I really thought this was a site devoted to education and development of photographers and not just another collection of internet squabblers. I do appreciate knowing that I'm not the only one who is at least a bit disappointed by these little turf wars.</p>

[znabal]

<p>Cool...the argument was once and for all ended in the definition<strong>:</strong><br>

<strong>Photography</strong> ...creating still or moving <a title="Image" rel="nofollow" href="../wiki/Image" title="Image">pictures</a> by recording <a title="Radiation" rel="nofollow" href="../wiki/Radiation" title="Radiation">radiation</a> on a sensitive medium...<br>

EXACTLY what a CRT monitor does ...presents a picture by recording radiation on a sensitive medium....I control my CRT via photoshop...BTW Does anyone have a good CAM (CRT Asset Managment) system....I've shot lots of CRT's and am not very organized about it.</p>

 

[freewolf]

<p>Luca, I appreciate your response, but I'm left once again to reminding you that the definitions I chose are not "mine" -- they are those put forth (not verbatim, but in essence) by every major dictionary of the English language that I checked. I would hesitate to say the OED puts forth definitions that are unfit for use in discussing this topic -- they do the research, and it is not limited to lexicographers and linguists. </p>

<p>I also understand and appreciate your comments re:"what a human being is/is not" (although I think this is a bit of an apples/oranges argument). While I understand completely that the boundaries engendered by definitions can and should be constructively stretched (I'm a musician -- name another field that has stretched boundaries any further), such stretching alone does not alter the definitions as they are now. What changes them (besides brute force, I suppose) is consensus. Until the consensus indicates otherwise, the definitions I have are the ones in place at this moment. Again, I see this as the only way to avoid degeneration of the conversation into a meaningless shouting match.</p>

<p>PS -- No forgiveness given, but only because none is necessary. I thank you for constructively engaging in this dialog!</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I think what happens is that some of us take it too personal. The dissection of our very being simply being exposed at times in the very question at hand, and sometimes a bit much to take.<br /> <br /> I have thin skin and I want it to stay that way, sensitivity means you are truly exposed to all that is possible, good and bad...<br /> <br /> The biggest problem is that on the internet, we are not having a conversation, we can not read each other, be tactile of sense in body language and line of sight. So in effect, we are trying to have rich conversations and debates in the form of typing letters. This is less than ideal..<br /> <br /> The best thing we can do if we want to be called a photographer is to create or record photographs. Everything we do in place of that act, in effect, negates who we are...</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>What changes them (besides brute force, I suppose) is consensus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree here. But there is the risk of a feedback effect. You have a consensus on, say, "what photography is". You derive a definition. Then you (in this case it is a generic you, I know you are not doing this) tell everybody that only what fits the consensus-based definition is photography. From there on, the definition tends to be self-supporting. It is not anymore "hey there is this new thing, how can we define it?", but instead "anything which does not fit the established definition should not be considered photography". In a sense, you risk to become prisoner of the definition.<br>

As I wrote above, dictionary definitions are, I believe, conceived as inclusive. This alien comes down from 51 Pegasi, and wonders what is this photography everybody talks about on this funny planet. He (do aliens have a sex? and how many?) looks in his Lonely Planet "Earth and Solar System", and finds a definition. Ha, he says, now I understand what they all do with these weird little black boxes. He gets a general idea, the "center" of the thing, but much less, I believe, its boundaries. He does not care how much layers we put on our photoshop image (alien use GIMP anyway, I know for sure) he is just curious about the black box. If dictionary definitions were conceived to be exclusive (i.e. to tell precisely what it is NOT), they should be mutually coherent (no "overlapping borders") and you realize that there are just too many definitions, and too many fuzzy concepts, for this to work. No, I believe they aim to tell you what photography is for sure, so you get an idea, especially if you are just arrived from 51 Pegasi and still feel the hyperspace lag and the excessive gravity ;-).</p>

<p>Now, I suppose we largely share views on what photography is. Or at least, on which one we like to do. I do not like extreme photoshopping, I do not like images which look "artificial" (this would be a bad definition, since no image is "natural" but you got my meaning). My taste is largely "old school". But it is not because I go by the book (or perhaps yes, maybe I jst lack fantasy), it is just because that is what I find attractive. And still, I guess that part of the problem is that extreme photoshopping is easy to do poorly (in terms of taste and beauty, not technically) and difficult to do well. So you see a lot of overdone stuff.</p>

<p>So perhaps I would just turn the original question around: these are the defnitions we find in the dictionaries. We are (by consensus ;-) photographers. Do we think these definitions are (still) valid? Do they encompass our experience or tastes, or what we believe we will do in the foreseeable future? I will say what I think: to indicate where the "core business" of photography is, I think they are very good. To set the city boundaries, much less.</p>

<p>Ciao for now, this was a quite interesting conversation: thank you!</p>

<p>L.</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Daniel... What you say has merit, as we are revealing (presumably) who we are to strangers in an otherwise pretty anonymous venue and in a fairly limiting medium. I'm sure others feel that their "very being", as you say, is being exposed or questioned or challenged as well, so discomfort on all sides may be expected. However, I hope it's been clear that I'm not challenging anybody's creative ethic or enterprise (although I know some are, also on all sides). Sincere dialog may be a bit difficult with a keyboard and a screen, but I find it worth the effort.</p>

<p>Luca... very good observations all, and thanks. I would only add (from my own experience, and I expect very common to most of us), that like extreme photoshopping, simply using a camera is easy to do poorly! I'm not from as far away as 51 Pegasi, but I'm an alien to serious photography, enough so that I find these definitions useful in learning the craft. And while it seems to me that the essence of photography <strong>begins</strong> (but certainly doesn't end) with mastery of the camera, then differentiating the processes, however arbitrary it may be, allows me (as the beginner) to emphasize the camera and its capabilities and limitations first and foremost. The rest will come in its time. The definitions assist in this process... I don't intend any more than the PS afficionado to let them limit me. I'll let my own aesthetic judgment do that. Again, thank you for responding.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Argghhh... Luca played the strawpegasian card. Cannot trump that.</p>

<p>Kevin, as a self-confessed newcomer to photography, you seem awfully obsessed with defining and confining it. Do you do this with your other pursuits (music and fishing, listed on you bio)? I would think someone with a background in other creative arts and enjoyable hobbies would better comprehend the futility of trying to put everything into neat boxes.</p>

<p>Come back in 10 years and update us on the evolution of your philosophy of photography. Meanwhile I hope you'll understand why those of us who've been doing it for a good while aren't particularly interested in such rigorous definitions.</p>

[zootshooter]

<p>Kevin you are a legend for trying to rise above tthe pig headedness of the contributors to this forum; I salute your patience in dealing with idiots who can't even see the value of defining what a word means, as an english teacher I'm thoroughly appaled by such ignorance, maybe they could suggest an alternative way to communicate since words have such little value. I gave up on trying to have constructive debates on this site when I realised that the site admin have no interest in this site as a resource for learning; they have sponsors offering photoshop course and retouching services to keep happy, and that most of the digital artists here spend way more time on their computer than I wish to swimming against the tide on these forums. </p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>Argghhh... Luca played the strawpegasian card. Cannot trump that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex you know: I'm an astronomer. And some time ago I was<strong> informed</strong> by an ufologist that we astronomers, spending all our time looking at the sky (I had the impression to spend it looking at a computer monitor with an x-terminal on it, look how I can be mistaken at times!), <strong>should necessarily</strong> have seen the alien activity developing all around Earth. So we should be <strong>patently</strong> accomplices of the global conspiracy to hide the exixtence of these 51 Pegasi guys (or girls?). Do they ask you to sign something about not releasing confidencial informations without asking the government? He asked me. I did not feel like disappointing him. So I denied everything, as he expected, but in fact he is of course right. I should get my next many-zeros-check from the men in black next week, now if only nikon would release that D400...</p>

<p>So you see, you cannot beat me on aliens. I know them too well. Now I have to leave to cook the dinner. My guest is from Mercury and he does not eat anything which has not been cooked with a plasma torch...</p>

<p>L.</p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p>I salute your patience in dealing with idiots who can't even see the value of defining what a word means, as an english teacher I'm thoroughly appaled by such ignorance, maybe they could suggest an alternative way to communicate since words have such little value.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Normally, I'd delete that sort of name calling, but you've done a far better job of incriminating yourself than insulting others. Haphazard punctuation, poor capitalization, and incorrect spelling all in one long, run-on sentence in which you proclaim yourself an English teacher who's appalled by the ignorance of others.</p>

<p>Kevin, a couple of questions for you (derived from Lex's comments): What is your definition of blues music? Does that definition encompass the work of all the great artists who have sung and played the blues? Do you think those artists needed to know and agree to such a definition in order to develop into great artists?</p>

[think27]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=321228">Daniel Bayer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> "The biggest problem is that on the internet, we are not having a conversation, we can not read each other, be tactile of sense in body language and line of sight. So in effect, we are trying to have rich conversations and debates in the form of typing letters. This is less than ideal.."<br>

______________________________________________________________<br>

Very true - Daniel put his finger on these types of debates...<br>

Smart people know that when trying to make an opposing point that others will understand and perhaps learn from - they treat the listener with respect, and present their side with intellegence and diplomacy. And, there are some interesting, intellegent comments here... And then again - as usual with these debates, there is noise</p>

<p>Whenever I see titles in forums such as this, I know way ahead of time that</p>

<p>1) There will be no firm answer to the debate. No winners. If we're lucky, some food for thought.<br>

2) Everyone is right from their own point of view<br>

3) Name calling will occur, some will be ridiculed for their 'opinion' and lurkers will swear not to make comments in PN threads for fear of being attacked.<br>

4) The thread will be closed, set to expire (meaning it is there in the archives but not visible in active threads), or edited and/or deleted. <br>

______________________________________________________________<br>

A sufi story.....<br>

"A judge in a village court had gone on vacation. Nasrudin was asked to be temporary judge for a day. Nasrudin sat on the Judge's chair with a serious face, gazing around the public and ordered the first case be brought-up for hearing.<br>

"You are right," said Nasrudin after hearing one side.<br>

"You are right," he said after hearing the other side.<br>

"But both cannot be right," said a member of public sitting in the audience.<br>

"You are right, too" said Nasrudin."</p>

[robert_wilson11]

<p>I still believe that the Humpty Dumpty model most accurately describes human communications. In fact, when we use words they DO mean just what we choose them to mean. The fact that our use of language is shaped by our individual experiences means that our communications must be imperfect.</p>

<p>If our purpose is to learn from each other, it seems to me that we need to try to understand the meaning behind each others' words rather than to quibble over definitions. Being 'right' in a difference of definition doesn't help me to understand what someone else is really trying to say. In face to face conversation, don't we tend to respond with words like, "How do you mean that?" or "I'm not sure I understand; can you explain?" Perhaps we haven't the patience to type or read all the verbiage that supports spoken conversation. Perhaps our defenses are higher in these impersonal forums causing us to snatch at opportunities to score 'gotchas' against each other by finding fault when we should be looking for meaning.</p>

<p>Maybe we could learn more by trying harder to understand each other.</p>

[freewolf]

<blockquote>

<p>Kevin, as a self-confessed newcomer to photography, you seem awfully obsessed with defining and confining it. Do you do this with your other pursuits (music and fishing, listed on you bio)? I would think someone with a background in other creative arts and enjoyable hobbies would better comprehend the futility of trying to put everything into neat boxes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, let's get it straight first... I am not doing the defining -- the fine folks at Oxford/Webster's/<em>et al</em> have already done that for us. Nor is my interest in confining. It is in differentiating in order to use the tools at hand appropriately as I see fit in my endeavors. I'd rather swing a 24 oz. hammer with a handle constructed of wood than one constructed of gum rubber, that's all. And since other much more knowledgeable folks have already given us the "neat boxes" of definition, I can and will do with these neat boxes what I deem important in my expression, even stepping outside them. But no matter how I far outside them we choose to step, the neat boxes still serve as a structural framework within which us language-delimited beings can describe and converse about what we do.</p>

<p>Feargal, while you and I apparently agree on much of this issue, and while I'm as distressed as you are that nitpicking and deflection have been used to introduce trajectories I find unproductive, I'll have to agree that the name-calling is no more productive. I respect your input and appreciate your moral support in the argument, and in a barroom conversation on the subject I may even use the word "idiot" a few times, but as OP I'd request that you tone it down. It does no more to further the discussion than invective from the "other side" (I for one would like to maintain that we ARE all photographers here, whether or not we agree on terminology or technique).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What is your definition of blues music? Does that definition encompass the work of all the great artists who have sung and played the blues? Do you think those artists needed to know and agree to such a definition in order to develop into great artists?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, thanks for continuing the conversation and posing another more personal angle on the subject. I don't know if you're psychic, or if you deduced from my residence in Mississippi, but I am a huge blues fan. I enjoy any form of blues -- Delta blues, slide-guitar blues, electric blues, basic 12-bar blues, blues/rock, andonandon -- immensely. I feel no need to define the blues, as Alan Lomax (and many others musicologists much more qualified than myself) have done an admirable job of doing so already. Without a dissertation on this thread of what comprises "blues music", some very quick and basic research will inform you that there are a number and variety of very specific musical characteristics involved. Inasmuch as the likes of Clapton, Led Zeppelin, SRV, or any other blues-influenced artists are concerned, some have played quite a lot of "straight" blues, and none has to my knowledge taken offense when their other music was described as blues-influenced. One excellent illustration of hybridization of the blues can be found in a recent collaberation between R. L. Burnside and Kid Rock, both of whom are very happy to call it a hybridization, not "the blues". Indeed, it is my experience with music that causes me such amazement when I see the vehement responses from photo-illustrators when their work is referred to as somehow not "straight" photography. It really blows my mind, and SEEMS to be an unnecessary overcompensation for perceived slights that largely, for me, aren't intended.<br>

You do, however, raise an excellent point in your last question. The definition of "the blues" was not necessarily derived from those musical pioneers who actually created the form, but was largely (at least in an academic sense) derived from observation by musicologists of the characteristics of the music that they made. And as the music changes, so may the definitions. By and large, though, folks such as Eric Clapton have been happy and proud to say that their non-"straight" blues music is blues-<strong>influenced</strong>, and are actually very concerned about preserving the original form as an almost sacred icon. I don't see this attitude much in these discussions about photography, and I'm really at a loss to explain why.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> There will be no firm answer to the debate. No winners. If we're lucky, some food for thought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />MaryBall... There is no need for a firm answer, but if, as I hope, there has been food for thought, it's possible we could all come out winners. I really only would like to be able to participate in less vitriolic discussions about the topic. As Robert has just said, understanding each other is my point. However, unlike Robert, I think it's a futile discussion if we can all assign our own meanings to the words...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>we need to try to understand the meaning behind each others' words rather than to quibble over definitions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert... I'm a bit confused as to your point here. What is the definition of "meaning" as you are using it? Likewise, what is the meaning of "definition"... We don't have to quibble. Rather than spend so much time trying to figure out what the other guy means when using a common word or phrase, why don't we just use them as defined and have a great discussion. The root of this seems still to be that offense is taken, whether intended or not, when one uses a word by its given definition and another doesn't like that definition and so makes up his own. I recommend that if you don't like the definitions, petition the lexicographers and linguists to have them changed. If not, why not live comfortably with the terms that DO describe what one is doing? </p>

<p>Is there something holy about being a photographer, or something evil about being a photo-illustrator, that I don't know about? I'm really scratching my head over this one. Perhaps it's because the amount of invective that "straight" photographers have heaped on crummy photo-illustrators has caused a sense of "guilt by association" prejudice perceived by even the better photo-illustrators. But if that's the case, there have been enough crummy photographers to make ANYBODY shy away from that label!</p>

[robert_wilson11]

<p >Kevin - How clever; you win! Let me know when you start another thread. Right now I have to go finish up some work in PhotoShop.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>I think we should all take a deep breath, crack open a beer (for those of us old enough), and watch "The Genius of Photography" on PBS. Or better yet, stop debating and go take some photos.</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Robert, I really haven't been trying to win, just to converse. Do well!</p>

[rubo]

<p>This is just my point of view.</p>

<p>If you present a photograph as a work of art, than it really doesn't matter how you did it.<br>

Art has no laws or rules (well it does and yet it doesn't). You can use any technic or tool to get the desired result.</p>

<p>But if it is not presented as a work of art, such as if it is to document an event, a place, building, etc. than it should follow certain criteria.</p>

<p>Just IMHO</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Kevin, I think this definition of a "<a href="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/photograph.gif">photograph</a> " is perfectly clear.</p>

<p>;)</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Well, then, that settles it, and I stand corrected! :)</p>

[tholte]

<p>"Come back in 10 years and update us on the evolution of your philosophy of photography." Best advice I have heard all day! </p>

[karenf]

<p>Is there a PN rule that says there must be at least 3 of these threads running concurrently at ALL times? Then again, it seems most threads end up here sooner or later.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I have a question...How can we engage more people to this type of discussion? I think that some of the folks from Street and Documentary might have some good insight but how do we get them to come here?<br /> That is my only peeve with this kind of topic, not everyone is fairly represented, it is very lopsided.<br /> Any creative ideas that adhere to the site rules anyone?<br /> I want to hear some fresh opinions that evenly represent the question and the answers to it.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> I think that some of the folks from Street and Documentary might have some good insight but how do we get them to come here?</p>

<p>Three *very* active participants and prolific shooters from S&D (plus a couple less active participants) have already weighed-in. I suspect most there, and certainly for me, this isn't an issue to care about or lose sleep over. If people don't want to engage on what many consider to be a "beating a dead horse" issue, well, that says something...</p>

<p>>>> That is my only peeve with this kind of topic, not everyone is fairly represented, it is very lopsided.</p>

<p>I disagree - this is the best forum for getting a good cross-section of views. I suspect you're simply unhappy with the responses.</p>

<p> </p>