When is photography no longer photography?

[tom_mann1]

<p>MR: <em>"...A photograph is a picture formed in a sensitive surface by marks chemically generated as a consequence of that surface being penetrated by light...."</em>.</p>

<p>When I first take a picture with my film cameras, the surface of the film certainly is penetrated by the light, but, I don't see any little marks. The same goes for my digital cameras ... I don't see the little piles of electrons that formed during the exposure. However, if I do some chemical processing on the film, or electronically gather up the piles of electrons, I certainly can see an image in either case, so they both sound like photography to me.</p>

<p>However, suppose I change the chemical process (eg, say, I solarize the film), or I change the electron gathering process (eg, say I invert the luminance curve), is the result no longer a photograph? Of course it is ... up to some point. </p>

<p>IMHO, the issue the OP raised is NOT whether or not the image starts with photons. I suspect most people would be OK including this as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition in any definition of photography. However, IMHO, the OP was asking how much processing can be done to either a chemical or electronic image before most people don't regard it as a photo any more.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[don_essedi]

<p>"However, IMHO, the OP was asking how much processing can be done to either a chemical or electronic image before most people don't regard it as a photo any more."</p>

<p>"When it no longer photographically describes what was in the scene at the taking" was my answer, and that "It's the choice of the artist to describe such work as photography or as computer art", but sometimes it is obvious -- like the sun shining from 3 directions -- no matter what choice was made. There is a defensive attitude about "computer art" here. I don't know why. It's an honorable art...used to do it myself.</p>

<p> </p>

[firass_al_jundi1]

<p>When it's like <a href="http://www.davehillphoto.com/">this</a>.</p>

<p>If you think that's photography, then tell me where you live, and leave your door open so I can take your gear. You don't deserve to take pictures.<br>

I'm not saying I'm against what he's doing. I think a lot of his work is nice, but that is not photography. I would call it photo illustration, and that's being too nice to it. </p>

[firass_al_jundi1]

<p>When it's like <a href="http://www.davehillphoto.com/">this</a>.</p>

<p>If you think that's photography, then tell me where you live, and leave your door open so I can take your gear. You don't deserve to take pictures.<br>

I'm not saying I'm against what he's doing. I think a lot of his work is nice, but that is not photography. I would call it photo illustration, and that's being too nice to it. Just to get an idea of how much manipulation goes into his work, look at his "Behind the scenes" videos. That is NOT photography.<br>

Now, a lot of people get offended when you tell them what they're doing isn't photography, which I don't understand. There's a time and place for everything. What David Hill does is gorgeous, for it's purpose. It's for advertising, it's supposed to look that surreal. Now imagine you had that in a news journal as a picture for an article. <br>

It wouldn't work.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>@Don E: I'm not disagreeing in the least with your definition. I was merely pointing out that Maris Rusis' condition (for something to be a photograph) may be a necessary, and even useful condition, but it is not a sufficient condition. I think you are supplying something that sounds much closer to a well-reasoned sufficient condition.</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Tom, I meant no disagreement. MR's definition is well known here and on other forums. It is the definition of the word 'photography' by its coiner. That much is true.</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_ginman]

<p>Until relatively recently, most photographs were in black and white. Reality isn't black and white. You could argue that there is more real photography (i.e. in colour) than there used to be.</p>

<p>And that reminds me of a Bill Brandt landscape photo. I can't remember the name, but Brandt substituted a more interesting sky for the original uninteresting one. Apparently, David Hockney really flipped when he found out about it. He referred to it as "Stalinist" photography. I can't help thinking that a sense of proportion would have been useful there.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>"When it no longer photographically describes what was in the scene at the taking" was my answer, and that "It's the choice of the artist to describe such work as photography or as computer art" - Don</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <em>Clearing </em>photograph that I linked to by Thomas Demand photographically describes a forest with the sun shining through,which however wasn't what was ( in ) the scene when the photograph was taken. It shows a forest yes, but a paper made "fake" forest, something which the photographic desscription doesn't reveal to the viewer immediately unless it goes accompanied with the description of the photograph.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Reality isn't black and white. You could argue that there is more real photography (i.e. in colour) than there used to be. - Alan</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would say that what we perceive as reality isn't black and white...</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Luis G.... again, you're a fine writer, clear and concise.</strong> In fact, several new participants write well.</p>

<p><strong>Good writers, like you, intend to communicate: not just to "express themselves." </strong></p>

<p>You and I do frequently disagree about secondary ideas, such as our individual understandings of "previsualization." I think that's fine.</p>

<p><strong>Disagreements are positives when they're well written :</strong> when they're clear and concise (not snarled sentence-jockey ruminations), they obviously inspire a wider range of participants.</p>

<p><strong> </strong></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>John, are you speaking of a jockey of convoluted sentences, or a convoluted jockey of sentences? I am not sure what the latter would be, but I have a hunch that I have known some.</p>

<p>Just trying to avoid the "snarled sentence-jockey ruminations. . . ."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jtk]

<p>Lannie, convoluted sentences reflect convoluted jockeys. :-)</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>Look up the definition of photography in the dictionary. The key point seems to be that light sensitive materials/devices must be used at some point in the creation of a photograph. Many definitions do not even mention cameras. I haven't seen any that dictate how much adjustment from reality is allowed. </p>

<p>Many people seem to think photography started with the south west landscape photogs of the early 20th century. Explore what came before. You may be surprised that things are not so different today.</p>

<p>http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/pictoria.htm<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism<br>

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"The <em>Clearing </em>photograph that I linked to by Thomas Demand photographically describes a forest with the sun shining through,which however wasn't what was ( in ) the scene when the photograph was taken. It shows a forest yes, but a paper made "fake" forest, something which the photographic desscription doesn't reveal to the viewer immediately unless it goes accompanied with the description of the photograph."</p>

<p>It photographically describes what was in front of the lens. Doesn't matter if you don't know what it is or mistake it for something else.</p>

<p>What the photograph describes is *not* a forest or a paper forest or anything else; it photographically describes what was in front of the lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Well, it seems like this discussion is going well... lets throw a wrench in it:</p>

<p>Lets say I shoot a series of photos of a group of people. In every shot someone is blinking. I take the best shot of the group and, from another photo, cut the face, or eyes of the person blinking and paste it onto the better photo.</p>

<p>This manipulation gets across the idea that was originally intended, but is it still a photograph or is it digital art? It is technically a composite of two photos, and although the composite is done digitally, compositing has been done for ages, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread. This would be similar to compositing a more attractive sky onto a beautiful photo where the sky is grey and overcast...which has been done on many occasions.</p>

<p>Firass Al Jundi posted a link that, in my opinion, crosses the line and is no longer photography. It is amazing art, and it may have originally started as a photograph, but if I saw Dave Hill's work in MoMA, I would assume it was pure digital art with no photograph involved.</p>

<p>I have come up with the following classifications for photographers based on their beliefs. There may be people in-between, but for the most part, I believe everyone fits into one of them.</p>

<p><em><strong>All of the following assume that the photographer creates an image on a light sensitive surface. </strong></em></p>

<p><em><strong>The Purist: </strong>The author of the image previsualizes the image and the exposure is made as accurately as possible. Slight tweaking of color, density, and crop are permitted.</em></p>

<p><em><strong>The Moderate:</strong> The photographer is allowed to make adjustments to the image such as compositing, major development changes like solarizing or inverting luminance curves, major sharpening or softening, etc. <strong>I believe most photographers would now consider themselves MODERATES</strong></em></p>

<p><em><strong>The Artographer: </strong>I like the term "Artography" I would consider an Artographer one who captures an image for the sole intention of manipulating it into a form of digital art. Dave Hill is the perfect example of an Artographer. </em></p>

<p>Now the question is, do you believe that everyone falls into one of these categories? Also, what would you consider yourself? A purist? A moderate? An Artographer?</p>

<p>RS</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>This is a really tiresome type of thread as it ignores the history of photography. Why do people assume that photographic manipulation is endemic to the use of computers only? To all of those who want to categorize a photograph as something else - how do you pigeonhole a photograph made during the Civil War?</p>

<p>There is a photograph of Ulysses S. Grant on a horse. The Grant image is constructed from pieces of other photographs. His head came from a pose in front of a tent. The background is an encampment at Fisher's Hill, VA. The horse and body belong to Maj. Gen. Alexander McDowell McCook. All of the photographs were undoubtably made with 8x10 or larger view cameras at least 146 years ago.</p>

<p>So, according to the people who want digitally manipulated work to be other than a photograph - how do you categorize the US Grant image? Were you even aware that this type of manipulation was commonly used in photography? Why is digital manipulation any different than what has been done in photography for the past 160 years? Are you aware that landscape photographers regularly replaced the white sky in photographs made on orthochromatic film with an exposure of another sky - many times not even taken at the place the original photograph was made?</p>

<p>Just what is SO different about doing something in a computer that was a common technical- and aesthetically acceptable - practice up until you discovered photography and decided there was only one way to make a photograph?</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"Now the question is, do you believe that everyone falls into one of these categories? Also, what would you consider yourself? A purist? A moderate? An Artographer?"</p>

<p>I'd be described as a "purist", but I don't previsualize. When the scene looks like a photograph (or when I recognize the photograph in the scene), I push the button or not. This isn't previsualization as in Ansel's meaning. It's a response to a stimulus.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"This is a really tiresome type of thread as it ignores the history of photography."</p>

<p>It does not.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It does not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />In what way doesn't it? Manipulation has a very long history in photography. The Getty Museum has photos from the late 1800s that were assembled composites, done quite well. Mortensen was a heavy manipulator years ago. Avedon cut up photographs and reassembled them, and also did tons of manipulation on some of his most famous portraits, including things like selective bleaching. This thread, like virtually every thread on this topic here, assumes that manipulation started with Photoshop and that "real" photography is best practiced by taking your photos to Walmart. There's no conception of the past in these threads.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Steve --</p>

<p>I'm sorry you feel that this is a tiresome thread...personally, if I believe a thread is tiresome and has lost it's value, I don't post anything and it eventually dies.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, you have posted, and I will respond. <br /> If you actually took the time to READ the thread, you would find that the HISTORICAL discussion of photographic manipulation has, in fact, been brought up. We have discussed compositing, pictorialism, Ansel Adams and his definition of previsualization, the original definition of photography, and much more. No one has stated that digital manipulation is any different from the practices that have occurred over the past century and a half.</p>

<p>Jeff, we cross-posted...</p>

<p>I believe the "It does not" referred to the previous post stating that most posters here are"ignoring the history of photography"<br>

I understand that photographic manipulation has been done since the invention of the Calotype and I hoped that this thread wouldn't devolve into a Digital vs Darkroom manipulation thread.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't previsualization as in Ansel's meaning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's clarify this misconception one more time. Adams used the word "visualization" for the process of seeing the final print in his mind prior to making the exposure. Minor White, in his book, "The Zone System Manual," used the word "previsualization." </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"In what way doesn't it?"</p>

<p>This thread doesn't ignore the history of photography and the practices of the 19th and 20th centuries. </p>

<p>"This thread, like virtually every thread on this topic here, assumes that manipulation started with Photoshop and that "real" photography is best practiced by taking your photos to Walmart. There's no conception of the past in these threads."</p>

<p>This is not "these threads" . This thread does not ignore the manipulations practiced in the 19th and 20th centuries.</p>

 

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>If you actually took the time to READ the thread, you would find that the HISTORICAL discussion of photographic manipulation has, in fact, been brought up. We have discussed compositing, pictorialism, Ansel Adams and his definition of previsualization, the original definition of photography, and much more. No one has stated that digital manipulation is any different from the practices that have occurred over the past century and a half.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have taken the time to read the entire thread prior to responding. If the brief discussion of historical context was understood, it was quickly ignored by the majority of people responding. If the people responding truly understood what has been done prior to the advent of computers in the area of photographic manipulation, this thread would not exist. The fact that is does exist is proof that prior historical work is being ignored in favor of beating a very dead horse.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Steve --<br>

This is discussed so often that it is obviously not a dead horse. I am the OP of this thread, and the question I asked never specifically referred to DIGITAL manipulation.</p>

<p>I asked "Is there ever a point when a photograph is manipulated, <em><strong>digitally or otherwise</strong></em>, to the point where it is no longer really a photograph?"</p>

<p>There are still people that cross-process E-6 in C-41...is it still photography? In my mind, <strong><em>YES.</em></strong></p>

<p>Is the image resulting from two or more photos being composited together to create a different looking image still photography? <em><strong>Again, I say YES.</strong></em></p>

<p>I ask you, Steve, is <a href="http://www.davehillphoto.com/">THIS</a> a photograph, is it Digital Art, or is it BOTH? <em><strong>Personally, I believe that the ORIGINAL IMAGE is a photograph, but the image presented is not.</strong></em> <br>

There is a point where the image can be manipulated SO FAR that I would question whether the resulting image is still a photograph. </p>

<p>If I look at an image and cannot tell that it was made by exposing a piece of light sensitive material to a light source of some sort than, in my mind, it is no longer a photograph.<br>

RS</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>As I wrote in my first response "Some people here are really sensitive about this". This subject has been a matter of interest to photographers, critics, curators, philosophers, painters, and computer artists for decades now. It is possibly the most significant issue regarding photograhy today. </p>

<p>To PN is it just digital vs film drivel? If that's PN's opinion then eliminate the Philosophy forum as PN would deny there is reason to have one. So, let's all go out there and shoot shoot shoot.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Don, it what ways is this question significant to you, to your photography, or to photography today?</p>