Is it really photography. . . ?

[aplumpton]

<p>Nice image! Paul Simon's lyrics mirror a lot of our own somewhat random and explorational personal histories, and perhaps their relation to our imaginations of beauty, but in a more photographic sense does not the black and white medium induce more feelings of fantasy or immaterial (perhaps not to the extent of the immaterial based philosophy of the aimiable and before his time Bishop Berkeley (- thanks for the link) ) than does color? I think here not of the artistic use of either, which can lead to other things, but to their capacity to simply record (an approach to) reality.</p>

<p>Is a latent undeveloped image on a film a photograph? Is life itself a similar latent undeveloped image. On second thought, I think I may need my morming coffee...</p>

<p>Thomas, yes, I also think that, and your last sentence reflects the source of many of my photographic failures.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>No tickee, no laundry. No image, no photograph, no photography. Seems simple enough even for me.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks for those great street shots at that link, Fred. I also appreciated his little aside as to how he shot them:<br /><br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In terms of gear, I opted for no battery grip and a strap around the neck. This also allowed for a lower perspective – one reminiscent of shooting a medium format camera. Resting my arms on top, I tried my best to look casual while my finger always remained on the shutter button.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>--Lannie<br /></p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Lennie,<br>

Next time, make sure there is a card on your camera ;)</p>

<p>The biggest fish are the ones that get away.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest fish are the ones that get away.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Edward, it's always that way, isn't it?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>To repeat an earlier thought: "Is there anything that we observe about us that is not ephemeral?"</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Is there anything that we observe about us that is not ephemeral?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My family photos, for which I'm thankful, are enduring . . . even though what they picture may have been ephemeral.<br>

<br>

The tree in my backyard seems fairly solid and enduring. Mt. Diablo, which I see every morning from my bedroom window doesn't seem terribly ephemeral.<br>

<br>

Now, that's taking "we observe <em>about</em> us" as meaning "we observe <em>around</em> us." If you're asking if there are things we observe with reference to our own selves that are not ephemeral, sure. I'm aware of many personality traits, habits, genetic predispositions, family influences that have remained pretty steady throughout my life . . . even while so much about my self has changed.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Lanni,<br>

Putting the philosophical question aside, I shot a string of (for all anyone knows) remarkable photos without a card in my camera. I rummaged through the menu in my Sony to find the option which would prevent such a blunder and turned it on. My brother just suffered a similar experience, and said, "Oh, I remember seeing something about that."</p>

<p>George Washington said, "We learn from our experience, but we gain experience by making mistakes." His mistakes, of course, had more serious consequences than forgetting a memory card.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>How about the latent image on film. Is that close enough to be considered a photograph? The late Gary Winogrand left hundreds of rolls of film undeveloped at the time of his death, perhaps never to be developed and therefore never to be seen, although they were once visualized in the mind of the photographer. Do these undeveloped images qualify as photographs, or does the process, at least to the stage of developing the negatives or storing a digital image as a file, need to be completed to qualify? </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, "about us" is a very good observation. I didn't mean about us as persons, but instead "around us", or better, "that which we perceive in the world". A bit rhetorical, of course. Whether it is 4.5 billion year old rocks or a favorite pet, everything is ultimately ephemeral. If you believe thermodynamics, the ephemeral nature is supported by ∆S (entropy change) and the third law of thermodynamics.</p>

<p>Glenn, that is what I was referring to, the undeveloped latent silver image on film, or perhaps even an unprocessed (by the camera firmware) digital image. Are they photographs?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks, Arthur.</p>

<p>I don't think everything is ultimately ephemeral. I think a tree in my backyard is more enduring than the fleeting image I have of a tree while I'm driving down the highway.</p>

<p>At a thermodynamic level, everything may be ephemeral, but if I'm not thinking thermodynamically, which I'm usually not, I can make many distinctions between what seems to me more ephemeral and what seems to me much more enduring.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>According to Elon, we are all simply characters in an alien computer game. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Since Lannie didn't post this in Philosophy, and in spite of the fact that even in a "casual conversation" Berkeley has already been invoked (never mind the bishop or the lord!), I will not mention Descartes and remind us this could all be a dream.</p>

<p>Oops! ;-)</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it really <em>photography</em> if there is no card in the camera?<br>

<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My camera does not have a card or place to put one. It does not even have a spot for a battery thankfully. It's nice that I do not need a battery to take a picture. It makes the process simple. However it does have a computer that runs on pancakes and coffee. </p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Arthur - Surely, Winogrand was doing photography when he took the undeveloped images, although I think that there needs to be an image produced that could be seen by someone to qualify as being an actual photograph, whether or not the image is actually seen. And, by image, I mean something that involves actual photons reaching the eye's retina and registering in the visual cortex. So, I think that a latent image, or a digital file of an image, is not a photograph, but has the potential to become one.<br>

As far as something being non-ephemeral, neutrinos interact only very rarely with other particles. If the universe has a finite lifetime, then the majority of neutrinos should survive until the end, whatever and whenever that is. If the universe is continually recreated in a series of big bangs followed by "big crunches", or if baby universes are continually created in a multiverse (choose your cosmology), then everything is ultimately ephemeral, including neutrinos. If our universe is the one and only, and if it last an infinite time, it will suffer a Clausius heat death, where all matter comes to thermodynamic equilibrium, which is nothing to wish for. So, ephemeral on a cosmological time scale is good, even though our photographs will not survive.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Was Vermeer doing photography when he used a camera obscura?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Empiricism</strong> is a <a title="Epistemology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology">theory</a> that states that <a title="Knowledge" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge">knowledge</a> comes only or primarily from <a title="Empirical evidence" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence">sensory experience</a> - John Locke</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>We've all heard the old riddle, "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" To an Empiricist, the answer is no, because reality exists only in its perception by the human mind. In its time, the late 17th and early 18th centuries, empiricism was as reviled by "The Establishment" like the Theory of Evolution a century later - as the antithesis of faith and morality.</p>

<p>So does a photograph exist from the moment it is conceived in the photographer's mind, whether it is recorded in any other fashion? Yes, according to the Empiricists. According to the Church, that thought constitutes heresy if not atheism.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I see "photographs" in my head all day long. To me, I have to have a camera, with a card, to be able to share these "photographs."</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>No! the graphy part of the word I think means that you have to record something.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>@Fred:</p>

<p>Bishop Berkeley! Of course. Where was my mind?</p>

<p>I have to say this about Berkeley: it seems that most empiricists are materialists, but Berkeley was an empiricist who was an idealst. Curious. (Idealists are usually rationalists, not empiricists.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>An hour ago, when I first accidentally ran into this thread (will I <em>ever</em> learn?), I didn't make a comment. Was that still writing?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>An hour ago, when I first accidentally ran into this thread (will I <em>ever</em> learn?), I didn't make a comment. Was that still writing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, but it may well have been commenting!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Music:</p>

<p><a href="

Cage—4'33"</a></p>

<p>!!!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's true, Fred. By that measure, I've commented on this thread at least a dozen times already. :-)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Comments not made, photos not taken, acts of adultery not committed--aye, maties, this is the stuff of life.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>