Photography- The OED Dictionary Definition

[kennethcooke]

I recently came close to starting WW3 when I posted the following definition of Photography on the Leica User Forum and stated that digital imaging did not seem to have a place with that and I quote: photograph |ˈfōtəˌgraf|
noun
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

photography |fəˈtägrəfē|
noun
the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.
Modern photography is based on the property of silver compounds decomposing to metallic silver when exposed to light. The light-sensitive salts are held in an emulsion (in color film, layers of emulsion) usually mounted on transparent roll film. I kind of hoped that they might view it as an interesting thread but it would seem a few members took it quite personal so I thought I would give APUG members a chance to view it. I should say that I am a dedicated Leica M6 user making photographs in B&W and processing in my cellar. I am a committed amateur of 46 years involvement with our art

[rthomas]

I think the key words here are "film or other light-sensitive material" - if light made the image, it's a photograph. I'm not going to split hairs about the acceptable chemical composition of the "light-sensitive material." Some people paint in watercolor, some in acrylic, some in oil... etc. It's still painting.

[shotgun1a]

Neither of those definitions exclude digital photography at all. Dictionaries are living, breathing documents. Each publisher's biggest decision for each edition is which words to include or exclude, and which definitions to include or exclude. Way back in the days of Webster's 2nd edition, great controversy erupted because Webster decided to include "common use" definitions and words (e.g. ain't) in addition to what appeared in his 1st edition.

The second passage you quote is both a definition and a clarifying example. It's clearly out-of-date at this point and either already is updated in a newer edition or will be soon I'd bet. The actual definition of the word is "the art or practice of taking and processing photographs" (for this edition of this dictionary).

So, I don't see digital being excluded by those wordings, but I also don't see what got the Leica guys so up in arms. Then again, the red-circle clan are an emotional bunch to begin with ;)

[reellis67]

That's the only problem with the OED (http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-English-Dictionary-Vols-1-20/dp/0198611862/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254158694&sr=8-1) - it cost's too much to keep an up-to-date copy (well, copies - 20 volumes for the latest edition) and it's $300 US per year to get online access, although it's more up to date...

- Randy

[Allen Friday]

And digital is not excluded from the definition because you can shoot a digital camera, print a digital negative and then make contact prints on platinum, cyanotype or silver paper. It reminds me of the music industry when CDs first came out. CDs carried a three letter code such as ADD, standing for analogue recording, digital mixing and digital playback. The above photograph would have been DDA, digital capture, digital processing, analogue printing.

There are multiple definitions of photograph and photography and they have changed with time. The whole problem with definitions of photography and photograph is you have to be aware of the context in which the definition is being used. A general definition such as "an image created by a camera" is fine for most purposes, but it fails miserably when distinguishing between a photograph and a photogravure, where you would need a scientific, historical, and precise definition. People are not wrong in saying that a magazine contains photographs, they are just not using the most precise definition of photograph--i.e. and image, usually a positive, created by the action of light on a light sensitive surface fixed to make it permanent. Today the issue is whether an ink jet print (or an image displayed on a computer screen) is a photograph when no light sensitive material is used in the print. Historically, precisely, it is not. But in more general use, it is. Context is important. Unfortunately, in a forum setting is almost impossible to conduct such a discussion using precise definitions.

[RalphLambrecht]

...So, I don't see digital being excluded by those wordings...

Maybe it's the last part:

...and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

[AutumnJazz]

Does askoxford.com actually differ from the $300 online subscription?

Anyway...

"...and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment."
So an upload of a scan (of a print or neg) isn't a photograph? Maybe so, but is it a representation of one, and thus "good enough"? I think so.

And, printing (inkjet or otherwise) involves chemicals.

[Bruce Watson]

One of the arguments that just won't die. A religious argument where both sides irritate the other but neither side convinces the other. IOW, a waste of time. Better to go out and make some photographs than to argue about definitions. But maybe that's just me.

[Q.G.]

It would appear that some people need a dictionary definition, Bruce, else they do not know what your advice is.
;)

[juan]

You seem to be in the running for the Roger Hicks seat at APUG.
juan

[Allen Friday]

Excuse me, but this is the "philosophy" section of APUG.

[RalphLambrecht]

You seem to be in the running for the Roger Hicks seat at APUG.
juan

What is the Roger-Hicks seat?

[Maris]

The OED notes the invention of "photography" as the name of one particular process. At the time, 1839, it was unique among many alternative processes for making realistic looking pictures of things.

Now in 2009 photography is still unique in the way it works. All other picture making processes, at a fundamental level, are drawings or paintings from memory.

If a human being makes a drawing or painting that's a familiar process and we just say "drawing" or "painting" and move on. But if a machine makes a drawing or painting from its memory then the resulting picture is conceptually and linguistically challenging. In a physical sense machine pictures are ink or paint on a surface just like the ones human beings make. Nevertheless there seems to be an irrational aversion to calling them "drawings" or "paintings". What then are they called?

It seems they are called "photographs" or "digital photographs". And you would have to wonder why. On what conceivable legitimate basis could they deserve the name? Is it because the machine memory is linked to a lens image. Remember, the link is not physical, it is in the form of data, an abstraction that the powers of Photoshop can make partial, arbitrary, or totally fictitious.

There is no such thing as digital photography. What passes for it is merely a mechanical or robotic parallel of the same drawing and painting human beings have been doing for millenia.

Photography, in the OED sense, happens when a physical sample of subject matter penetrates a sensitive surface and occasions picture forming marks in it. Real photography is a process as purely physical as a footprint on a beach. In particular, photography employs no sensor/transducer, no data, no memory, no processor, no output, no mark making device, no external power source; not even electricity.

Photography is very different to the way human beings or machines contrive pictures. It is its own singular thing.

[Q.G.]

It seems they are called "photographs" or "digital photographs". And you would have to wonder why. On what conceivable legitimate basis could they deserve the name? Is it because the machine memory is linked to a lens image. Remember, the link is not physical, it is in the form of data, an abstraction that the powers of Photoshop can make partial, arbitrary, or totally fictitious.

That's not true though.
The link is as physical as it is in chemical photography.

Data - the abstraction - is the way you think about the physical thingy, that might consists of grouped clumps of silver or magnetized iron.


Photography, in the OED sense, happens when a physical sample of subject matter penetrates a sensitive surface and occasions picture forming marks in it. Real photography is a process as purely physical as a footprint on a beach. In particular, photography employs no sensor/transducer,

= Film/paper,


no data,

= the clumps of silver, or rather the image you think they form,


no memory,

= the same as above


no processor,

= the thingy the lab employs,


no output,

= what you produce (a slide, print, negative, projected image),


no mark making device,

= a camera, with a lens


no external power source; not even electricity.

Hands up all photographers who do not use at least one battery!


Photography is very different to the way human beings or machines contrive pictures. It is its own singular thing.

Apparently not.

Photography is recording light.
It does so using technology. There are several techniques that do the same.
It makes no sense to 'play the Amish', and decry all technology as evil, while happily accepting the technology of the day you decided that everything new will be bad.

There are plenty reasons why we could like one technique better than another.
But - with due respect - it is pure silliness (and nothing else) to try to disqualify one technique as completely not what it factually is.

[Andy K]

Electronic ones and zeros held within a piece of silicon are not an image. I agree with the OP that digital does not fit the true definition of photography. It better fits the definition of videography. Just because an electronic image is static does not mean it is not video.

[Ian David]

I guess the true definition of "photography" is ultimately what linguistic usage says it is. If digital imagery is not already part of the (evolving) definition of photography as that term is used by people all over the world, it probably soon will be... Although it would perhaps be nice sometimes to stop the clock and claim that a word will forever mean what you want it to mean, in reality that is not how language works. But hey... how does this diminish our lives as analog(ue) photographers anyway?

[reellis67]

Does askoxford.com actually differ from the $300 online subscription?

Most certainly. That site gives you a basic definition. The OED (online or in print) gives an etymology, pronunciation, multiple possible definitions, and quite a bit more for most words. The thing is amazing to read...

- Randy

[keithwms]

Photography is what you make it. And everybody's is different. A person's photography is an individual as their perspective and their relationship with their subjects. That is what makes photography interesting.

[shotgun1a]

Side note: The 3-letter code on CDs refers to the tracking/mixing/mastering processes, not playback.

I think looking at silver particles on film OR paper as anything other than data is erroneous. There are a lot of reasons to eschew digital photography, and many of them can philosophically be tied to the more "organic" nature (a word that can be definitionally debated as much as this one) of analog photography, but to say that digital photography isn't photography is a complete linguistic misunderstanding. Tying the art to a specific process is ludicrous, I think.

[keithwms]

Tying the art to a specific process is ludicrous, I think.

Agreed.

Also ludicrous is discussing something like this in an ethics/philosophy forum. I am happy to talk about electrons and holes and band structure in its full glory... but that is the state of the art, not the art itself.