i'm not bothered by hand-work, darkroom techniques, printing in alternative mediums or even using non-photographic-related items as "negatives".
You asked for an opinion......
.....so this is mine:
I have to back to the definition of photography which according to "Websters" is
So, the "traditional" method of photography is visible light striking a chemically based light sensitive surface where processing that chemical results in a fixed (non changeable in that state) visible image. That definition should apply to both the negative and the positive. The "photograph" is the result.
: the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light
And....I interpret your question to be directed at "the print" which is what most people consider to be a "photograph" (the laymans definition).
In my opinion, a photograph stops being a "photograph" (according to the laymans definition) and becomes "photographic art" when it can no longer be considered to be an accurate representation of the original scene from which an image was harvested.
I agree. Reminded me of this:
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
"This photograph invokes analogies to classical sculptural fragments and appears to some viewers to reveal the inner workings of the human torso."
"I am an anarchist." - HCB
"I wanna be anarchist." - JR
My working definiton of art has usually been: whatever you can get away with.
Trying to nail down what's acceptably defined as a "photograph" seems antithetical to the idea.
Recently I've started using an alternative definition (more a guide post, really) of art: Art is the revelation of the individuality of things.
Every individual print, too. Getting too caught up in usings words and language to fence-in ideas is a sure way to guarantee stiff and mannered artwork.
Photography is 'drawing with light'. Normal incoherent light, lasers, infra-red, ultraviolet, x-rays, whatever floats your boat.
Photographic reproductions also use light - Pt, Pd, Ag, salts, gum, chlorophyll ...
There are accepted mainipulations of these techniques to make the real world fit the capabilities of the materials.
Non-photographic reproductions...don't use light. Bromoils, silkscreens, inkjets, to name but three.
Some sequences involve a non-photographic stage, even if the initial and final ones are 'photographic' by this definition.
I am agnostic about methods. The final result and the use that is made of it is what counts.
I feel, therefore I photograph.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by FrankB
FrankB if everyone thought exactly the same life would have been very boring and art dead, so it a good thing to have differences of opinion.
Anyway I was thinking more on the lines of the series of pictures taken by NASA which show the whole of Earth with no clouds at all. This is a physical impossibility, so for me it is crossing the line from photography to something else. Not that this is not photography, but it is not what I will consider traditional. The same would apply to in camera double exposures (again provided that the end result cannot exist in nature - eg the moon rising from the north or the south )
[size=1]However I have to say that I'm using this as a guideline since it is usually rather difficult to draw an exact line where one thing stops and another starts[/size]
Too many Chiefs not enough Indians.....
I wonder why we worry so much about what is a photograph and what is not. If my art emotionally moves another I have succeeded.
Is it an issue of feeling it's important for the viewer to understand where or how the image was produced? This gets into asking the patron if this print is worth more because it was developed by inspection, or simply captured by clicking the shutter.
I think some feel that their work is worth more because more physical work went into the creation of it.
I certainly am proud of the hard work I put into my art, but I simply ask the question, "What does it make you feel?"
I use whatever means I have available, both in tools and in my own capabilities to create a mood or expression of the world around me that may touch another.
So to reiterate, why do we care how the image was made?
I think some feel that thier work is worth more because more physical work went into it. I certanly am proud of the hard work I put into my art, but I simply ask the question, "What does it make you feel?"
Traditional photographers who do "conceptual photography" take great pride in their process and will boldly admit to it. Conceptual photography is VERY difficult to do and it usually takes a good photographer to begin with. So what's not to be ashamed of?
As for most digital photography (not all!), people take bad pictures to begin with, then they tear it apart in photoshop, and in turn try to pass it off as a straight photograph. It also seems that with digital conceptual work, these photographers take less pride in what they do, so they have to resort to saying "this came straight from the camera."
I don't think many of us shun digital manipulation or conceptual photography, but rather of what it has become. Too many people being insincere and passing it off as what it is not. Be realistic about what you've done to your photograph and many will be more intrigued with the process, rather than wonder if the image is a lie.
Money is not the problem. The problem is, I don't have any.
I think that we are moving away from the original question.
So, in the traditional/analogue world, where would you place the line between "a photograph" and "something else"? In your view would all of the above processes qualify as photographs? If so, why?
The end result could be pleasing, could be art, could be anyhting for that matter, but the question is " is it a photograph?"
Too many Chiefs not enough Indians.....