Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,914   Posts: 1,584,699   Online: 702
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Sino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    166
    Images
    2
    That's another interesting subject, FrankB, as it's the one i was discussing yesterday in the darkroom and i'd like to hear more oppinions on it myself. I recently started experimenting with photograms [old clocks i teared appart and pink-blue surfaces and blah blah] and drawing on transparencies, then combining them with 35mm negatives. I considered my work "photographic" although other guys and beauties that i've discussed it with, did not.

    So, what my "excuse" and point was: photography, is a Greek word. It comes from "phos" and "grapho", and a direct translation of these two words would be "light" and "write". So, i consider photography "writing with light" or "painting with light". So everything that's written/painted with light is a photograph. Yeah, that includes photograms too. As it does include... silicon, since what's "written" on a digital camera chip is information of the light the camera saw. Now, let's not have people flaming me or nailing me on crosses, this is just a personal oppinion and i would never doubt "the analog processes" since i am using them myself, instead of digital.

    My conclusions: everything that has been written/painted with light, is a photograph. Including all the analog processes. Everything that was created using other processes [such as retouching a negative or print, digitally or by hand] is not a photograph, rather a retouched photograph. And the ending result could one like or not, depending on personal taste and/or culture and/or rules he sets, blah-blah.

    Cheers,
    -Sino.
    Close your eyes to see. This will take a while.

  2. #22
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    I will agree with Sino.
    A photograph is what a negative/positive holds. A print of a photograph is a print of a photograph not just a printed photograph (see the subtle difference?).
    That is to say that you can do any number of alternations to the final print from the original creation on the negative.

    So one thing is the negative, another is the print.

    Now, it is up to the artist to understand how far (s)he is going with those alternations ,how far he is departing from the original shutter click.
    We are playing with words though because a great number of techniques involve "painting with light", so we should not focus on the meaning of the word, but on the essense of an artistic medium. My idea of photography is that shutter click.
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  3. #23
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sino
    photography, is a Greek word. It comes from "phos" and "grapho", and a direct translation of these two words would be "light" and "write". So, i consider photography "writing with light" or "painting with light".
    If I hear this again I think I just might hurl.

    In the mid 19th century an alternative term was "heliography." I can just imagine if the name had stuck, AHUG would be full of lame threads fretting about whether strobe-lit pixtures were "really" heliography.

    Words do not provide some narrow constrained fence around a meaning -- they are signs pointing toward a meaning. And certainly not just a meaning based on the word's linguistic roots. Words always come after the thing which they attempt to name. They are only guesses at what the Actual Thing might be. Time and taste may swing the sign or move the thing, while convenience leaves the sign standing.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Sino
    My conclusions: everything that has been written/painted with light, is a photograph. Including all the analog processes. Everything that was created using other processes [such as retouching a negative or print, digitally or by hand] is not a photograph, rather a retouched photograph. And the ending result could one like or not, depending on personal taste and/or culture and/or rules he sets, blah-blah.

    Cheers,
    -Sino.

    i find your definition kind of funny. so if i make a negative without a camera, enlarge it with an enlarger onto a piece of photo paper, put it through developer, fixer &C - the end result is not a photograph?

    i guess i shouldn't be posting non-photographs on apug

  5. #25
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    While I haven't read all of the responses, it seems to me we may be confusing the general definition of "photograph" - that commonly accepted by the public - with what has been deemed to be acceptable for display on APUG, and/or our personal style preferences.

    Should non-analog image-capture and modification devices be confiscated by the Phostapo in the dark of night and burned in the village square? Perhaps with their users?

    While I wouldn't advocate changing any of the restrictions on APUG, carrying any ideal, however worthy, too far starts to get scary.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

  6. #26
    SLNestler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    101
    I don't think we shuld be so side-tracked by a discussion of technologies or techniques that we forget consciousness. Maybe my definitions are too narrow, but I think there is a photographic way of seeing, and there are many people making imitation paintings, using photographic materials because they can't; or at least, don't, paint. I have seen large color prints, done with various textured papers, and fancy matting and framing; I can't think of these as photographs; rather, they are pseudo-paintings, aided by the camera.
    Ultimately, I guess it's like the comment on pornography; I'll know it when I see it.
    Steven Nestler
    http://stevennestler.com

  7. #27
    Sino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    166
    Images
    2
    If I hear this again I think I just might hurl.

    In the mid 19th century an alternative term was "heliography." I can just imagine if the name had stuck, AHUG would be full of lame threads fretting about whether strobe-lit pixtures were "really" heliography.

    Words do not provide some narrow constrained fence around a meaning -- they are signs pointing toward a meaning. And certainly not just a meaning based on the word's linguistic roots. Words always come after the thing which they attempt to name. They are only guesses at what the Actual Thing might be. Time and taste may swing the sign or move the thing, while convenience leaves the sign standing.
    That's not what i was about, and i'm sorry if you misunderstood my intentions. I'm not trying to enclose what i believe as "photography" in a definition and tell you that everything else is not photography. My point was: words were made to describe something, right? And the word "photography" has been made to describe "writing with light". That's what i believe that photography is, even if that definition "comes after the thing which it attempts to name". And photographs that have been retouched are still photography, though retouched photography. So what seems to be the problem?

    I find your definition kind of funny. so if i make a negative without a camera, enlarge it with an enlarger onto a piece of photo paper, put it through developer, fixer &C - the end result is not a photograph?
    The ending result would be... a photograph! Where exactly do we argue? You used light to write a picture on a negative, without a camera, right? So... why shouldn't that be photography, according to "my definition"?


    Please forgive me if my oppinions annoy you, but remember they are still my opinions. Cheers,

    -Sino.
    Close your eyes to see. This will take a while.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin