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 It's clearly out-of-date at this point and either already is updated in a newer edition or will be soon I'd bet.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 - 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