And there is of course the famous "The Ambassadors" painting by Hans Holbein the Younger, that includes an anamorphic scull detail:
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true.
" - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White.
" - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?
But the anamorphic skull could have been (and almost certainly was) done without a lens or camera obscura....
The only reason the chalk artist uses a camera is to get a consistent point of view and then record the work when finished from that same point. Holbein the Younger did not use a camera obscura, just imagination.
If it is created with a camera is it "Photography"
If it is created without camera is it a photograph ?
Precedent is on the side of photographic process, not the camera.
So, if it is made with a camera, it is not necessarily a photograph.
Below, a photogenic drawing by William Henry Fox Talbot (British, 1800–1877)
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
No. If it is created with a pencil or ink, does that make it a drawing? No. Plenty of other things are done with pencil and ink besides drawing. Cameras need not have anything to do with photographs. They existed and were used for various purposes long before photographs could be made with them, and then even longer before fixed photographs could be made with them.
As for the drawings mentioned in the OP, of course they are not photographs. They are drawings. A camera was used as a tool to draw the pictures. That is all.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
I answered shortly earlier but will expand:
I answered no and here is why. In the old days I made serigraphs and used a process camera in the process but in the end it was a serigraph not a photograph. Here is something to think about, where I think the hybrid people are confused. If you take your negative and scan it into a computer then print it out on inkjet, it is not a photograph. Just because you use a photographic process does not make the final product a photograph. Now, if you print it on a light jet then it is a photograph. The point being that the final product must be made with light. There is no way to argue this point. By this a d... capture printed on silver halide paper is a photograph. Where a 7x17 neg, carefully composed and developed then scanned in, inkjeted out is not a photograph.
After reading the posts I would say that camera obscura drawings are not photographs. Basically he is doing the camera obscura thing and just drawing on the other side of the lens.
Another point; Due to the ephemeral nature of the drawings (chalk) and the requirement of a specified viewpoint, one could argue he is as much a photographer as John Pfhal (Altered Landscapes, 1974-78). That is, if we interpret his photographs as the final product (though the artist may or may not agree with that).
Nice, Marco, I forgot about that one.
Originally Posted by Marco B
Doesn't really match the original question. If it is made with a camera (recording light) then by definition it is photography. The examples proferred could be considered photography in some circles, denounced in others.
"Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti