I can't fault your answer and I agree that it is a very logical assesment of the situation. FWIW it tends to be used that way in scientific circles, where rarely do I hear people call digital images "photographs", and astonomers tend to refer to "imaging" rather than photography.
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.
But there's no doubt that the term "photography" itself has been co-opted by the masses and now colloquially refers to both chemical processes and digital processes. Exactly what "photography" means now is pointless to debate I think; the term is approaching meaninglessness. That's why we need to embrace more specific words to describe our processes; "digital photography" and "analog photography" work for me, or "digital art" and "traditional photography" or anything else. These terms will settle out eventually. In the meantime, it's entirely unproductive to insist that the word "photography" means what it did 20 years ago. "Photography" departments are just as likely to teach digital, and "photographers" are just as or even more likely to be digital artists than "old-photography" ones. You can blame it on kodak and the other big companies for selling digital as "photography" from the very beginning.
Exactly what "photography" means now is pointless to debate I think; the term is approaching meaninglessness
How can you be more specific than "photography" ? Meaningless ?
PBrooks gave a pretty concise description of photography,
which would be good for any time over the past 160 years,
and as long as we can image with light, anytime into the future.
"Analogue Photography", however, is a term which is not much more than a cry for help,
and not descriptive of anything. It does not inform, yet PBrooks' description does.
The terms settled out a long time ago, and have nothing to do with computers, film, CCD sensors or, God Save Us, art schools.
We photographers shaped our craft, and our art, and despite the efforts of marketing firms and MFA programs administered by painters, an image made by light is still a photograph. Made by pencil, a drawing; and by a burrito, a BFA project that has run out of time.
Last edited by df cardwell; 11-13-2009 at 06:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.
How precise. Is there any image which is not made by light?
and image made by light is still a photograph
Lots and lots.
Originally Posted by BetterSense
inkjets... and there are others
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Depends how you look at it. I was pointing out the impossibility of using the following definition and then claiming that it can be used as a precise definition of what constitutes a photograph as opposed to some other object or medium.
The poster of that opinion claims it's a precise definition, when in reality it couldn't be much less precise; it's not even quite sensical. What is meant by "an image made by light"? We need light to see any image. Does it make any sense to speak of images that occur in the absence of light?
and [sic] image made by light is still a photograph. Made by pencil, a drawing; and by a burrito, a BFA project that has run out of time.
In a sense all images are "made by light". If any image made by light is a photograph, then is my reflection in a mirror a photograph then? When I look into the eyepiece of a telescope, am I looking at a photograph?
If I trace a camera obscura's image onto the wall with crayon, have I created a photograph? If I place a matrix of sensors on the wall and record their readings in a notebook or computer memory, have I created a photograph? If I trace an image in my head onto the wall, have I created a photograph? What if I look at an object in the real world and trace that on the wall without an camera obscura, is that a photograph? I take pictures of microscopic things every day with an electron microscope. Are those photographs, considering they were made by reading electrons impinging on an electronic detector?
Saying that anything "made by light" is a photograph is meaningless unless you clarify what it means to say that an image is "made by light". Far from solving the problem of defining what media should be called photographs, it's simply a restatement of the problem itself.
Personally, I feel "an image made with a camera" is a better definition of "photograph" "an image made by light". "An image made with a camera" is a photograph and this follows in the same sense that "an image made with a pencil" is called a drawing. It also reflects how the term is popularly used.
Last edited by BetterSense; 11-13-2009 at 05:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.
f/22 and be there.
Well, I'll probably regret this, but I'll drag the poor horse into the middle of the room where we can see it better before I start to hit it.
We (elderly, addled, and incontinent old photographers) are used to viewing the artifact presented,
and trying to describe THAT. So, if you were displaying some vintage Kodak Electron Plates, all backlit and pretty,
I'd call them photographs (or electronphotomicrographs). If you were showing a nice 16x20 print made on photosensitive paper, I'd call that a photograph. If you displayed an image scanned from the plate, and printed via inkjet, I'd happily call that a digital image. For me, it is the artifact that is being named, regardless how it got there. So, Henry Talbot's beautiful 'photogenic drawings' have been photographs since the 1830s.
There is something in a name that is useful to the understanding of the craft, or the process of craftsmanship. The process of becoming a good photographer (or carpenter, or photomicroscopist) demands the transformation of the craftsman rather than the transformation of the materials.
Well, that's about it. Have mercy on the horse, it isn't looking very good.
Originally Posted by BetterSense
But best not confuse the way we look at it with what we are looking at.
Then you will not have to struggle with meaning, or sense, the way you are.
A photo is an image, and it's made by light.
A rock is not. It's not even an image.
Nor is a pen drawing. It is an image. But not made by light.
We can look at all three.
Last edited by Q.G.; 11-13-2009 at 07:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Just go for a Google search...
Sorry but I think thats completely screwed up and just plain totally 100% wrong.
Originally Posted by PBrooks
A print is a print, a light jet print was made with dye, it is a reproduction of a photograph, not the original.
The drawing with light phase (ie: photography) finishes after you finish exposing the original, a drawing of light is conceived and created by one who thinks about it beforehand before the shutter is released, hence the photograph has been created already, it exists in the consciousness of the photographer, what comes after that is the execution of the conception and realisation and physical manifestation of the photograph.
A print is a physical manifestation of the original photograph.
Printing in the dark room or on a light jet is not photography, printers call themselves printers, and what they do printing, it is printing, not photography, you are not drawing with light, you are making a reproduction with dye or silver as opposed to ink of an inkjet or dye again of a dye-sub.
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Digital photography is just photography, the tools and workflow differ, as do many forms of analogue photography, between equipment and types of process from bitumen to kallotypes and others.
I call a film or digital originating photography on both RA-4 paper or digital inkjet a print of a photograph, though I could extend that to say a inkjet print of a photograph etc.
Digital art and digital image are incorrect terms to apply to photography undergone a digital process.
It is totally wrong to refer to any kind of print as a digital image, it is no longer a digital image, regardless if it is inkjet or not. Digital image is vague and just refers to an image of any kind that has been stored digitally.
It is incorrect to refer to photography that has gone through a digital process as digital art, it was not created digitally, photographers that use digital equipment have drawn with light exactly the same as those that have used film as their medium, they were created equally by the photographers, who use their medium to bring their photography, their drawing of light into reality and existence outside of themselves.
The fact remains that a light exposure in a digital camera is actually analogue, with voltage instead of film density, it is converted in camera to be stored digitally after the fact, not that it matters, the process the photographer goes through to create their drawing of light and then execute it is the same.
Digital art is something created digitally, the problem with calling photography digital art is not that its a vague umbrella term that also refers to manga artists drawing digitally, digital painters and other things, but the term is totally incorrect and any kind of photography does not come under digital art at all (using a photograph(s) to create digital art is different).
Drawing with light (photography) in the physical world is not digital art, it was not created digitally, it was created with the physics of light, end of story.
What I am seeing in this thread is a lot of armchair elitism.
Last edited by Athiril; 05-22-2010 at 09:11 AM. Click to view previous post history.