Label for Genuine Photographs

[Kirk Keyes]

Think of a pinhole as a special case of a lens where the thickness of the lens element is infinitely thin.

[Q.G.]

Think of a pinhole as a special case of a lens where the thickness of the lens element is infinitely thin.

... and no refraction takes place.

Or to keep it both simple and correct: think of a pinhole as a hole, of a lens as a lens.

[JBrunner]

Does this mean that all those famous photographers that don't print their own work are not photographers after all?
And that those printers who never leave the darkroom to see the world through their own eyes are in fact (the only) photographers?

Photographer is a description of a vocation. It is connected only indirectly to the photograph, which is a thing. The people you refer to are photographers. Somebody else prints their photographs. That printer is in some respects a co-author of the photograph in a minor or major way, depending on involvement.

[Focus No. 9]

Ulrich, I agree it is disconcerting to see a digital image referred to as a photograph. I've debated this issue in my head for months. I hate the usage of "analog camera". that term must have been invented by a microwave baby. And I haven't a clue on how or why to address it but here goes:
I have a P&S digital camera. I have a film camera
I upload images from my DC. I upload images from a disk record of my film photos developed in a lab.
I have used a photo editor program on my computer to alter both types of images. (limited program, limited pp)
According to taste you can edit or adjust or manipulate in either a computer or darkroom. The difference being post processing of an "actual" image (DCI) or processing of exposed film to get an altered image(FCI).

Once I left the total manual system to an aperture priorty or shutter priority sytem did I not give up creative control?. Were we bottled fed with DCX coding? Auto focus? LED screens within the viewfinder or on the camera ( pentax N70 or Sigma SA-5)? Light meters?.
Using a camera to capture a moment is photography.
Using a camera to create vision (studio work) is photography.
Using a camera or darkroom to convey a moment or vision is art.
My desire is to be able to use a camera or darkroom to convey. If I can do that with either means of format I have succeeded. (positive critique)

So I have decided to involve people in my process by stating what it is. I will try to refrain from using the word photograph unless qualified. Instead I will try my best to use the word: image.

I think I will use the following acronyms.
DCI for Digital Camera Image (My Canon Sure Shot A590)
MFI for Modern Film Image ( My Pentax P3n or Sigma SA-5)
FFP for Film Format Photograph( My Kodak Motormatic, Retina I, Yashica GSN)

That's my original and humble opinion.
If y'all got this far thanks for reading.

a DCI by Focus No. 9 (if i can get it inserted here) (Guess not my images don't have URL's. )

[JBrunner]

Most curators do not provenance an image as a "photograph" although many types of images may be included in a "photography" section. They are much more specific, such as "silver gelatin contact print", platinum/palladium print", "inkjet print" or if they lean towards the affectation, "pigment on cotton rag" or some such. The point is that correct and honest provenance is the true measure of what something is. Every physical piece of artwork is genuine, and the insistence by the lay, dilettante, or uninitiated to change the meanings of words in common vernacular to serve their ego is largely moot in the real art world. Clear identification of the physical nature of the artwork is key, and is what all image makers should strive for, and should be merely a minor punctuation to the work taken as a whole.

[nolanr66]

I think the word "photograph" is a general term.

[rthomas]

I think the word "photograph" is a general term.

In a former life I was a music composition student; a running joke among my classmates was being asked "Is that a REAL song, or did you make it up?"

[chocomalk]

The image forming process in pinhole photography involves nothing that even with the richest of imaginations could be construed as focusing light.

I was going to stay out of this thread, but a hole does focus light, it's simple physics, it creates a limiting factor that forces diffused rays of light to become straighter. The smaller the whole, the straighter they become.

Instead of delving into physics look at a simple light modification tool used on strobes such as a reflector, a device created to focus light. Look at a grid spot that can be placed on a reflector that has a series of holes to focus the light even further.
How about a snoot?
These are all just holes that focus light on a large scale, just as a pinhole focuses it on a small scale suitable for exposing an image on a bit of photosensitive material.

[Q.G.]

I was going to stay out of this thread, but a hole does focus light, it's simple physics, it creates a limiting factor that forces diffused rays of light to become straighter. The smaller the whole, the straighter they become.

That, mr Nutricia, is called perspective, and it is not focussing.
All it does is just cut out light. The rays that aren't 'pointing' straight into that tiny hole are just lost.
No ray is straightened, or has its direction changed otherwise. No focussing. A hole is not a lens.

That's simple physics, and understanding simple physics.

[Rolleiflexible]

... that forces diffused rays of light to become straighter.

Bendy light?!