Going too far digitally?

[alexecho]

So you can't tell the difference between an oil painting, a photograph and my Aunt Mimi's feather boa?

OK! My shovel is getting blunter by the second isn't it? :blushing:
BUT I think we both know we were talking about not being able to tell what I said was a photograph, (a single exposure, or multiple idential exposures) from what I said wasn't a photograph (a series of exposures taken in different places or after time has had some visible effect on the same place).
Neither of these things are likely to be mistaken for a painting or your Aunt Mimi's feather boa. Equally I don't imagine your Aunt Mimi's feather boa is going to be mistaken for a photograph...

I should have given this up when I first said I would, but I'm having fun! And I've just said something else that can be ripped limb from limb - oops.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

You still aren't taking an objective view.
There is no physical difference between a photograph produced by a single exposure and a photograph produced by multiple exposures. If there is no physical difference then they must be identical. Therefore if one is classified as a photograph then so must the other.
The only difference as such is in your mind - it is your attitude towards the two. The mere act of distinguishing between the two in your mind does not affect the physical reality of the two pictures. They remain as they are: identical. What you are doing, then, is making an intellectual difference - but you can only do this if you have additional information. Information that comes from outside the photograph.
I show you two pictures.
I tell you that one is a composite and one has been shot straight.
You cannot tell which is which.
I tell you which one is a composite.
You immediately declare that it is not a photograph whilst the other one is.
What has changed? Only your attitude towards the images. The images themselves remain unchanged.
I then say "oops! My mistake. It's the other one that is the composite."
You then have to revise and reverse your view.
What if I told you that I was lying and that both were composites or that neither were? What if you don't know that I'm lying?
You have two choices. You either rely on the physical evidence provided by the two photographs and conclude that they are both photographs whatever else they might be. Or you reject the physical evidence and decide that, as you cannot know which photograph is which, neither is a photograph.
The logical extension of the second choice is that, as you can never know whether a photograph is 'pure' or a multiple exposure, you have to reject all photographs with the exception of ones you take yourself (they are the only ones you can be reasonably sure about).

And then there is the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
You stand in one place with your camera and take a picture.
You have the negative and go to another location at another time and make a print.
There you have two different exposures, done at different times and in different locations, to produce a photograph.
Looked at in that way - and all I have done is describe the process of taking a picture and making a print - ALL photographs made from negatives are double exposures.

 

[alexecho]

If there is no physical difference then they must be identical.

Why is that the case? I mentioned paintings by famous artists being worth 100 times more than an identical looking painting by 'no-one'. There is no physical difference.

Equally, think of designer clothing. Incredible fakes can be made that are impossible to decern from the originals. Why can't a multiple exposure be a 'fake' photograph in the same way?

...You immediately declare that it is not a photograph whilst the other one is...

No, I declare that they both LOOK like photographs, as neither are obviously manipulated. That opinion does not change. If one is obviously manipulated then I declare that is a photographic quality image, but not a photograph.

...Or you reject the physical evidence and decide that, as you cannot know which photograph is which, neither is a photograph.
The logical extension of the second choice is that, as you can never know whether a photograph is 'pure' or a multiple exposure, you have to reject all photographs with the exception of ones you take yourself (they are the only ones you can be reasonably sure about)...

OK, I know there a fake banknotes in existance. They are indecernable from real banknotes. So I reject the physical evidence and refuse all bank notes. I cannot use my credit card because they also can be faked. Is that what you are saying?

If someone tells me something is a photograph, and it looks like a photograph I will accept that it is a photograph. The question was 'what is a photograph' not 'how do you prove something is a photograph'.

...And then there is the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
You stand in one place with your camera and take a picture.
You have the negative and go to another location at another time and make a print.
There you have two different exposures, done at different times and in different locations, to produce a photograph.
Looked at in that way - and all I have done is describe the process of taking a picture and making a print - ALL photographs made from negatives are double exposures.

Where is the eye rolling smiley?
The negative must be made from a single exposure. Then the print must be exposed from a single negative. A double exposure would be two exposures onto one frame of film, or two exposures onto one piece of printing paper, or two negatives stacked on top of one another in a single exposure onto the paper... Dodging and burning, done in the darkroom from a single neg onto a single bit of paper would still be a single exposure, even if done in seveal stages, because the same thing is being exposed in the same place.

We don't really want to move onto the definition of a double exposure, do we?

And I know you can pull that apart, I can see flaws (and spelling mistakes) in that last couple of paragraphs already, but I've just run out of time - my five minutes are up!

 

[panzershreck]

Where is the eye rolling smiley?
The negative must be made from a single exposure. Then the print must be exposed from a single negative. A double exposure would be two exposures onto one frame of film, or two exposures onto one piece of printing paper, or two negatives stacked on top of one another in a single exposure onto the paper... Dodging and burning, done in the darkroom from a single neg onto a single bit of paper would still be a single exposure, even if done in seveal stages, because the same thing is being exposed in the same place.

We don't really want to move onto the definition of a double exposure, do we?

And I know you can pull that apart, I can see flaws (and spelling mistakes) in that last couple of paragraphs already, but I've just run out of time - my five minutes are up!

imo, you're being too narrow

a human is not necessarily an animal that walks on two legs, many people do not even have legs (nature or caused) and are still human

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Why is that the case? I mentioned paintings by famous artists being worth 100 times more than an identical looking painting by 'no-one'. There is no physical difference.

That is a very poor example to support your argument.
We are discussing physical difference - your example deals with subjective value.
When you are discussing matters of 'value', as in 'how much will someone pay for something', people are prepared to pay what they believe the item is worth. That has nothing at all to do with the physical difference between the two.

Equally, think of designer clothing. Incredible fakes can be made that are impossible to decern from the originals. Why can't a multiple exposure be a 'fake' photograph in the same way?

Again, another poor example. There are quite obvious differences between fake clothing and designer clothing - you just have to know what to look for. I knew quite a few fashion designers who could spot a fake from across the room.

No, I declare that they both LOOK like photographs, as neither are obviously manipulated. That opinion does not change. If one is obviously manipulated then I declare that is a photographic quality image, but not a photograph.

That is a nonsensical circular 'argument'.
You can only say a photograph 'looks' like a photograph until you have proof that it has not been manipulated. So how do you know what a photograph looks like? All the photographs you have seen may or may not be multiple images so they can only look like photographs, but as you have nothing to compare them to you cannot say even that.
If you try to argue that you have your photographs to compare them to, we use the counter arguments that a) we only have your word for it that you haven't manipulated them and b) as you have nothing else to compare them with you could be wrong and they are not photographs at all but something else.
The best you can manage with your argument is 'this may or may not be a photograph but I have no way of knowing.'
And what on earth is a 'photographic quality image'?

OK, I know there a fake banknotes in existance. They are indecernable from real banknotes. So I reject the physical evidence and refuse all bank notes. I cannot use my credit card because they also can be faked. Is that what you are saying?

Another poor example.
Of course there are ways to tell fake banknotes from real ones. That's how we know they are fakes.
If you couldn't tell them apart then to all intents and purposes they would be real.

If someone tells me something is a photograph, and it looks like a photograph I will accept that it is a photograph. The question was 'what is a photograph' not 'how do you prove something is a photograph'.

Which was my point to begin with.
You define what a photograph is - but you must be prepared to accept that some things may fall under the definition that you do not consider to be photographs. You cannot make specific exclusions in defiance of the definition.
Your argument goes: anything which fulfils X and Y is a photograph except for manipulated images, for although fulfilling X and Y I do not consider them to be photographs.
It was you that started the discussion about proving what a photograph is.

The negative must be made from a single exposure. Then the print must be exposed from a single negative. A double exposure would be two exposures onto one frame of film, or two exposures onto one piece of printing paper, or two negatives stacked on top of one another in a single exposure onto the paper... Dodging and burning, done in the darkroom from a single neg onto a single bit of paper would still be a single exposure, even if done in seveal stages, because the same thing is being exposed in the same place.

So the determining factor for a double exposure is that it is only a double exposure if it has been produced in two seperate places? And it is not a double exposure if it has been done in the same place no matter how many times you expose something?
Oh dear.
What about an exposure that has been lit by a strobe light? It's only one exposure in the camera even though it can result in multiple images. By your definition it's a photograph even though it is quite clearly a multiple exposure.
Technically if you multiple expose onto a neg then the neg is in the same place in the camera. It does not move. Therefore no multiple exposed neg is a double exposure.
Then again, the earth is rotating as it moves through space at some speed. Therefore no exposure is actually made in the same place - the pysical location of camera, film, paper, enlarger and everything else is in constant motion.
You would be amazed if you worked out how far the enlarger moved in space during a 30 second exposure.
By your definition - that it is the physical location that is the determinant - ALL photographs and photographic prints are double exposures.

We don't really want to move onto the definition of a double exposure, do we?

I'm afraid you must. We need to see if there are any contradictions or exceptions between what makes a photograph and what makes a double exposure by your definitions.
You also need to define 'exposure' and 'the same place'. At the very least.

And I know you can pull that apart, I can see flaws (and spelling mistakes) in that last couple of paragraphs already, but I've just run out of time - my five minutes are up!

Listen! What's that coming from beneath our feet? It sounds like people talking in Chinese.

Your biggest problem is that you are trying to define a photograph by exclusion - you are listing what you consider aren't photographs (and for no good logical reason) in the belief that what you have left must be a photograph. This means you have lost before you begin as there will always be special cases that will require you to keep moving the goal posts. And I can see that there is going to be a huge grey area inbetween where I can have a lot of fun at your expense.
You have also got yourself bogged down in the production process and you are not considering the end product - which is the photograph (what we are trying to define).
Your argument concerns itself solely with the way in which the photograph is produced and you use this as the basis of your definition.
You have made no attempt at any argument to support your claim that multiple or manipulated photographs are not photographs - other than your personal convictions.
Give me one solid, irrefutable fact that clearly demonstrates a real difference between photographs produced by the two methods.

 

[alexecho]

Who said the definition of a photograph had to be a physical difference? I could mis-understand here and think you are jumping to a conclusion.

We've established that I'm stubborn and am going to stick to my 'definition' that isn't a definition at all because it doesn't stand up to cross examination.

But, just for the record, the goal posts haven't moved at all.

 

[LWW]

I'll toss my hat in the ring here, and I'm not trying to enflame anyone or convert anyone to my way of thinking, but I've given the film vs digital vs reality alot of thought. Bear with me as I have principles in mind and will explain my thinking as best I can, and for argument's sake I am going to refer to everything as visual records.

100,000,000 BC or thereabouts Zog figured out that he could take sticks, rocks, and berries and make images on other rocks to record events which had been witnessed,

Shortly thereafter other cavevolk figured out that not only could they record events that had been witnessed but that they could leave a record slightly different than what they had witnessed.

A little later it became apparent that a record could be left of events that never even happened and cavevolk of the future would accept these fictitious records as factual.

This evolved from cave paintings to drawings to carvings to statues to paintings to all the great works of art that have survived time.

Eventually it became common knowledge that these records of events ranged from spot on Boy Scout honesty to exaggerations to out and out myth, hence over time it was no longer accepted as recordings of reality but as expressions of human feeling, vision, and thinking and was referred to as art.

Then came film. Film could give an altered image in via the darkroom and details could be burnt and dodged in and out but the original negative remained as a record of an actual moment in time and the occurences within it.

Yes different focal lengths could be used to exagerrate or distort the reality and different filters could alter coloring but the basic observed reality was recorded forever. IOW yes you could take a picture of me with a knife and a picture of Jack the Ripper's victim and make a print which showed me to be the Ripper...however that again was the "art" portion of photography or a created reality which never existed...but you could not produce the original image of me committing the Ripper's evil deeds.

You could pose me in front of the Eiffel Tower and with different focal lengths make the Tower appear closer to or farther from me in the negative but the evidence that at this instant in time I was in front of the Tower was provable as was the fact that I was not in front of the Great Sphinx.

Because of film and Matthew Brady we can prove that the US Civil War occured, while the postcave prefilm volk could not prove that Zeus came from Olympus to smite the evildoers of the world...we could only prove that somebody claimed that he had.

Film had a link to reality that other recordings of events never had. It could be art, and often was, but it also had a permamnence and a finality that a painting or a drawing or an etching or a statue could never have.

1975ish AD, give or take, the first digital camera came to be and the age of the Volkscomputer was upon us. Shortly thereafter it became apparent that pixels and databits could be captured, created, and manipulated to display anything that the possessor had the patience, skill, and imagination to present.

Now it was possible to create an image of me doing the Ripper's deeds which was indecipherable from the image of the Ripper standing before the Great Sphinx in the AM and the Eiffel Tower in the PM of the same day...and all 3 would be imperceptible from another difitized image of pure reality. The victim in the image may in fact still be alive and unharmed. They may in fact have never even been born.

Digital is great art. It can be great at recording events as well. It lacks however the eternal evidence of truth that those photons of light forever trapped on celluloid provide.

My $0.02. YMMV.

LWW

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Who said the definition of a photograph had to be a physical difference? I could mis-understand here and think you are jumping to a conclusion.

The physical difference we are discussing is the one between a 'straight' photograph and one that has been manipulated - and we are discussing it because you are the one who insists there is a difference.
We are looking at the photograph, which is a physical object. My argument is that there is - in terms of the Laws of Physics - no difference between a photograph produced by a single exposure and one produced by a multiple exposure and that as they are identical they must both be considered to be photographs.
You assert that there is a difference, but the only one you can come up with is one that is in the mind of the viewer. This is not a real difference but is just a matter of opinion and does not affect the physical nature of what you are looking at.
You also assert that, whilst it doesn't affect the physical outcome, the method of production makes the difference even though you have no way of knowing how a photograph was made just by looking at it.
If you are going to define a photograph purely on the terms of what you 'think' a photograph is then it will be different for every person as every person will have a slightly different idea as to what a photograph is. This means it fails to be a definition, remembering that one of the things a definition must be is universal - the same for everyone.
The only universal definition of a photograph possible with your premise is 'a photograph is whatever you believe it to be'. Whilst this is arguably valid it is of no value for the purposes of discussion. It puts us back to square one - how can we have a meaningful discussion on the nature, purpose, meaning and use of the photograph if we both have different ideas as to what we are discussing?
No. The only possible definition of a photograph must be based on the physical reality, which is unequivocal.
And jumping to a conclusion only occurs when you make a decision without examining the facts, but just by taking things on face value and not thinking through the consequences.

 

[alexecho]

The physical difference we are discussing is the one between a 'straight' photograph and one that has been manipulated - and we are discussing it because you are the one who insists there is a difference.

But there is not yet a definition that says that there isn't a difference. I know you are writing one, and that it is very likely to stand up to scrutiny, so could forever more be seen as the 'true' definition. But it doesn't exsist yet. I'm not wrong, yet.

I suppose it comes down to what LLW said. When photographs were first invented they could only show something real. Thus the original definition was that a photo showed the truth. That belief has fallen apart as technology has changed the facts - because no-one has taken the time to redefine the term. I believe that as there is no currently accepted meaning, the original one still stands, even if it is a little flakey around the edges.

...does not affect the physical nature of what you are looking at.

I'm not sure your way works either. If I draw a sketch, scan it into my computer, size it to 10x8 and get it printed on photoraphic paper, is that a photograph? If I take a photograph, edit it digitally so it looks like a sketch and get it printed on photographic paper, is that a photograph? If I'm a good enough artist you won't tell the difference. I can't work out how you'd define them?

...If you are going to define a photograph purely on the terms of what you 'think' a photograph is then it will be different for every person as every person will have a slightly different idea as to what a photograph is.

There is no accepted definition, so surely the point of this thread was that we all do have different opinions?

...The only possible definition of a photograph must be based on the physical reality, which is unequivocal.

Which is, of course, why we've been discussing it for the last fortnight! :mrgreen:

 

[Hertz van Rental]

But there is not yet a definition that says that there isn't a difference.

That is just foolish. You don't need a definition to be able to determine if there is a physical difference.
You expose a silver halide crystal to light and develop it - whether or not you call the end result a photograph has no bearing on this.

I suppose it comes down to what LLW said. When photographs were first invented they could only show something real. Thus the original definition was that a photo showed the truth. That belief has fallen apart as technology has changed the facts - because no-one has taken the time to redefine the term. I believe that as there is no currently accepted meaning, the original one still stands, even if it is a little flakey around the edges.

Again you are totally mistaken. A very early daguerrotype of the Champs Elysee in Paris show it to be devoid of people. It was at the time one of the busiest thoroughfares in Europe but no people or horses or carriages registered on the exposure because it took such a long time. Thus this very early photo did not show things as they actually were - it was not true to life. Not long after you have people like Nadar and Peach Robinson doing 'camera trickery'. You really should read up on your History of Photography.
As for defining Photography and the photograph - no one has really ever made a serious attempt at doing it. It is only since the 1960's, when photographic critical theory started to develop, that the need for a definition has arisen.

I'm not sure your way works either. If I draw a sketch, scan it into my computer, size it to 10x8 and get it printed on photoraphic paper, is that a photograph? If I take a photograph, edit it digitally so it looks like a sketch and get it printed on photographic paper, is that a photograph? If I'm a good enough artist you won't tell the difference. I can't work out how you'd define them?

*Sigh!*
It is the end product that is the determining factor as to whether it is a photograph or not. How do you propose to print your two computer images on to photographic paper? If you image them onto film and then print them in the darkroom then technically the end product is a photograph. If you use an inkjet printer then obviously it isn't.
The subject matter isn't important as that is not what determines whether something is a photograph or not.

There is no accepted definition, so surely the point of this thread was that we all do have different opinions?

As has been stated - there is an accepted definition, but this definition has arisen through common useage and is no longer adequate.
Of course everyone has different opinions - but they have nothing to do with definitions. Opinions are only a personal set of beliefs and they do not have to be based on logic, common sense or, indeed, reality.
If I am going to have to explain even the simplest of concepts to you every time we are going to be here for years.

Which is, of course, why we've been discussing it for the last fortnight! :mrgreen:

No. We have been discussing it for a fortnight because you have been unable to grasp a few simple concepts

 

[Marctwo]

This has been going on for a while now, hasn't it.

I'm sorry for butting in here but I'd just like to pass on my observations - not of the subject but of the discussion.

I think Alexecho has made many attempts to grasp the concepts put forward by Hertz but they seem to disagree with his own ideas on the subject.

I think Hertz seems to have a hard time grasping the concept that people can have their own definitions that are not reliant on logic and broad opinion.

I think if you could both agree to disagree on some areas, you'd have a better chance of working out the areas you can agree on.

Sorry, you can tell me to butt out now.

 

['Daniel']

"A photograph is a reasonably permanent image that is, in some way, produced through the action of light."

My opinion on your definition is this:

I think that in the concept it expresses it does indeed give a definition of a photograph. However I think that the wording leads to other things being included in this definition. The word "reasonably", what does this mean. I assume that it means that someone can proficiently reason that it is permanent. Whether it is permanent then depends on the people who analyse the reasoning.

If by "reasonably" you mean that its is permanent to the extent that no external factors are required to keep the image there but it can be erased/removed then I think there are flaws there too. If you count an external factor as pointed out earlier as light being used to project through a slide onto a wall then this fits your definition:

"A photograph is a reasonably permanent image that is, in some way, produced through the action of light."

Apart from arguably the "reasonably" part. Now we have to ask at what point do we qualify something as an external factor. Light being shone to create the image on the wall doesn't qualify as a permanent image. However the molecules in the photograph staying in place due to electromagnetism etc is not an external factor. But if we go by quantum it says that the photograph could turn into a banana at any time. This could only happen if classical physics broke down at that event. So you could say that the image staying still is an effect and classical physics is the cause. just as the picture projected is the effect and the light being shone is the cause.

just my thoguhts.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

There is a simple and very useful definition, though. It encapsulates the whole thing quite nicely:
"A photograph is a reasonably permanent image that is, in some way, produced through the action of light."

I really think that most people are missing the point entirely.
The definition is a simple one - that is, one that is adequate for basic needs.
I never said it was the definitive definition - because it is nowhere near.

And no one has noticed that the simple definition doesn't require the photograph to present a recognisable image. A piece of fogged paper that is processed qualifies.
Technically it does qualify at a very basic level - but it is far from satisfactory. Although I once did an entirely black photograph which was entitled "negros' fighting in a cave at night" and it was shown in an exhibition (thank you Alphonse Allais). :mrgreen:

 

[alexecho]

You don't need a definition to be able to determine if there is a physical difference.

That will be my blunt shovel again then?
There is not yet a definition that says that a photograph must be defined by the end result rather than by how it is made. You have decided of your own accord to say that the definition is in how the end result looks.

I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't agree. If you get the darkroom print of a sketch, I bet an awful lot of people would not call it a photograph, but a copy of a sketch. However, they probably would, initially at least, mistake a print made on a high quality inkjet printer for a photograph.

I know the history of photography, thank you. That famous daguerrotype IS a photograph, even by my definition, because it's a single exposure. It does show the street exactly as it was at that time, even though the people don't show up. The people are not an integral part of the street. If streetlights or buildings failed to show up, then I might have a problem!

Nice to see some other people commenting from time to time!

 

[Hertz van Rental]

There is not yet a definition that says that a photograph must be defined by the end result rather than by how it is made. You have decided of your own accord to say that the definition is in how the end result looks.

We are talking about defining a 'photograph'. Unless I am very much mistaken, at the most basic level a photograph is a physical object and the end product of a process.
If you start discussing how it is made then you are talking about a process and not the end product.

I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't agree. If you get the darkroom print of a sketch, I bet an awful lot of people would not call it a photograph, but a copy of a sketch. However, they probably would, initially at least, mistake a print made on a high quality inkjet printer for a photograph.

What you call things and what you mistake them for have no effect on their fundamental nature.

That famous daguerrotype IS a photograph, even by my definition, because it's a single exposure. It does show the street exactly as it was at that time, even though the people don't show up. The people are not an integral part of the street. If streetlights or buildings failed to show up, then I might have a problem!

It was used as an example in refutation of your claim that in the beginning photographs only showed the truth. It was not used as an example of double-exposure.
Another refutation is to point out that Daguerreotypes are laterally reversed (mirror images) so again they do not show things as they are.


There is quite clearly a lot of confusion here.
If people have their own 'definitions' as to what constitutes a photograph the only thing that is defined is a personal opinion.
Definitions must be universal or they don't work.
Or are you going to tell me that it's OK for us all have our own idea as to what a Metre is?

Perhaps the following will help clarify things:
Say, for example, we have a glass of water on the table in front of us.
How the water got into the glass may be of interest - but whether it came out of a tap, was drawn from a well or was poured out of a bottle does not change the fact that it is a glass of water. Nor does it change the nature of the water.
Say we have two glasses of water.
Again, it does not matter where they came from or how they got there - they are still just two glasses of water.
It may be that one is coloured or has bits floating in it. This does not stop it from being a glass of water - the quality does not affect it's basic nature. It just means that we are less likely to want to drink it.
We could discuss the comparitive flavours of the two waters and we may decide that one tastes better than the other. This is a purely subjective personal opinion which may be a function of the quality but this does not stop them both being glasses of water.
If, however, we have our own personal definition of what a glass of water is then one of us may dismiss one glass as not being acceptable under the terms of their definition. It could be in a tumbler not a glass.
In this case we can have no meaningful discussion because if we prefer the taste of one over the taste of the other the objector can dismiss it with an 'ah! but that's because one isn't a true glass of water'.