Opposing Conceptions of Photgraphy

[RichL]

In the 50 years I've been in photography the argument hasn't changed a bit.

I personally break my work into 'documentary' and 'creative'. With documentary I will choose the best composition I can and will tweak (dodge and burn) light levels or color saturation to get as close as I can to what I remember shooting. I will not add or subtract anything from the picture though, even if I screwed up and have a branch growing out of their head.

In 'creative' anything goes.

I should add that I was a darkroom tech and just play the photographer bit.

 

[skieur]

In the 50 years I've been in photography the argument hasn't changed a bit.

I personally break my work into 'documentary' and 'creative'. With documentary I will choose the best composition I can and will tweak (dodge and burn) light levels or color saturation to get as close as I can to what I remember shooting. I will not add or subtract anything from the picture though, even if I screwed up and have a branch growing out of their head.

In 'creative' anything goes.

I should add that I was a darkroom tech and just play the photographer bit.

If by "documentary' photography, you mean realistically and accurately capturing a scene, it can't be done. One photographer defined framing as picking out and prioritizing elements in a scene and eliminating others. Focal length of the lens and camera angle further distort size and shape of elements as well as their relationship to other objects in the photo. So much for realistic accuracy.

It could be said that by using a camera all your shots are "creative" since you get further removed from realistic accuracy with every photographic decision that you make before you snap the shutter and afterward in postprocessing.

skieur

 

[RichL]

Reply removed.

I'm gone, ya'll have a good life.

 

[skieur]

Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?

But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.

This discussion appears on this forum every few months. It appeared here 4 years ago. It likely appeared here when TPF first was born. The discussion existed before digital cameras became widespread. It exists in "The Darkroom Handbook" published in 1981. It existed long before then when people were still painting colour onto their prints.

We'll see this discussion again in 2 months time. It'll be brought up again next year, and in 100 years time when the human race can simply tweet or squirt or whatever the communication flavour of the year is, right between our own subconsciousness there'll be photographers looking like mental patients banging their head against the wall while shouting abuse at themselves (or so it'll look to passers by) simply because whoever is on the other end of the line simply doesn't get Photography.

We go nowhere as a collective species.

And every photo will be tonemapped regardless if it's a HDR or not.

What irks me to no end is the fascination with one fad technique after another. People think this or that gimmick makes their photos more interesting. It doesn't. I have lived through the Tri-X in Rodinal fad (printed on Agfa Brovira grade 4, of course); the posterization fad; the pushed Tri-X fad; the Agfachrome fad; the sandwiched slides fad; the zoom during exposure fad; the multiple exposure fad; the squeezed Polaroid print fad; the cross-processing fad, and now the digital HDR fad, and so on infinitum.

Why don't people realize that using these techniques does nothing for your photos? I have used some odd techniques once in a while, but only sparingly, and for special purposes.

99% of what I see today bores me to tears.

The above techniques are not the problem. I have seen some outstanding work using these approaches, but compositionally the technique has matched the scene and content/centre of interest perfectly and appropriately and the technique has not been "overdone".

It is the abuse or sloppy application of these techniques that is the source of bad photographic work.

skieur

 

[Alpha]

 

[smokinphoto]

The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.

Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.

Others see photography as creating a visually attractive/artistic image that emphasizes or makes a "statement": emotional or otherwise about some aspect of our world. Making us see things, we would not ordinarily see, or feel emotions that we might not ordinarily feel. Their view would be that the visual effect of the image is more important than depicting the reality in the original scene. To put it another way: A beautiful image is a beautiful image irrespective of how it was created and irrespective of the reality in the original scene. Filters, postprocessing, HDR, solarization, panoramas, etc. are all means to creating an image with visual impact and that is the objective.

Needless to say, the first side cannot communicate with the second side very well because their concepts of photography are so totally different.

skieur

For thousands of years the basic workflow involved in making realistic pictures of things has, at its core, stayed the same.

The first step is to have illuminated subject matter.
Light from this subject matter is focussed as a real optical image on a megapixel sensor.
The megapixel sensor transduces the image into information that travels as electrical pulses up a cable.
The cable feeds the electrical pulses into a memory where they are temporarily stored.
The picture memory is sent to a processor where it may be modified, perhaps stitched with other picture files, and given the HDR treatment.
The resulting picture file is prepared for output via a mark making device which then place spots of paint or ink on a surface.
The accumulation of spots form the picture.

People familiar with digital picture making will recognise the separate roles of camera, computer, and printer in the short discourse above.

People familiar with painting and drawing will find the short discourse just as familiar. The lens and megapixel sensor are of course the artist's eye, the memory and processor are in a brain, and the mark-making device is the artists arm, hand, and brush.

Digital picture making is a remarkable technical achievement in that it mechanizes and makes easy what artists have been labouring at for millennia. What practitioners of digital picture making haven't realised is that they are fully legitimate participants in the grand artistic stream that includes Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Vincent van Gogh, and thousands of other luminaries!

And then there is photography. I mean the art practiced by Louis Daguerre, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, and millions of others great and not so great. Here there is the same illuminated subject, a lens, and a sensor but that is all. The sensor suffers chemical changes and becomes the picture itself. There is no transducer, no signal, no memory file, no data processor, and no mark-making device to make a picture via painting by numbers.

Digital picture making and photography are radically different things that become muddled with one another because the pictures they make can be superficially similar.

That, I think, is the root cause of the original poster's observations

This guy knows what he's talking about. Please listen to him.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Since photography is only a reflection of reality, everyone sees a picture different just like everyone sees reality different. Although I believe reality has definites, absolutes black, white, yes, no, truth, lies etc etc...
We all have different takes on these concrete things, everyone is different and the same at the same time.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.

Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.

Others see photography as creating a visually attractive/artistic image that emphasizes or makes a "statement": emotional or otherwise about some aspect of our world. Making us see things, we would not ordinarily see, or feel emotions that we might not ordinarily feel. Their view would be that the visual effect of the image is more important than depicting the reality in the original scene. To put it another way: A beautiful image is a beautiful image irrespective of how it was created and irrespective of the reality in the original scene. Filters, postprocessing, HDR, solarization, panoramas, etc. are all means to creating an image with visual impact and that is the objective.

Needless to say, the first side cannot communicate with the second side very well because their concepts of photography are so totally different.

skieur

For thousands of years the basic workflow involved in making realistic pictures of things has, at its core, stayed the same.

The first step is to have illuminated subject matter.
Light from this subject matter is focussed as a real optical image on a megapixel sensor.
The megapixel sensor transduces the image into information that travels as electrical pulses up a cable.
The cable feeds the electrical pulses into a memory where they are temporarily stored.
The picture memory is sent to a processor where it may be modified, perhaps stitched with other picture files, and given the HDR treatment.
The resulting picture file is prepared for output via a mark making device which then place spots of paint or ink on a surface.
The accumulation of spots form the picture.

People familiar with digital picture making will recognise the separate roles of camera, computer, and printer in the short discourse above.

People familiar with painting and drawing will find the short discourse just as familiar. The lens and megapixel sensor are of course the artist's eye, the memory and processor are in a brain, and the mark-making device is the artists arm, hand, and brush.

Digital picture making is a remarkable technical achievement in that it mechanizes and makes easy what artists have been labouring at for millennia. What practitioners of digital picture making haven't realised is that they are fully legitimate participants in the grand artistic stream that includes Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Vincent van Gogh, and thousands of other luminaries!

And then there is photography. I mean the art practiced by Louis Daguerre, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, and millions of others great and not so great. Here there is the same illuminated subject, a lens, and a sensor but that is all. The sensor suffers chemical changes and becomes the picture itself. There is no transducer, no signal, no memory file, no data processor, and no mark-making device to make a picture via painting by numbers.

Digital picture making and photography are radically different things that become muddled with one another because the pictures they make can be superficially similar.

That, I think, is the root cause of the original poster's observations

But photography is not art and cannot be art. Art and photography are fundamentally different things. Photographs are 'images'; paintings and sculptures are not 'images' but rather representations.

 

[table1349]

But photography is not art and cannot be art. Art and photography are fundamentally different things. Photographs are 'images'; paintings and sculptures are not 'images' but rather representations.

Really??? What is the universally accepted definition of art and where is it written down for all to see? I have yet to see one. Please enlighten me on this.


im·age

   /ˈɪm

ɪdʒ/ Show Spelled [im-ij] Show IPA noun, verb, -aged, -ag·ing.
–noun 1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.

2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.

3. a mental representation; idea; conception.

4. Psychology . a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.

5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God's image.

6. counterpart; copy: That child is the image of his mother.

7. a symbol; emblem.

8. the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.

9. a type; embodiment: Red-faced and angry, he was the image of frustration.

10. a description of something in speech or writing: Keats created some of the most beautiful images in the language.

11. Rhetoric . a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor or a simile.

12. an idol or representation of a deity: They knelt down before graven images.

13. Mathematics . the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point in the domain of a given function.

14. Archaic . an illusion or apparition.


–verb (used with object) 15. to picture or represent in the mind; imagine; conceive.

16. to make an image of; portray in sculpture, painting, etc.

17. to project (photographs, film, etc.) on a surface: Familiar scenes were imaged on the screen.

18. to reflect the likeness of; mirror.

19. to set forth in speech or writing; describe.

20. to symbolize; typify.

21. to resemble.

22. Informal . to create an image for (a company, public figure, etc.): The candidate had to be imaged before being put on the campaign trail.

23. to transform (data) into an exact replica in a different form, as changing digital data to pixels for display on a CRT or representing a Medical scan of a body part in digital form.



Use image in a Sentence

See images of image

Search image on the Web

Origin:
1175–1225; (n.) ME < OF image, imagene ( -ene appar. construed as suffix) < L im&#257;gin-, s. of im&#257;g&#333; a copy, likeness, equiv. to im- ( cf. imitate) + -&#257;g&#333; n. suffix; (v.) ME: to form a mental picture < OF imagier, deriv. of image

—Related forms im·age·a·ble, adjective
im·ag·er, noun
pre·im·age, noun
re·im·age, verb (used with object), -aged, -ag·ing.
un·im·aged, adjective

—Synonyms
1, 12. Image, icon, idol refer to material representations of persons or things. An image is a representation as in a statue or effigy, and is sometimes regarded as an object of worship: to set up an image of Apollo; an image of a saint. An icon, in the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Church, is a representation of Christ, an angel, or a saint, in painting, relief, mosaic, or the like: At least two icons are found in each church. An idol is an image, statue, or the like representing a deity and worshiped as such: a wooden idol; The heathen worship idols. It may be used figuratively: to make an idol of wealth. 2. likeness, figure, representation. 3. notion. 6. facsimile.


—Antonyms
6. original.

Written down here: Image | Define Image at Dictionary.com

From Merriam-Webster: Image - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
To save space here is a part pertaining to our discussion. -

1 : a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing; especially : an imitation in solid form : statue
2 a : the optical counterpart of an object produced by an optical device (as a lens or mirror) or an electronic device b : a visual representation of something: as (1) : a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material (2) : a picture produced on an electronic display (as a television or computer screen)




[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Philosophy is just a hobby. You can't open a philosophy factory. ~Dewey Selmon








[/FONT]

 

[maris]

But photography is not art and cannot be art. Art and photography are fundamentally different things. Photographs are 'images'; paintings and sculptures are not 'images' but rather representations.

Petraio Prime is absolutely right! Photography, along with painting and sculpture, is not art. These things are just "media" or "mediums" in which it is possible, but not necessary, to do art.

 

[table1349]

But photography is not art and cannot be art. Art and photography are fundamentally different things. Photographs are 'images'; paintings and sculptures are not 'images' but rather representations.

Petraio Prime is absolutely right! Photography, along with painting and sculpture, is not art. These things are just "media" or "mediums" in which it is possible, but not necessary, to do art.

Really??? What is the universally accepted definition of art and where is it written down for all to see? I have yet to see one. Please enlighten me on this.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'm distinguishing between images and representations. The former are formed by optical systems of objects. The latter have no object.

 

[DennyCrane]

I'm distinguishing between images and representations. The former are formed by optical systems of objects. The latter have no object.

You should post your rugby picture so we can bring "snapshot" into the discussion!

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'm distinguishing between images and representations. The former are formed by optical systems of objects. The latter have no object.

You should post your rugby picture so we can bring "snapshot" into the discussion!

Damn it Jim, I'm a physician, not a metaphysician...

Jim, this thread's dead!

 

[mishele]

LOL :hug::

Hug it out guys! You are never going to agree on this art stuff!:lmao: