Can virtual photography really be considered photography?

[limr]

I certainly would not argue over the semantics of the scientific definition of photography, it changes with the evolution of technology.

However, my point was, defining photography includes acceptance of the fact that not everyone thinks of, or even cares about, graphic art; it a photograph by popular convention. Hence the unfortunate mix of fact and opinion.

Um....arguing over semantics is kind of the exact point of this thread.

There's only so far we can extend a definition before we render it meaningless. Language depends on a communal understanding of how we are using individual words. If there is no distinguishing characteristics between 'image' or 'graphic arts' or 'photography', then we're left with pointless redundancy of terms, which in term causes a lack of clear communication.

As such, I stand firm: if the image was not created "by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)" then it has to be called something other than a photograph.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

limr,

I certainly would not ague with your logic.

The only thing I can offer is that, after more that fifty years as an engineer, I have learned that most folks really do not care about the correct semantics. They should, but they just do not think it is important enough to give a second thought to.

This thread is a case in point. If you show a poster of a champion show dog or a poster of Scooby-Doo; it is a rare individual that asks if it a photograph or a computer generated image. Most folks, would simply refer to both as a photograph.

Even those people who like to debate such questions, rarely end up agreeing on the exact definition; though it does make for interesting mind games.

Take care

 

[limr]

limr,

I certainly would not ague with your logic.

The only thing I can offer is that, after more that fifty years as an engineer, I have learned that most folks really do not care about the correct semantics. They should, but they just do not think it is important enough to give a second thought to.

This thread is a case in point. If you show a poster of a champion show dog or a poster of Scooby-Doo; it is a rare individual that asks if it a photograph or a computer generated image. Most folks, would simply refer to both as a photograph.

Even those people who like to debate such questions, rarely end up agreeing on the exact definition; though it does make for interesting mind games.

Take care

Just because a lot of people don't think about something doesn't mean it's not a worthy topic of discussion. And someone did start a thread, so it's important enough for those of us who have participated in this thread.

 

[stevebohne]

I tend not to think about such things. If Peter Max takes a photograph, then applies oils in his studio, it depends on how much medium was applied. Just a little? It's a photograph. The original image replaced by oils? Art. But of course, in spite of what the massive ego of Picasso thought (Every Dentist aspires to be a Doctor, every photographer aspires to be an artist), the photograph itself can be art. The reality is, I've seen many photographs that I enjoyed more than some of Picasso's scribblings.

 

[voyager360]

No one would argue that photojournalists take photos. While photos can be artistic, the nomenclature of "photo" has changed over the years.

Once upon a time, photos were made from film. Today, photos can come from digital cameras and a smart phone phone. In 1994, my stupid Gordon Gecko cell phone brick could not take a photo. Today, my iPhone can capture a digital photo, a digital video but wait for it... it can ALSO TAKE a panorama! (The crowd says: Oooooh! Ahhhhh!)

The first digital cameras were introduced to photojournalists during my time at Eastman Kodak during the 1990's. During Kodak's annual Electronic Times Photojournalism Workshops and at the Camden Center for Imaging (CCI) we trained photojournalists how to move from their Nikon and Canon film-based cameras to digital.

Back then, digital photos could not allow you to "step inside the picture." A digital photo was just a flat photo. Twenty-five years later, it's now possible to step inside a photo because the way it was captured and produced with a digital camera.

Digital photos will continue to evolve with technology improvements to cameras and lenses. Which follows, newspapers are moving now to panoramic photography, evidenced by the fact we are licensing VPiX SaaS platforms to them, complete with ANPA/IPTC tagging of the panos for distribution to Reuters and the Associated Press for syndication.

 

[mariah1902]

By definition a lot of things can be said or referred as photography but truly what photography really means is that an image that we take by our camera and the picture has to say something or define something. Not all picture is a photograph. Do not just search up the definition and comment. Photography is not a joke.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

It is possible to over think any is issue, I am still trying for figure out how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. I believe I heard that in grade school or there abouts. It seems that folks have been asking this question since the Renaissance.

My point is everyone has questions that are important to them. However it is important not to be surprised because other do not share your concerns. For example many folks pay a lot of attention to sharpness and composition in a photograph. I consider subject and emotional impact far more important.

Dayton Duncan and Ken Burn's book of "The National Parks" has scores of photos that would never be considered for entry in a photography contest today. But they have stood the test of time.

 

[Rickbb]

Back in the day we used to call such things a multimedia collage.

 

[Widef1964]

Interesting topic OP. To put my 5 cents in, I don't believe it could be classed as photography. My understanding of photography is the 'photo' part comes from Greek translation of light - which was how photographs were originally, and arguably still made today (despite everything being digital and not using negatives blabla bla - that's a whole other discussion in itself).

Some might argue that the light from the digital image could be considered a photo - but I'm not convinced.

Not to take away from anyone who does part take in this, I am personally a huge fan, and do think it's skilled.

Maybe alternative names could be CGI photography, or digital scapeographer?

Anyway, i'm going off on a tangent now lol

 

[nokk]

that's like saying every screenshot i take is a photo. i've taken screenshots in games to create art. to me it's no different than an artist using photoshop or illustrator to create art. but i never considered it photography.

the photo trend in video games is annoying to me, especially in games like assassins creed where photos taken by others cover up the place on the map that you need to fast travel to. or cyberpunk where you spent a good 5 minutes trying to figure out how to take a stupid selfie 75% of the way through the game for one side quest when you've never been introduced to the camera mechanics before.