Going too far digitally?

[panzershreck]

With a digital rendition, once the analog is made to digital, the "light" that is "recorded" may not have ever even existed. The possibility of it being a digitized illusion is always there.

my problem with that explanation is that you can also easily fake a photograph using film, ie: i could place a black miniature structure in frame, take a photo, underexposing the film and overdeveloping so the miniature has no detail, and call the photo "a silhouette of a building" with the sun in the background, and then there's darkrooms, multiple exposures, etc.

a dictionary term for "definition": A statement conveying fundamental character.

i think that's a good way of looking at it, a photograph is a word meant in use as a convention

there are many types of trucks, yet the boundary between trucks and SUV's is small... you could say "truck bed", but then there are many covered truck beds, and many truck beds vary... when you get to the end of that, you can't make a clear definition of what is a truck, and what is an SUV

but that's totally pointless, because the reason they came up with the word "SUV" was not an analytical and precise definition of what an SUV was, it was a term used to refer to a style of automobile

what's a human? maybe, going by evolution, we've evolved since the ice age just a slight amount, but it's unnoticable to the extent that you can't really say X is a human, X is not... go back millions of years, what's a human, what isn't?

if anything, this whole debate over what a photograph is, has showed one thing: definitions are loose, they aren't perfect, and many things are ambiguous, and they don't solve our problems of determining what is and what isn't

therefore, if you want a good definition, it has to include some latitude for error

i also notice that many of you have been trying to squeeze in narrow definitions, sub-topic specifics into a broad, single definition

ok, so digital photographs are different from film photographs, but does this really need to be included in a definition of what a photograph is? so light can make a hand print through a lens on a sheet of film or sensors but also on somebody's back via sunburn... but again, does this belong in a definition of what a photograph is?

and as for the matter of the ambiguity of photography because it was invented via its medium... well so is painting, writing, and theatre, all of which are just narrowly different from some other artform, and whether or not they're real in the purist sense or not

what you guys need is a hierarchical definition

 

[LWW]

Let me clarify my position perhaps a little better.

Phot-o-graph-y and digit-o-graph-y are two similar but distinctly different arts drawing and painting are similar but distinctly different, or as photography and cinematography are similar but distinctly different.

As to your analogy of putting a scale model in a photograph, that actually proves the point even though it might fool the viewer because the model WAS there. Multiple exposures WERE all there as well.

LWW

 

[panzershreck]

Let me clarify my position perhaps a little better.

Phot-o-graph-y and digit-o-graph-y are two similar but distinctly different arts drawing and painting are similar but distinctly different, or as photography and cinematography are similar but distinctly different.

As to your analogy of putting a scale model in a photograph, that actually proves the point even though it might fool the viewer because the model WAS there. Multiple exposures WERE all there as well.

LWW

imo, digitography deserves as a subcategory of the more broad definition of photography, which is a subcategory itself of the more broad definition of visual imagery, i think digitography is... imo, too cumbersome of a convention

cinematography, for however much its similarity to photography, it wholly different... way more different then film photography vs. digital photography

the miniature is to say that, you don't know if it's real or not... i could also just place a blank object into the enlarger over the negative so when it prints, again i get a silhouette of a "building"... i could, if i'm careful, go back over a B&W photograph and correct huge swaths of a print... suddenly things have disappeared... or maybe i stop down during exposure so that what should be 4pm now looks 5pm...

as a convention, i think narrowing such a board definition as "photograph" by what is depicted is not very useful

when you define a painting, you eliminate that whole area, because it's all made up or interpreted via the human brain (which can distort things)... thus, a painting is a visual image, created using color pigments, usually paint... maybe i'm missing something, but a similar definition for *just* a photograph, would be something created by light, and recorded on a medium through a device (simple or complex)... after that, you can go into specifics, but imo, cramming it all into a soundbite just isn't realistic to begin with

a definition for a car isn't "automobile, with 4 wheels, internal combustion engine, connected to driveshaft, steering wheel, doors, windows, seats, box shaped, yadda yadda yadda"

 

[Marctwo]

Of course a metre is clearly defined - that is why it was used as a refutation to your claim that we can all have our own definitions.

How many times have you asked for a metre of something and received a metre? Never would be the answer. A metre has a standard definition that other contextual definitions are based on.

If you ask for a metre in a precision engineering context, you'll be asked for a tolerance to define exactly what you mean by a metre. If you buy a metre of string you may end up with 950mm or 1100mm depending on how the shop assistant defines a metre within that context.

So a metre (like so many other things) may be clearly defined but a metre doesn't mean a metre - not in the real world, anyway.

 

[LWW]

Actually a phot-o-graph has a very clearly defined definition.

A print may or may not be a true phot-o-graph, but this CAN be determined from the negative.

A print from a digit-o-graph may or may not be a phot-o-graph. Whether it is or isn't is a matter of faith and nothing more.

LWW

 

[Marctwo]

Down here on planet Earth, I can't help but wander what photography actually means to you guys. I mean on a day to day basis, how do you think/feel about and use the term? If someone says 'photography' to you, what exactly do you think they're talking about?

For me it's simply a matter of recording and reproducing the image of light; Whether it's recorded via digital sensors or analogue film makes no difference at all. This may well be flawed or simplistic to you but I don't care - that's how I feel about it.

If you feel that photography is exclusively about using electromagnetic waves to burn images directly onto media then all the digital camera users out there must be into 'light sampling' instead. Is 'light sampling' really such a different hobby/profession than 'photography'?
If someone shows you their photographs printed in ink, do you hit them and tell them what a photograph really is or do you understand that they are simply showing you a reproduction of a light recording?

 

[LWW]

And Marctwo, for all practical purposes I am in complete agreement with you.

it is when things are digitally cloned out of or sewn/pasted into existence that I have issue with digital vs film, and even then that is limited to when the departure from reality is not disclosed.

As I said they are 2 extremely similar arts, and the art of capturing the original image in camera is identical other than the medium upon which it is captured.

LWW

 

[wil]

I can see the potential down fall of photography due to the digital age. I see more and more people just shoot off photos hoping they get some thing instad of actualy thinking about what there are doing. They leave the creativity up to the camara and even if they don't, they make one in photoshop. Don't get me wrong I do like PS and use it alot to correct photos but not to make "tabloid" crap. If the current trend continues the photography trade will be in trouble, moraly and legaly.......That concludes my rant...

 

[craig]

I can see the potential down fall of photography due to the digital age. I see more and more people just shoot off photos hoping they get some thing instad of actualy thinking about what there are doing. They leave the creativity up to the camara and even if they don't, they make one in photoshop. Don't get me wrong I do like PS and use it alot to correct photos but not to make "tabloid" crap. If the current trend continues the photography trade will be in trouble, moraly and legaly.......That concludes my rant...

Hey now. No one can see the potential down fall of photography, because there will never be one. This thread has brought up some excellent points. In the end only our pre conceived notions of the art surface. Digi vs film vs point and shoot, whatever. This argument will go on forever. I think it is all about the moment when someone decides to take a photograph. That photo may or may not be improved on. The point is that the shot recorded a moment in time. That is the beauty of photography.

 

[jstuedle]

What we preceive as our art my change or even almost die, but never will photography die. In a decade or three, film might be all but dead, and that as a medium/art might all but die, but not photography. I do feel that the ethics of the art are in flux and we all must work to ensure the masses know if what they view is real or Memorex.

 

[Marctwo]

Photo's have always been faked and manipulated since long before there was any type of digital editing. It's not a film vs digital issue - it's a trust and purity issue.

Eg: You are taking someones portrait but they have a scratch on their face. What do you do?

1. Take the shot and say "well that's how they looked at the time!"
2. Don't take the shot and tell them to come back when they look good.
3. Cover the scratch with makeup and take the shot.
4. Take the shot and remove the scratch in post-processing.

If you choose 4, should you disclose this manipulation to everyone that sees the image? If you put the image on display, should you include a 'WARNING: Manipulated Image' caption?

If you choose 3, should you disclose the scene manipulation in the same way?

 

[jstuedle]

Good piont, but I feel we still need to be made aware when an image is a total fabrication.

 

[Marctwo]

Yes, for me it's a case of little, white lies and big, deceptive lies - we'll all draw different lines between them.

 

[alexecho]

LWW, if the negative is lost is the photograph no longer a photograph?

I'll get back to this topic when I've more time, some very interesting points have been raised recently.

 

[LWW]

Yes.

LWW