What is a Photograph?

[Doug Kerr]

Now, in a totally different vein, and harking to the original question, "what is a photograph", is this a photograph?

Douglas A. Kerr: Carla in fur​

And if not, what is it?

But, to pander to the diversion from the actual question in a way hat has so occupied this thread:

If I enter it in a photography contest, 1s that ethical?

If I enter it in a drawing context, is that ethical?

And is Carla even having this fur jacket ethical?

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Lee Tracy]

Hi, Lee,



And again I have to ask how you feel about:

• With a film camera, tailoring the developing process to attain certain results, and

• When making a print from a negative, burning and lodging to get the desired results in localized areas.

I do have issue with this actually. One of the favourite examples of post-processing that often gets hauled and used is Ansel Adams - and initially I really loved his 'photos' but then as I became more interested in finding out how people took photos in order to improve my own work I was and am genuinely horrified that his work is held up as being great 'photography'. I think he was a great artist, who worked partially in and with film, but his end result was not photography. For me the missing element or rather the point of moving from photo to art is the fact that his images were manipulated to the point the scenery was no longer an accurate reflection of what was really there. Even if you argue that we edit a scene when we frame it in a viewfinder - we don't change what is there. If some one else could physically be in the same spot at the same moment we took the photo they would see what we saw. When the image is manipulated to the point that it no longer reflects reality in that way ...

Now of course that is far different from deleting a certain person from the image. But I call attention to those examples to caution against too much reliance on the ideal of "as it came from the camera".

As images came from my Canon EOS 40D, they are about 36 × 43 mm and about 5 mm thick. And all I can see on them is "Compact Flash".

I well understand your interest in the ethics of photography, especially in the context of "journalism". But I think it is as futile to seek simplistic definitions of "what is unethical modification of an image" as it is to seek simplistic guidelines as to whether what you brother told you about your other brother was "untrue", or whether a sign that says "6 puppies for sale - all cute" might be lying.

I'm actually a fairly simple person - something either is or it is not - Shakespeare's 'A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet' is a load of codswallop to me. A rose is a rose is a rose and if it is something else ie 'another name' then it is not a rose and isn't as sweet.

Perhaps in a photo I take of two people the perspective makes it look as if Betty is shorter than Carol, whereas I know they are the same height, so I do some work so that to me they appear to be of comparable height in the delivered image. Is that ethical? Suppose I in fact make it look, to the average viewer, that Betty is a little taller than Carol? Is that unethical? Suppose I make Carol look a lot taller than Carol. Is that ethical? How much taller can I make Betty look than Carol before that is unethical.

Suppose I take a picture of Jean, intended to submit to the local newspaper with an article announcing her new real estate sales office, and I use Portrait Professional to enhance her appearance. It makes her mouth a little different shape and takes out some skin blemishes. Is that unethical? Does it depend on how much of that I do? At what point does it become unethical?

Pretty much at the point at which you set out to deceive perhaps?

So I think you quest to quantify "the point at which . . ." is futile and fruitless. If you could get an answer, what would you do with it.

Best regards,

Doug

Hmm ok so if an artist paints over a photo is it still a photo or is it art? How about if a digital artist paints over a digital photo? How about if it is 50% 'paint' and 50% original photo? Is there a tipping point at which it stops being a photo and becomes an original art work? This btw is not a specious argument but a measure that is used to differentiate work that infringes copyright or is original despite using another work as part of the new work. If the alterations are 'transformative' then you are no longer infringing copyright and you have created a new work.

 

[Lee Tracy]

Now, in a totally different vein, and harking to the original question, "what is a photograph", is this a photograph?

Douglas A. Kerr: Carla in fur​

And if not, what is it?

But, to pander to the diversion from the actual question in a way hat has so occupied this thread:

If I enter it in a photography contest, 1s that ethical?

If I enter it in a drawing context, is that ethical?

And is Carla even having this fur jacket ethical?

Best regards,

Doug

Exactly! Is it or isn't it? How do you begin to answer that question? How do you define what is and what isn't? Surely by asking those very questions?

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi. Lee,

Exactly! Is it or isn't it? How do you begin to answer that question? How do you define what is and what isn't? Surely by asking those very questions?

Always a good way to answer a question. Start by asking it.

And if that somehow leads me to an answer, what will I do with it? Perhaps it will help me to know what division to try to enter it into in the Otero County Fair Arts and Crafts competition. And maybe the intake clerk will say, "Wow! Dunno - maybe this should be entered under jams and jellies."

Best regards,

Doug

 

[fahim mohammed]

Lee, could you show a few examples of your photographic efforts. Maybe I could learn something from them.

Discussions about what essentially is a visual activity are pretty useless without some examples.

p.s Doug, that is a particularly enchanting portrait of Carla.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I'm actually a fairly simple person - something either is or it is not - Shakespeare's 'A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet' is a load of codswallop to me. A rose is a rose is a rose and if it is something else ie 'another name' then it is not a rose and isn't as sweet.



Pretty much at the point at which you set out to deceive perhaps?

Well, Lee, I think you have the idea of the quote turned on its head! Shakespeare declares that the name "rose" is not needed for that rose to smell sweet! Change the name "rose" to "gunk-blossom" and is the aroma as pleasing to our nostrils? Yes, "rose" is a far better name and we can stick with it!

But the essence of the rose plant does not require the particular name "rose". The nature of a woman doesn't require any particular dress or makeup. Likewise, the presentation of a photograph as color, sepia, B&W or cross processed does not negate its retained imprint of light.

The important question is no longer, "Is it still a photograph" but rather does it fulfill the expectations and the purpose for which the photograph is being applied ..........or has it been degraded? The same questions, after all, one could ask after a makeup artist had finished with a woman's look. Does it work for the Red carpet of the Academy Awards or else the part she is playing in " A woman dying of grief"?

All pictures are filtered and "manipulated". None represent the truth and no picture can be ever be duplicated by another camera at the same scene! It works well or not for the intended end use. That's it. A photograph, like a window, a chair or a trumpet, has a function. So to judge the truth of the matter, simply look at the function. To the extent it has the correct form to do its job, it remains a photograph.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Now, in a totally different vein, and harking to the original question, "what is a photograph", is this a photograph?

Douglas A. Kerr: Carla in fur​

And if not, what is it?

Doug,

No one could argue with calling it a stylized photograph. It does seem unfair to call this a photograph. We could insist, but we admit it's a stretch!

So we need a name like giclee for inkjet printing, so it sounds artisti! Perhaps we could call it a "digital paintograph" or merely a "paintograph" to satisfy a need for honesty, with "paint" being used solely as a metaphor for any, after the fact, manipulation to the form of the picture beyond routine WB, dynamic range and contrast adjustments.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

No one could argue with calling it a stylized photograph. It does seem unfair to call this a photograph.

But it was once a photograph. Maybe now it's a "former photograph".

We could insist, but we admit it's a stretch!

So we need a name like gyclee for inkjet printing, so it sounds artisti!

Or even giclée.

But that describes a printing process, not a style of art. I can use a fancy inkjet printer to print flow charts. And of course what I posted was not "printed" at all.

Perhaps we could call it a "digital paintograph" or merely a "paintograph" to satisfy a need for honesty, with "paint" being used solely as a metaphor for any, after the fact, manipulation to the form of the picture beyond routine WB, dynamic range and contrast adjustments.

Don't forget cropping! Is vignetting allowed? How about making mosaics?

Remind me why we need names for any of many such things.

As I said earlier, this all seems to be a quest for a solution looking for a problem.

What do I call what I posted? An image.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Maris Rusis]

Photography - Original Manuscript - Sir John F. W. Herschel.​

A facsimile by scanner of the very first time the word "Photography" was written down. This by Sir John F. W. Herschel the man who invented the word "photography"and told us what he meant by it. And (obviously) a photograph is the outcome when photography is done.


The occasion when this manuscript was read was at a meeting of the Royal Society at Somerset House in London on Thursday 14 March, 1839. Meetings of the Royal Society were great social occasions where the glitterati of the day could meet famous figures of science and industry. The best part was a lavish banquet set for approximately 8.30 pm but before that several lectures and presentations were on the agenda. The last presentation before the feast was "Note on the use of Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation." It is not known how many of the attendees realised that when they heard "Photography" it was for the very first time.

It is a philosophic necessity that the inventor of a neologism, "photography" in this case, cannot even in principle be wrong or become wrong through the passage of time. Photography is no more and no less than what Herschel said it was. That many people use "photography" and "photograph" for other processes, other pictures, generates confusion and debate. Witnesseth this thread.

 

[Asher Kelman]

So, Lee,

Now straight out of the camera, the digital picture may not truly considered a photograph unless one uses a real camera with real film to photograph a digital print! But what if the laser writer draws the same image on a sheet of film? What then?

Would Herschel be a an historical purist if he visited us today?

Asher

 

[Lee Tracy]

Hi. Lee,



Always a good way to answer a question. Start by asking it.

And if that somehow leads me to an answer, what will I do with it? Perhaps it will help me to know what division to try to enter it into in the Otero County Fair Arts and Crafts competition. And maybe the intake clerk will say, "Wow! Dunno - maybe this should be entered under jams and jellies."

Best regards,

Doug

I dunno LOL. I have questions not answers and I have how I feel, which is not how most people feel, so who cares except me lol.

 

[Lee Tracy]

Doug,

No one could argue with calling it a stylized photograph. It does seem unfair to call this a photograph. We could insist, but we admit it's a stretch!

So we need a name like gyclee for inkjet printing, so it sounds artisti! Perhaps we could call it a "digital paintograph" or merely a "paintograph" to satisfy a need for honesty, with "paint" being used solely as a metaphor for any, after the fact, manipulation to the form of the picture beyond routine WB, dynamic range and contrast adjustments.

Asher

There is - they call it a 'photographic illustration'.

 

[Lee Tracy]

So, Lee,

Now straight out of the camera, the digital picture may not truly considered a photograph unless one uses a real camera with real film to photograph a digital print! But what if the laser writer draws the same image on a sheet of film? What then?

Would Herschel be a an historical purist if he visited us today?

Asher

I have no answer for the question of 'is a digital photograph still a photograph'. It is commonly accepted belief that the sensor equates to film negative in function, which is why I tend to view the opinion that because the camera manipulates the pixels internally as a reason for the validity of any and all post-processing a little bit of a straw man. All cameras - film or digital have their own inherent properties. A high-end medium format camera takes a different picture to a disposable camera to a lomo camera to a polaroid. What the camera does is what the camera does - its what we do intentionally after the images comes out the camera that makes the difference - in my mind anyway. I mean I've never heard a journalist being in trouble for altering his images because of some factor of the camera he used. It is always what was done after that matters. Ditto for the same issue in wildlife photography.

 

[Asher Kelman]

................What the camera does is what the camera does - its what we do intentionally after the images comes out the camera that makes the difference - in my mind anyway. I mean I've never heard a journalist being in trouble for altering his images because of some factor of the camera he used. It is always what was done after that matters. Ditto for the same issue in wildlife photography.

Lee,

We generally exclude news, crime scene, documentation and scientifically purposed photography from discussions on art. In this group there's no allowance for any alterations to the original out of camera file. That is always kept as a reference. Only then alterations in processing to discover the contents is allowed and without limits!

With all other photography for human pleasure, marketing and entertainment, we are not only allowed to optimize the brightness and tone curves to our personal tastes or the purposes of the client, but we can also decorate the image, remove stray hair or whatever and still offer the picture as authentic. That's the custom for a hundred years or more since the birth of photography.

However, you as an individual, can at some point, say, "This is no longer registers with me as a photograph - I might like it or not - but whatever it now is, I personally won't call it a photograph. I feel that way about Bruce Jenner. Other people can recognize him as a "woman" but I cannot, so I have to accept that I am on a different wavelength, but at least it makes sense to me.

When I myself transform a RAW image to a developed first stage photograph and then gradually work with parts to achieve the esthetics that is best for my sensibilities, I risk having my work considered "manipulated". I hate that term as in social context, it has only negative and dishonest connotation. Rather I feel that the creative choice I make are akin to painting. It's not "illustration" as we're not illustrating something from a blank canvas. Rather we "transform" a digital image with hard defined boundaries to a picture where every element of shape, color, contrast, texture and detail has been evaluated and optimized to serve the intended purpose of the image today.

In the end, if everything works as intended and one hasn't overdone any of the thousands of changes, the final presentation is coherent and evokes a sense that "it is as it should be", something that has to come to "being" and deserves to live!

What's important to me is that I love the image and am thrilled with it. Whether or not others like my work is secondary. That it's no longer an actual photograph never crosses my mind. My goal is to go beyond the margins of what I thought limits me. I don't care how it's labelled, except perhaps either "Archival Pigment" or "Silver Gelatin" print. No one asks, "But is this a photograph?".

After all they're in a photo gallery and there's no P.C. police to say otherwise!

If I was asked, I'd reply, of course, it's taken with a fine Zeiss lens!" And they'd be more than satisfied!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Maybe I'll try to demonstrate how I might go from a picture out of the camera to one ready to print. Then you can judge as to what it might be - a genuine photograph or not!

Asher

 

[Lee Tracy]

Interesting that you raised the point of 'transforming' the image when you process it. Transformation of the image is the measure in deciding if an image infringes copyright or not. If the process substantially transforms the original then it is no longer a copy but a new work, why shouldn't the same concept apply when we transform an image - if it holds in court that there is a point at which there is sufficient change to negate copyright, surely we can transform our own picture to a point where it is substantially not what it was originally and now something new? As in Doug's example - we hesitated to call it a photo because it had changed substantially - so if we agree that there is a point of transformation that our digital image can no longer comfortably be called a photo - the question then remains - where on the continuum of change does that occur?

 

[fahim mohammed]

Lee, I asked you for a few samples from your ' photographic ' portfolio.

This request remains unanswered.

To be honest, while this discussion is interesting, your delay ( refusal ) to submit to a simple request
Leads me to believe that you are either a troll or all this talk is just bull.

Let the rubber meet the road. Show me what you have done champ.

You asked originally, if how you feel was ridiculous. I am prepared to say now..' Yes '.

To why you feel the way you do about current state of general photoghy...we are not the experts in medical diagnosis. There are medical therapists in field that would be better suited to consult and discuss your problem.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Interesting that you raised the point of 'transforming' the image when you process it. Transformation of the image is the measure in deciding if an image infringes copyright or not. If the process substantially transforms the original then it is no longer a copy but a new work, why shouldn't the same concept apply when we transform an image - if it holds in court that there is a point at which there is sufficient change to negate copyright, surely we can transform our own picture to a point where it is substantially not what it was originally and now something new? As in Doug's example - we hesitated to call it a photo because it had changed substantially - so if we agree that there is a point of transformation that our digital image can no longer comfortably be called a photo - the question then remains - where on the continuum of change does that occur?

Wow, Lee!

Once again we've left this arena on what a photograph might be to talk of alterations in news photography or the works of those who misappropriate other people's creative product. We can discuss that separately. I was not aware of and have no truck with use of the word "transform" for such nefarious purposes.

When I use the term "transform" it's a glorious sense of process and "coming of age" related to the transformations we see in life in the gradual erichening of a flower to its fully expressed beauty to invite the honey bees and butterflies or the blossoming beauty that transforms a tomboy to a beauty who stops traffic!

So when I "transform" an image, I'm bringing out, embellishing and showcasing what's inherently there already In the DNA of my photograph.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Lee, I asked you for a few samples from your ' photographic ' portfolio.

This request remains unanswered.

To be honest, while this discussion is interesting, your delay ( refusal ) to submit to a simple request
Leads me to believe that you are either a troll or all this talk is just bull.

Let the rubber meet the road. Show me what you have done champ.

You asked originally, if how you feel was ridiculous. I am prepared to say now..' Yes '.

To why you feel the way you do about current state of general photoghy...we are not the experts in medical diagnosis. There are medical therapists in field that would be better suited to consult and discuss your problem.

Fahim, my good friend.

I take a great responsibility in making sure folk are talking from some actual basis of experience I there own photography. I have checked Lee's work and she can walk the walk so let her talk the talk, LOL!! If someone is so opinionated, I always want to look over their own photography and that's something you can do too. Let me know what you think.

Asher

 

[Wolfgang Plattner]

Hi

Hi, Asher,
But it was once a photograph. Maybe now it's a "former photograph".

it is digital artwork, it is, in it's digital style, the same what Arnulf Rainer did with his "overpaintings": he used a photograph to paint over it and created a new art-product and a new view on the original subject.

 

[Lee Tracy]

Lee, I asked you for a few samples from your ' photographic ' portfolio.

This request remains unanswered.

To be honest, while this discussion is interesting, your delay ( refusal ) to submit to a simple request
Leads me to believe that you are either a troll or all this talk is just bull.

Let the rubber meet the road. Show me what you have done champ.

You asked originally, if how you feel was ridiculous. I am prepared to say now..' Yes '.

To why you feel the way you do about current state of general photoghy...we are not the experts in medical diagnosis. There are medical therapists in field that would be better suited to consult and discuss your problem.

I've posted a number of photos on the forum in various places. If you care to look.

 

[Lee Tracy]

Wow, Lee!

Once again we've left this arena on what a photograph might be to talk of alterations in news photography or the works of those who misappropriate other people's creative product. We can discuss that separately. I was not aware of and have no truck with use of the word "transform" for such nefarious purposes.

When I use the term "transform" it's a glorious sense of process and "coming of age" related to the transformations we see in life in the gradual erichening of a flower to its fully expressed beauty to invite the honey bees and butterflies or the blossoming beauty that transforms a tomboy to a beauty who stops traffic!

So when I "transform" an image, I'm bringing out, embellishing and showcasing what's inherently there already In the DNA of my photograph.

Asher

But have we left the arena? These things don't happen in discrete separate pockets. What happens in one arena spills over into others. Nothing is so nicely discrete.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Asher, I have looked at the photographs ( if you can call them that ) posted here.

All I can say, after seeing her work, that they are...shall we say ...the least engaging, boring and rudimentary effort ..imho.

Of course, philosophically, Sigmund might have an orgasm envisioning the possibilities.

Have your head in the clouds, by all means, but at least let your toes touch the ground.

Fahim, my good friend.

I take a great responsibility in making sure folk are talking from some actual basis of experience I there own photography. I have checked Lee's work and she can walk the walk so let her talk the talk, LOL!! If someone is so opinionated, I always want to look over their own photography and that's something you can do too. Let me know what you think.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

But have we left the arena? These things don't happen in discrete separate pockets. What happens in one arena spills over into others. Nothing is so nicely discrete.

But they do. There's no esthetic enhancement alterations in photography for factual purposes. It simply outlawed!

All other photography uses some sort of purpose-orientated processing to develop the best of the image for the job at hand. Those are the facts of life. These are two distinct and totally separated worlds.

I think the next thing will be for me to simply process an image from scratch and we can see whether or not it retains it's title, "Photograph by Asher Kelman".

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Pending some examples of processing of "out of camera images" to "ready for print" results, this thread is put on hold - a kind of vacation!

Thanks for all the challenging ideas exchanged!

Asher