When does a photograph become an image.

S

Studi0488

Suspended / Banned
Messages
709
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
No
How much post production takes a photograph to something that isn't then a "true" photograph ?
 
When what you've added changes the initial meaning of underlying lens based image. That's the tipping point for me.
 
treeman said:
My own definition is when you add a component from another image, it's then no longer a capture of a moment in time. :)
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with that. For instance, I'm working on a series at the moment that mix wide field astro photography landscapes and live models... as the long exposures total around 3 hours per image, the models have to be shot in the studio. Are these not photographs as a result? It's true to what the concept was in my head, and everything is lens based in origin.

Isn't thinking of a photograph as merely a capture of a moment of time rather limiting creatively?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Isn't thinking of a photograph as merely a capture of a moment of time rather limiting creatively?
Click to expand...

Yes you could say that, but why shouldn't you limit the creativity of a something if not doing so then turns it into something it isn't?

iMHO what you're creating is digital imagery, and there's nothing wrong with that, but its not a photograph :)

It's a bit like if an artist painted a picture on a canvas then stuck a clay sculpture onto it, is that still a painting or is it a sculpture? IMO it's neither, it's a 3D artwork.
 
treeman said:
Yes you could say that, but why shouldn't you limit the creativity of a something if not doing so then turns it into something it isn't?

iMHO what you're creating is digital imagery, and there's nothing wrong with that, but its not a photograph :)
Click to expand...


Would you say Ansel Adams produced photographs? Alexander Rodchenko? Man Ray?
 
A photograph is an image, but an image is not necessarily a photograph.
 
Quite true, but treeman is suggesting that an image that does not strictly and accurately represent the very moment in time the shutter opened in not a photograph... which is patently not true. A montaged photograph is still a photograph.. or more strictly, photographs (plural). It doesn't by any kind of definition become something else.

I know where his idea is coming from.. that the entire "thing" has to be captured in one exposure... but that's a rather limiting concept if you ask me.

Nothing is a true representation of life or reality, whether it was captured in a single exposure or not.
 
I agree with treeman.

If you substitute something that wasn't in the scene into it then it is no longer a photograph. That's not the same thing as it being in one exposure. If the scene in front of you is unchanged with regard to features i.e. you arent compositing a tree in there that wasn't in the scene, then you are creating digital imagery.

Taking a photograph of a person in the studio and then putting them into a different background is creating an image not a photograph
 
Pookeyhead said:
Would you say Ansel Adams produced photographs? Alexander Rodchenko? Man Ray?
Click to expand...

Yes they all produced photographs, (though I've always considered Man Ray as an artist rather than Photographer) but if they produced an image that was a combination of more than one negative, then IMO they produced an image not a photograph.

This is just my opinion of what constitutes a photograph, and I'm quite happy for anyone to disagree. :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
I know where his idea is coming from.. that the entire "thing" has to be captured in one exposure... but that's a rather limiting concept if you ask me.

Nothing is a true representation of life or reality, whether it was captured in a single exposure or not.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't it be limiting, where are you going to draw the line?

I'm not for one second suggesting the image should have to reflect reality, it just should be done in one exposure.
 
treeman said:
Why shouldn't it be limiting, where are you going to draw the line?

I'm not for one second suggesting the image should have to reflect reality, it just should be done in one exposure.
Click to expand...

Well.... Ok.. perhaps limiting is the wrong word. If you think that something that combines more than one capture is not a photograph, whether it is limiting depends on whether you would stop yourself from doing it because you feel that it's less pure, or less worthy. If you would, then it has limited you.
 
is a digital picture or print a photograph ?
 
If a tree falls in the woods.... LOL

You see something in your mind... you use a camera to create it and put it on a piece of paper. Sometimes what you see can't be done in one take... it's still just as much a photograph as the one you did in one take, because you've created an image using a lens.

For me, the lens is key. If the image was formed with a lens, then it's a photograph.
 
well its nothing until its printed,,,but i thought a photograph was an image that was created on light sensitive material along with the various chemicals ,,,,etc
 
donutagain said:
well its nothing until its printed,,,but i thought a photograph was an image that was created on light sensitive material along with the various chemicals ,,,,etc
Click to expand...

So a photograph with a digital camera is not a photograph? I'm fairly certain the defining characteristic of a photograph is one formed by focusing light with a lens or created by an aperture.
 
Last edited:
treeman said:
I'm not for one second suggesting the image should have to reflect reality, it just should be done in one exposure.
Click to expand...

How would you place a diptych or triptych (for the sake of argument printed together onto one sheet) in your model?

Or an HDR image combining three exposures taken 0.2 sec apart? Is that no longer a photograph?

Just exploring the boundaries...
 
The word "photograph" was coined in 1839 by Sir John Herschel and is based on the Greek φῶς (phos), meaning "light", and γραφή (graphê), meaning "drawing, writing", together meaning "drawing with light"
Click to expand...

wikipedia (for what it's worth).

Interesting definition which implies creativity but I wonder what he envisaged when he coined the definition? Surely not the sort of manipulated image we sometimes see today?

For me, if it's what you see, though enhanced (HDR etc) it's a photograph but if you are adding to what is seen (replacing a background etc) then it's a created image.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Well.... Ok.. perhaps limiting is the wrong word. If you think that something that combines more than one capture is not a photograph, whether it is limiting depends on whether you would stop yourself from doing it because you feel that it's less pure, or less worthy. If you would, then it has limited you.
Click to expand...

Yes but I like limitations, it's those limitations that separate a photographer from a digital artist, and I'd like to be known as a Photographer :)
 
Musicman said:
How would you place a diptych or triptych (for the sake of argument printed together onto one sheet) in your model?

Or an HDR image combining three exposures taken 0.2 sec apart? Is that no longer a photograph?

Just exploring the boundaries...
Click to expand...

Good points, and TBH it's not something I'd thought about, or at least certainly not coming up with a list of what is and isn't acceptable. I'd say though that the triptych/diptych would still be a photograph as its just a way of presenting the individual images. The HDR, I'm not so sure...........
 
gramps said:
wikipedia (for what it's worth).

Interesting definition which implies creativity but I wonder what he envisaged when he coined the definition? Surely not the sort of manipulated image we sometimes see today?

For me, if it's what you see, though enhanced (HDR etc) it's a photograph but if you are adding to what is seen (replacing a background etc) then it's a created image.
Click to expand...

But an HDR (or more accurately, a tone mapped image) is not seen. It bears little resemblance to reality. So you are adding to what is seen, surely?

treeman said:
Yes but I like limitations, it's those limitations that separate a photographer from a digital artist, and I'd like to be known as a Photographer :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I like to be known as a photographer to, but I still sometimes composite images. I fail to see why I should stifle my creativity because what I see in my mind requires more than one exposure. The resulting artwork was created by focusing light with a lens... it's a photograph.


treeman said:
Good points, and TBH it's not something I'd thought about, or at least certainly not coming up with a list of what is and isn't acceptable. I'd say though that the triptych/diptych would still be a photograph as its just a way of presenting the individual images. The HDR, I'm not so sure...........
Click to expand...

Well.. I'm glad you're not so sure, because it's not as straight forward you would suggest it is.

HDR images are composites. They are a construct of more than one exposure. They not photographs? Triptychs and diptychs are more than one exposure put in the same frame. What about in-camera multiple exposures? They not photographs either? Multiple flash bursts during a long exposure? They not photos either?

You do realise what thin ice your argument currently rests upon I hope.
 
the lens thing is no argument either.

Just because the starting point was using a lens, everything that happens after can be completely altered.

By your reckoning, if the image i'm looking at was put through a cutout filter of photoshop it is still a photograph.

really?

is this a photograph

http://morpheus.cc/myworld/gallery/fx/photoshop/cutout.jpg

I mean it was taken with a lens originally, so it must be right? Nope
 
Personally, I'll do whatever I want with a camera. I'll leave it to others to decide what they want to call it.

I sometimes wonder if people are aware that a photograph has little in common with the scene it represents.

After all, a photo is rather small, rather thin and rather flat.;)
 
I also said right at the top of the thread.

When what you've added changes the initial meaning of the underlying lens based image. That's the tipping point for me.
Click to expand...

What you just linked to is clearly truying to replicate a traditional painting process (albeit badly) so by definition, is no longer a photograph, because it is TRYING to be something else.

How about this.. I've already posted this on here, and no one suggested it wasn't a photograph.



The whole premise is that the women are all the same... that was the idea. Does it become less of a photograph because of that? How does this differ from an HDR image, which is several exposures layered over one another? They both take more than one exposure, and create a single finished product. No one thinks of HDR images as not being a photograph.

I just think this whole thing is a little bit elitist... the whole decisive moment/cartier-bresson mindset. I don't see that there's any validity in the argument, because it's hypocritical.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But an HDR (or more accurately, a tone mapped image) is not seen. It bears little resemblance to reality. So you are adding to what is seen, surely?
Click to expand...

It certainly does bear resemblance to the scene, albeit 'adjusting' it, but the scene is not essentially changed - nothing is essentially added or removed ... so it is recognisable as the scene.
If a different background is added, for example, then it is no longer recognisable as the scene so that is where I personally would draw the line ... all open to interpretation of course.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But an HDR (or more accurately, a tone mapped image) is not seen. It bears little resemblance to reality. So you are adding to what is seen, surely?



Fair enough. I like to be known as a photographer to, but I still sometimes composite images. I fail to see why I should stifle my creativity because what I see in my mind requires more than one exposure. The resulting artwork was created by focusing light with a lens... it's a photograph.




Well.. I'm glad you're not so sure, because it's not as straight forward you would suggest it is.

HDR images are composites. They are a construct of more than one exposure. They not photographs? Triptychs and diptychs are more than one exposure put in the same frame. What about in-camera multiple exposures? They not photographs either? Multiple flash bursts during a long exposure? They not photos either?

You do realise what thin ice your argument currently rests upon I hope.
Click to expand...

It's not an argument at all, I'm just stating my opinion on what is and isn't a photograph :)

Presumably by your opinion pinhole photography does not produce a photograph?
 
I think people just hang on to this premise of "purity" because it makes them feel better. I don;t think it's from any true conviction. I see no distinction between composite images, HDR layered tone maps, multiple exposures in camera, multiple strobes... they're all technically more than one exposure, just different techniques to produce different results.

Like I said. I'll be damned if any half assed prescriptive rule is going to stop me from creating what I see in my mind. If anyone thinks it's not a photograph, then so be it.


treeman said:
It's not an argument at all, I'm just stating my opinion on what is and isn't a photograph :)

Presumably by your opinion pinhole photography does not produce a photograph?
Click to expand...

Of course it does. I said earlier on.. if its' made by a lens focusing light, or by an aperture, then it's a photograph.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I also said right at the top of the thread.

What you just linked to is clearly truying to replicate a traditional painting process (albeit badly) so by definition, is no longer a photograph, because it is TRYING to be something else.
Click to expand...

you also said

Pookeyhead said:
Sometimes what you see can't be done in one take... it's still just as much a photograph as the one you did in one take, because you've created an image using a lens.

For me, the lens is key. If the image was formed with a lens, then it's a photograph.
Click to expand...

and further clarified this with

Pookeyhead said:
if its' made by a lens focusing light, or by an aperture, then it's a photograph.
Click to expand...


In the image I linked to, maybe the person who owns that image saw it that way in their mind, they certainly then formed it with a lens so by your definition it is a photograph

Pookeyhead said:
The whole premise is that the women are all the same... that was the idea. Does it become less of a photograph because of that?
Click to expand...

Yes, in my opinion it does. It's not a photograph, it's an image
 
Last edited:
(shrug).

LOL

Not sure what else to say. Then I'm not a photographer in your mind. It changes nothing in mine :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
(shrug).

LOL

Not sure what else to say. Then I'm not a photographer in your mind. It changes nothing in mine :)
Click to expand...

I didn't say you weren't a photographer.

A photographer can produce images and photographs. Are you saying that everything you produce is taken from multiple images or exposures? I'm sure you have produced content that is not a composite etc.

In fact I know you have because I have seen it
 
Well... no one takes any notice of me either, so that's fine :)

joescrivens said:
I didn't say you weren't a photographer.

A photographer can produce images and photographs. Are you saying that everything you produce is taken from multiple images or exposures? I'm sure you have produced content that is not a composite etc.

In fact I know you have because I have seen it
Click to expand...

Of course. I do what needs to be done. Sometimes, one exposure just don't cut it is all.
 
A photograph is an image made with light, so it's always an image. Although I'd say it stops being a perfectly true photograph as soon as you hit clone though.

If you wanted to get really stupidly pedantic you could argue that it stops being a photograph the moment the pixel values are read off a digital sensor, or in film terms the second development begins as there's now extra process going on...but that's just ridiculous really.
 
gramps said:
wikipedia (for what it's worth).

Interesting definition which implies creativity but I wonder what he envisaged when he coined the definition? Surely not the sort of manipulated image we sometimes see today?
Click to expand...

Herschel was a friend of Fox Talbot, who, IIRC was driven to invent his (as dubbed by Herschel) 'photographic' process as a result of his frustration at his inability to draw.

Though that does does raise the question whether the ability to draw is, of itself, a creative process. I can think of some spectacular draughtsmanship I have seen which is utterly mechanical. I fear these debates have been raging since the nineteenth century :)
 
joescrivens said:
I agree with treeman.

If you substitute something that wasn't in the scene into it then it is no longer a photograph. That's not the same thing as it being in one exposure. If the scene in front of you is unchanged with regard to features i.e. you arent compositing a tree in there that wasn't in the scene, then you are creating digital imagery.

Taking a photograph of a person in the studio and then putting them into a different background is creating an image not a photograph
Click to expand...


Harking back to the early days of photography, you can have a photographic document representing a moment in time and art photography.

What do you think of photographs which are taken in camera but represent the subject in a way the human visual system can never see them?
 
I'd be delighted to be called either a photographer or a digital artist.

Either would be a great improvement on the names I usually get called.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top