When does a photograph become an image.

Interesting discussion!

Its a question I have asked myself.

If I make an image that did not originate from a camera its a real attempt at creating something from inside my head so anything goes. If I take a photograph with a camera its an attempt at capturing a moment. All of my photographs get minimal PP to preserve the moment.

This is just what I do.

From my camera:
Dscf7734.jpg


From inside my head:
JOCKY2_0110.png


CHEERS
 
Last edited:
IMO, as has been said, a photograph is an image but an image isn't necessarily a photograph, even if it's a photographic image! Again, IMO, once PP has gone beyond simple levels and a touch of curves (into the realm of overblown HDR for example, or colour popping), it's straying into image territory.

How people achieve their images isn't important, neither is the definition of that image, if it does what they want it to (or, if relevant, what the customer wants), it's a job well done!
 
this question is as old as photography itself. There is no right or wrong answer, decide for yourself.

FWIW, and imho, if it started in a camera (using the widest interpretation of the term) then its a photograph :cool:
 
I distinguish the two quite simply. It's just my own opinion, I haven't read this from anywhere but it is how I differentiate the two terms.

A photograph, for me, is a capture from a camera to document whatever the scene was as it is...nothing done to it, no dressing up, what you see is what came from the camera.

An image, again - for me, is a photograph that has been altered to taste, as an attempt to make the photograph more appealing time the viewer.

So in short...a photograph is a photograph until something is applied in PP to transform it. I wouldn't call a straight mono conversion an image...but I would if it has been converted, had curvs, vignette and levels applied to it.

Perhaps it's because I'm new school I think of photographs as how I remember them from young and that word association is more relevant than anything.

That's just my take on it anyway :)
 
I cannot believe how the has descended in to a one on one battle but this is how it works for me

I take photos, I post pictures of those are SOOC bar levels adjustment with nothing added or taken away, if however I want to take something our I will ;) and if you don't believe me see and read this thread

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=419765

Matt
MWHCVT
 
Phil Young said:
I distinguish the two quite simply. It's just my own opinion, I haven't read this from anywhere but it is how I differentiate the two terms.

A photograph, for me, is a capture from a camera to document whatever the scene was as it is...nothing done to it, no dressing up, what you see is what came from the camera.

An image, again - for me, is a photograph that has been altered to taste, as an attempt to make the photograph more appealing time the viewer.

So in short...a photograph is a photograph until something is applied in PP to transform it. I wouldn't call a straight mono conversion an image...but I would if it has been converted, had curvs, vignette and levels applied to it.
Click to expand...

Well, that's most of Ansel Adams' work ruled as not being photographs.

Now what happens if I print a film shot on a grade of paper of my choice to get the contrast I find 'more appealing'? :-?
 
so , back to the original question

When does a photograph become an image.

i think its down to the definition of the word photograph , maybe its a word that is no longer any use and should be struck out of the books , any print is/shows an image ,,and i would say that all images have been manipulated to a greater or lesser degree ,,,
so for me ,,,anything taken on film is a photograph , and anything digital is an image ,,,,one is not better than the other no right no wrong , just different words
 
Musicman said:
Well, that's most of Ansel Adams' work ruled as not being photographs.

Now what happens if I print a film shot on a grade of paper of my choice to get the contrast I find 'more appealing'? :-?
Click to expand...

I don't know who that guy is but that's just how I see it.

Like I said, perhaps more word association because I have a pre-determind image in my head of what a photograph is from looking at them when I was younger.

Also, if we take that description as "painting with light" there's nothing about "painting with Photoshop" :-P
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
I don't know who that guy is but that's just how I see it.

Like I said, perhaps more word association because I have a pre-determind image in my head of what a photograph is from looking at them when I was younger.

Also, if we take that description as "painting with light" there's nothing about "painting with Photoshop" :-P
Click to expand...
I think that Rob was asking you to question your supposition that all 'old photographs' were somehow magically taken from a camera with no further processing.

Unfortunately this is based on a naive belief (some would say ignorance) of any photography prior to digital.

Those pictures you remember from your childhood were mostly shot on colour film with a massive exposure latitude, and then during printing the machine applied what we would describe as auto levels and sometimes even a bit of auto colour balance.

The professional photographs that you might have seen as a child would have been custom printed using a lot of the tools you'll find in Photoshop.

I missed the 'painting with light' bit.

In photography as we remember it, there were 2 exposures to create the image, one onto the film and one onto the paper, it was the one onto the paper that allowed 'darkroom magic' to work - and like I said, we now do the same electronically.
 
Last edited:
I've heard of very few photographers that people tend to go on about and that's because I don't really care, I take photos that I like to take I don't try and follow a style etc now if you talk a out current i.e. living photographers there are a number that I respect, follow and aim to emulate :)
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
I've heard of very few photographers that people tend to go on about and that's because I do really care, I take photos that I like to take I don't try and follow a style etc now if you talk a out current i.e. living photographers there are a number that I respect, follow and aim to emulate :)
Click to expand...

but even you have heard of ansel adams right?

It would be like chatting away on a movie directing forum and saying you never heard of steven spielberg or martin scorsese
 
joescrivens said:
but even you have heard of ansel adams right?

It would be like chatting away on a movie directing forum and saying you never heard of steven spielberg or martin scorsese
Click to expand...

I have but he is about the only one ;)
 
joescrivens said:
I'm with you. I don't hardly know any either. David Bailey and him, maybe one or two others
Click to expand...

I think it's all too easy to get caught up in what others do and not enjoy your own photography ;)
 
MWHCVT said:
I think it's all too easy to get caught up in what others do and not enjoy your own photography ;)
Click to expand...

OTOH it's also possible to appreciate what others do and have done, and still enjoy your own photography;).

Some great musicians spend lots of their time listening to other music - some spend none. There's no right or wrong way.
 
I took a photo once.....but the police made me take it back to the gallery though! :)

However, i dont think you can generalise. In the purest sense if the image is what was there, then its a photo, and if it wasnt its a creation.

Strictly speaking A photograph or photo is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface.
 
Phil Young said:
I distinguish the two quite simply. It's just my own opinion, I haven't read this from anywhere but it is how I differentiate the two terms.

A photograph, for me, is a capture from a camera to document whatever the scene was as it is...nothing done to it, no dressing up, what you see is what came from the camera.

An image, again - for me, is a photograph that has been altered to taste, as an attempt to make the photograph more appealing time the viewer.

So in short...a photograph is a photograph until something is applied in PP to transform it. I wouldn't call a straight mono conversion an image...but I would if it has been converted, had curvs, vignette and levels applied to it.

Perhaps it's because I'm new school I think of photographs as how I remember them from young and that word association is more relevant than anything.

That's just my take on it anyway :)
Click to expand...


That is how I would sum it up entirely. I left the whole post in the quote instead of partially quoting as others have as I agree with everything that has been put. I could go further with my opinion, but it is only MY opinion, and it's not going to change anybodys mind about what they think the difference is. Maybe some people should put their time and considerable talents to something more worthwhile than argueing a point.

I very rarely find a need or desire to use PP for much more than just a crop and very occasionally a level correction (usually only an auto levels in Canon DPP).

I have used PSE 9 and Canon DPP to alter some raw photos at a request from some people and managed to get exactly what they wanted, although I personally thought they looked worse when I'd finished, and the customer is always right.
 
modchild said:
That is how I would sum it up entirely. I left the whole post in the quote instead of partially quoting as others have as I agree with everything that has been put. I could go further with my opinion, but it is only MY opinion, and it's not going to change anybodys mind about what they think the difference is. Maybe some people should put their time and considerable talents to something more worthwhile than argueing a point.

I very rarely find a need or desire to use PP for much more than just a crop and very occasionally a level correction (usually only an auto levels in Canon DPP).

I have used PSE 9 and Canon DPP to alter some raw photos at a request from some people and managed to get exactly what they wanted, although I personally thought they looked worse when I'd finished, and the customer is always right.
Click to expand...

I know it's only an 'opinion' and you're entitled to it. However, as old fools are here to share 'knowledge' I feel the need to point out why your 'opinion' is based on flawed evidence.

In fact if I was a purist, I'd say that if you're cropping your images or (god forbid) straightening horizons. You're actually delving into the darkroom, not just mirroring the 'dropping your film off at Boots' method of photography. You're OK with the Auto Levels, it's what Boots did for our prints:thumbs:.

As many here have pointed out, since we adopted the negative photographic process, photographers have had '2 bites at the cherry' to make their photographs fulfill their vision.

Only transparency shooters can rightly hold the title of 'purist', and even then it wasn't unknown for transparencies to be retouched.

And I'm in and out of the forum to give my 'left brain' a rest whilst I'm processing a wedding - but thanks for your concern.
 
May another old fool (I rather like that description!) have another dip of the oar?

After some thought, I've come to the realisation that a photograph is an image as soon as it can be seen, either on the rear screen, the monitor or as a print. Surely the question should more be when does a photograph cease to be a photograph and become just an image? (with no demeaning insinuations meant by that "just".)

Back in my film days, I developed (no pun intended) into a transparency shooter - not as a purist, I hasten to add, in fact, far from it! I just found that slides scanned far better than negs, so I could then "play" with my images more easily than I could with negs! It's only comparitively recently that I've come to loathe PP work, not just because too many people now use PP as a tool to create (IMO) displeasing images rather than what I see as photographs (I was once guilty of that, with my main failing being oversharpenning) but because I'd rather spend my time at the computer printing than retouching etc. I now have levels in all my most used cameras, so horizons have no excuse and that was the major reason for most of my pics needing rescuing, I can almost always reshoot, since I rarely shoot any fast action so I very rarely need to rescue a poorly exposed shot - a quick peek at a review image and histogram , delete if necessary and reshoot with exposure compensation!

Even back in B&W darkroom days, I would drop interesting skies behind dramatic silouettes etc, creating composite images from photographs and still do shoot the occasional stormy sky to do the same but rarely follow through.
 
Phil V said:
I think that Rob was asking you to question your supposition that all 'old photographs' were somehow magically taken from a camera with no further processing.

Unfortunately this is based on a naive belief (some would say ignorance) of any photography prior to digital.

Those pictures you remember from your childhood were mostly shot on colour film with a massive exposure latitude, and then during printing the machine applied what we would describe as auto levels and sometimes even a bit of auto colour balance.

The professional photographs that you might have seen as a child would have been custom printed using a lot of the tools you'll find in Photoshop.

I missed the 'painting with light' bit.

In photography as we remember it, there were 2 exposures to create the image, one onto the film and one onto the paper, it was the one onto the paper that allowed 'darkroom magic' to work - and like I said, we now do the same electronically.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention dark rooms etc because I'm sure people would be able to work out that I knew there was PP before digital...

About the famous photographers:

I really don't care about famous people. I don't read the news and don't follow a football team.

I couldn't tell you 5 people in the England football team... but I'm a very good L/R back.

Similarly to photography: I have heard of a few people but I don't care, all I care about is my own stuff and how I can improve.

Football: I don't care how arsenal is doing but I love playing and I love winning for me.

Hope that clears up to why I don't know Ansel Adams or whatever his name is :)
 
Phil Young said:
I didn't mention dark rooms etc because I'm sure people would be able to work out that I knew there was PP before digital...

About the famous photographers:

I really don't care about famous people. I don't read the news and don't follow a football team.

I couldn't tell you 5 people in the England football team... but I'm a very good L/R back.

Similarly to photography: I have heard of a few people but I don't care, all I care about is my own stuff and how I can improve.

Football: I don't care how arsenal is doing but I love playing and I love winning for me.

Hope that clears up to why I don't know Ansel Adams or whatever his name is :)
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to see the relevance of knowing famous footballers to understanding that all photographs have been processed (which is what you quoted me about). Truly confused.:thinking:
 
Interesting debate here. I'd happily err on the side of if it consists of more than one separately captured image, then it's not a photograph per se, but still photography. More accurately it's a photographic montage. I'd also happily lump HDR captured via multiple frames all layered on top of each other as a montage.

That doesn't make it any less of a skill, just a separate one. Dropping a sky in from another picture is also straightforwardly a montage. However if you were to achieve the same via a filter, that's a photograph. Of course the effect could well be the same so you may wonder how important the distinction is?

Well it matters as different expectations occur across different parts of the industry. If you worked for Reuters news agency and even thought about a montage, you'd be sacked.

Check this montage from the 1920s (if it successfully adds this time). It's bloody brilliant

PGP%20197.1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oh and I saw an Ansel Adams exhibition a few years ago. I must confess I got a bit bored ;)
 
Rather than focussing on a particular level of manipulation that I personally feel alters the definition of the "work" presented.........

ya know what, I'm just gonna quote myself from a 2 year old thread about this subject.
I'm gonna quote myself because as badly written as it is, I do not possess the vocabulary to improve on it.

I'm regressing...:lol:


joxby said:
..........its about what a photograph is.
I believe a photograph is special, it has a credibility, an integrity, some measure of truth, besides artistic merit.
If you take that element away it has no more content than a painting or a drawing.
I make no apology for valuing the art of photography more than that of painting, but that is all they are, paintings/drawings of things that may or may not exist in some form of who knows what.
The view that anything goes is ok, just further undermines that specific quality that is really only found in photography.
Like it or not, people expect reality in a photograph, and when they see pictures they like and then find out later the mountains were grey and not orange, they feel cheated/conned, however much they loved the image in the beginning........

:)
Click to expand...

original thread

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=198559&highlight=credibility

 
Originally Posted by joxby
..........its about what a photograph is.
I believe a photograph is special, it has a credibility, an integrity, some measure of truth, besides artistic merit.
If you take that element away it has no more content than a painting or a drawing.
I make no apology for valuing the art of photography more than that of painting, but that is all they are, paintings/drawings of things that may or may not exist in some form of who knows what.
The view that anything goes is ok, just further undermines that specific quality that is really only found in photography.
Like it or not, people expect reality in a photograph, and when they see pictures they like and then find out later the mountains were grey and not orange, they feel cheated/conned, however much they loved the image in the beginning........
Click to expand...

This for me. :thumbs:

...I think, interesting thread. It made me think of the fact that a photograph is also a very short film..and like a long exposure, or applying new frames to a single exposure has photography always been blurring the lines between stills and filming.

I'm of the mind that a photograph can and should always be compared to a theoretical 'other shot' taken along side by another photographer. ...So no matter how much PP has been applied, both photos still contain the same subject matter. If they don't match content wise, then one of them isn't a photograph any more.
 
Going back to teh thread title a minute....

When does a photograph become an image? Well.. a photograph IS an image already.

/thread :)
 
Phil Young said:
I didn't mention dark rooms etc because I'm sure people would be able to work out that I knew there was PP before digital...

About the famous photographers:

I really don't care about famous people. I don't read the news and don't follow a football team.

I couldn't tell you 5 people in the England football team... but I'm a very good L/R back.

Similarly to photography: I have heard of a few people but I don't care, all I care about is my own stuff and how I can improve.

Football: I don't care how arsenal is doing but I love playing and I love winning for me.

Hope that clears up to why I don't know Ansel Adams or whatever his name is :)
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying you should or shouldn't care. It's just really surprising that you hadn't heard of ansel adams, that's all. I'd have thought it was harder to not have heard of him :lol:
 
Studi0488 said:
How much post production takes a photograph to something that isn't then a "true" photograph ?
Click to expand...

When it looks far removed from the original recored scene. Anything HDR lol


TBH the different between the two is largely irrelevant. So long as you don't claim an HDR is a single shot straight from camera.

People seem to forget that photography has and always be a two stage process

1 - shutter opens

2 - open in photoshop or develop & print
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
I'd argue well done HDR enhances and brings the scene back to what you would normally see with your own eyes...

Stupidly sharpened over saturated HDR doesn't...
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter - it's still 3 or more images blended together. That's not a photograph but a digital manipulation.
 
POAH said:
Doesn't matter - it's still 3 or more images blended together. That's not a photograph but a digital manipulation.
Click to expand...

What about a HDR taken from a single exposure RAW file :shrug:

I'd agree that a well shot HDR can actually be more realistic than a single exposure shot, if used in the correct way and the processing done correctly (but this is a totally different discussion really)
 
I've just had a re think and isn't the technically correct question 'When does an image become a photograph?':geek:

When film was exposed to light, it contained what's called a 'latent image', the light has done it's thing but the film needs developing.

With digital, is the same point when the processing of the raw data becomes viewable (ie converted to JPEG or other true image format).:thinking:

Even this presumes straight 'positive' photography (ie transparencies or polaroid), with negatives, the photograph doesn't appear until after a further exposure.

Maybe thinking of it in these terms, people will see the digital workflow in it's correct context - rather than thinking of it as some 'post-photographic' process. As many of us keep repeating 'processing has always been an integral part of photography' ever since Henry Fox Talbot created the first negative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top