When does a photograph become an image.

rpsmith79 said:
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)
Click to expand...

still blending different exposures
 
POAH said:
think you'll find black and white film is not in camera processing :lol:
Click to expand...

It's not too far stretched as an analogue (in the old fashioned sense of the word) of digital in-camera processing.

You choose a film for its tone, colour and grain properties, same as you'd select a particular sharpening and tone curve on a digital camera prior to capturing a JPEG file (if you're that way inclined).

Then you apply your favourite development and printing (if it's negative film) processes as an analogue of Post-Processing in the digital realm.
 
Musicman said:
It's not too far stretched as an analogue (in the old fashioned sense of the word) of digital in-camera processing.

You choose a film for its tone, colour and grain properties, same as you'd select a particular sharpening and tone curve on a digital camera prior to capturing a JPEG file (if you're that way inclined).

Then you apply your favourite development and printing (if it's negative film) processes as an analogue of Post-Processing in the digital realm.
Click to expand...

This ^
 
POAH said:
think you'll find black and white film is not in camera processing :lol:
Click to expand...

But, by your own definition, it is sufficiently removed from reality to be no longer a photograph.

You really should think things through more you know.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But, by your own definition, it is sufficiently removed from reality to be no longer a photograph.

You really should think things through more you know.
Click to expand...

Not been here long:lol:

You'll get used to it. He'll cling onto the slimmest thread of an argument rather than admit he was talking out of his .....
 
Taken this evening: Double exposure of a bus at rest then pulling away from its stop, made from two shots taken about ten seconds apart and then layered together in Photoshop. Could have done it in camera if my G2 had a double exposure facility like some of my film cameras.

Not a photograph done either way, apparently :D


MEC 31 leaving London Bridge by cybertect, on Flickr
 
Musicman said:
Taken this evening: Double exposure of a bus at rest then pulling away from its stop, made from two shots taken about ten seconds apart and then layered together in Photoshop. Could have done it in camera if my G2 had a double exposure facility like some of my film cameras.

Not a photograph done either way, apparently :D


MEC 31 leaving London Bridge by cybertect, on Flickr
Click to expand...

maybe a new thread, 'this is not a photograph'?
 
Phil V said:
I thought we saw in colour?
Click to expand...

Do we? A photographic image is in no way representative of how we see. There's no foveation, we don't see motion blur usually, cameras don't saccade as you pan and binocular vision tells you a photograph or TV is flat, even if the image on it has a huge depth-of-field.

Surely an image is photographic if it:
  1. is created by reflected light from an event falling on a light sensitive receptor
  2. uses a dark box and aperture (NB not necesarilly a camera c.f. Ann Hamilton)

So even photomontages are photographic in nature.

How far you can move away from the original images is open to debate.
 
Musicman said:
Taken this evening: Double exposure of a bus at rest then pulling away from its stop, made from two shots taken about ten seconds apart and then layered together in Photoshop. Could have done it in camera if my G2 had a double exposure facility like some of my film cameras.

Not a photograph done either way, apparently :D


MEC 31 leaving London Bridge by cybertect, on Flickr
Click to expand...

lol ...damn it if this isn't the narrowest debatable line.

I guess its just in for me, given my personal 'other' photographer guide rule above, if someone besides you had shot the same whole exposure in a single shot they would have the same reality as content. IE a parked bus driving off from A to B.

st599 said:
Do we? A photographic image is in no way representative of how we see. There's no foveation, we don't see motion blur usually, cameras don't saccade as you pan and binocular vision tells you a photograph or TV is flat, even if the image on it has a huge depth-of-field.

Surely an image is photographic if it:
  1. is created by reflected light from an event falling on a light sensitive receptor
  2. uses a dark box and aperture (NB not necesarilly a camera c.f. Ann Hamilton)

So even photomontages are photographic in nature.

How far you can move away from the original images is open to debate.
Click to expand...


Aye this is what we're debating...how far?

I agree with your list.

We do see in colour though don't we, we use our foveation type vision to scan scenes reflected light and build continuously refreshing colour mental images, that we can see detail within if we look in the right direction. And a photograph is not that dissimilar when viewed in the same way. Its those same seen colour shades we see with our eys we've now listed and labelled and use in colour profiles, old and new, for everything.
Like couldn't we say HDR is closer to how we actually see than ever before, because they contain details that the eye could see in reality, if we where to look directly at each point as we can/could do in reality.
 
st599 said:
Do we? A photographic image is in no way representative of how we see. There's no foveation, we don't see motion blur usually, cameras don't saccade as you pan and binocular vision tells you a photograph or TV is flat, even if the image on it has a huge depth-of-field.

Surely an image is photographic if it:

[*]is created by reflected light from an event falling on a light sensitive receptor
[*]uses a dark box and aperture (NB not necesarilly a camera c.f. Ann Hamilton)


So even photomontages are photographic in nature.

How far you can move away from the original images is open to debate.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
Phil Young said:
That wasn't the debate.

The previous poster said it looks too far removed from the scene.
Click to expand...

Sticking pics together just makes a bigger image.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But, by your own definition, it is sufficiently removed from reality to be no longer a photograph.

You really should think things through more you know.
Click to expand...

Not really since you are purposefully using a specific medium. You are not adding or removing post capture.

If we follow your thinking based on my definition - ansel Adams wasn't a photographer but just an over rated analogue image maker ;)

You'll have to change the title the courses you teach as they are no longer accurate description :(
 
Phil V said:
I thought we saw in colour?
Click to expand...

Yes cones and rods see different wavelengths and have different sensitivities to light. Rod cells are almost exclusively used at night when colour disappears

And dogs don't see I black and white either they are essential red/green colour blind.
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Taken this evening: Double exposure of a bus at rest then pulling away from its stop, made from two shots taken about ten seconds apart and then layered together in Photoshop. Could have done it in camera if my G2 had a double exposure facility like some of my film cameras.

Not a photograph done either way, apparently :D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybertect/8245813370/
MEC 31 leaving London Bridge by cybertect, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Used to have a Ricoh camera that did this. Made ghost images with it.
 
parkmoy said:
Does being on the forum a long time equal greater wisdom then?:thinking:
Click to expand...

read the thread in context and you'll see that phil was saying that to explain to David that POAH will cling to a tiny thread of an argument.
 
joescrivens said:
read the thread in context and you'll see that phil was saying that to explain to David that POAH will cling to a tiny thread of an argument.
Click to expand...

Is there a Joe > English translate facility anywhere?

:)
 
interesting discussion this.
it's been done before but I always like the points of view

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...

on the above a friend took some photos about female body image, overlaying two images with different lighting setups and then blended them.
This was two different exposures.
is that still a photograph?? well I'd argue that it was as she did it by double exposing on a medium format camera. not a pixel in sight!
 
joescrivens said:
read the thread in context and you'll see that phil was saying that to explain to David that POAH will cling to a tiny thread of an argument.
Click to expand...

And doesn't necessarily have to believe a point to argue it either.

But we love him anyway. :love:
 
DizMatt said:
on the above a friend took some photos about female body image, overlaying two images with different lighting setups and then blended them.
This was two different exposures.
is that still a photograph?? well I'd argue that it was as she did it by double exposing on a medium format camera. not a pixel in sight!
Click to expand...

According to my own opinions, then no, it's an image, not a photograph.

It may be easier if I said that "Photo Journalists" are the ones who would exclusively only produce true photographs, to do otherwise would not be "Photo Journalism".
 
POAH said:
age maker ;)

You'll have to change the title the courses you teach as they are no longer accurate description :(
Click to expand...

You don't know the titles of the courses I teach :)



Anyway... so a process that records the scene before it unfaithfully (removing colour) is a photograph, but if a process changes it from reality POST capture it's no longer a photograph?

Pretty thin distinction to make if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top