If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Just what is a photograph
"Pat" wrote in message ... Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what a photograph was. You shone light on a negative, developed it, put in in an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper, and developed that. When you got done you had a photograph. You could add elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make lithos; but in the end it all came down to shining light on a piece of paper and getting a print. Last week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital) picture of the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image -- one mirror image of the other -- so they were facing each other. I printed the faces in "white" and the space between them in black. I then used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me with just the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in the cut-line. I tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it was more of a negative of the original image. The only think I really had left was a representation of what I had NOT photographed, not what I had photographed. The other thing that I pondered was the fact that the image was not represented in "b&w" or in some tonality but the image was represented physically as to whether there was paper there or not. I all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just what is a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a digital image any different than a really pretty Excel document. How much can you manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something else -- and when it becomes something else, what does it become? Very nice. I think today the term photograph is mis-understood and mis-used, especially in digital. As far as im concerned if someone uses programs such as photomatix to produce what is basically a computer generated 'image' from a photograph. The final image is definately not a photo. Why trust a program like this which is like a photograph mangle! As soon as a photograph becomes unrealistic by using 'cheats' in Photoshop such as basically anything which cannot be done in a darkroom then again that photo becomes an digitally generated 'image. A photograph should be pure with absolutely the minimum necessary manipulation. Again its all about opinions. Last year a very badly and over manipulated 'image' won a local photography competition. After protesting against this, this years criteria has been tightened, but where do we draw a line. This is something i've often scratched my head over in disappointment. I remember another 'photography' competition where the winning entry was a 'image' which used a variety of complex photoshop techniques to get the final image, my arguement is that the winner was not a photograph but a digially generated and 'unreal' never happened scene. There is a huge difference and I wish photography was kept seperate from digially generated images from programs like photoshop and its huge array of wizadry pixel generators. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Just what is a photograph
David wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message ... Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what a photograph was. You shone light on a negative, developed it, put in in an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper, and developed that. When you got done you had a photograph. You could add elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make lithos; but in the end it all came down to shining light on a piece of paper and getting a print. Last week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital) picture of the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image -- one mirror image of the other -- so they were facing each other. I printed the faces in "white" and the space between them in black. I then used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me with just the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in the cut-line. I tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it was more of a negative of the original image. The only think I really had left was a representation of what I had NOT photographed, not what I had photographed. The other thing that I pondered was the fact that the image was not represented in "b&w" or in some tonality but the image was represented physically as to whether there was paper there or not. I all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just what is a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a digital image any different than a really pretty Excel document. How much can you manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something else -- and when it becomes something else, what does it become? Very nice. I think today the term photograph is mis-understood and mis-used, especially in digital. As far as im concerned if someone uses programs such as photomatix to produce what is basically a computer generated 'image' from a photograph. The final image is definately not a photo. Why trust a program like this which is like a photograph mangle! As soon as a photograph becomes unrealistic by using 'cheats' in Photoshop such as basically anything which cannot be done in a darkroom then again that photo becomes an digitally generated 'image. A photograph should be pure with absolutely the minimum necessary manipulation. Again its all about opinions. Last year a very badly and over manipulated 'image' won a local photography competition. After protesting against this, this years criteria has been tightened, but where do we draw a line. This is something i've often scratched my head over in disappointment. I remember another 'photography' competition where the winning entry was a 'image' which used a variety of complex photoshop techniques to get the final image, my arguement is that the winner was not a photograph but a digially generated and 'unreal' never happened scene. There is a huge difference and I wish photography was kept seperate from digially generated images from programs like photoshop and its huge array of wizadry pixel generators. That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, and sunk. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Just what is a photograph
"David" nospam@please wrote in message ... "Pat" wrote in message ... Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what a photograph was. You shone light on a negative, developed it, put in in an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper, and developed that. When you got done you had a photograph. You could add elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make lithos; but in the end it all came down to shining light on a piece of paper and getting a print. Last week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital) picture of the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image -- one mirror image of the other -- so they were facing each other. I printed the faces in "white" and the space between them in black. I then used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me with just the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in the cut-line. I tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it was more of a negative of the original image. The only think I really had left was a representation of what I had NOT photographed, not what I had photographed. The other thing that I pondered was the fact that the image was not represented in "b&w" or in some tonality but the image was represented physically as to whether there was paper there or not. I all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just what is a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a digital image any different than a really pretty Excel document. How much can you manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something else -- and when it becomes something else, what does it become? Very nice. I think today the term photograph is mis-understood and mis-used, especially in digital. As far as im concerned if someone uses programs such as photomatix to produce what is basically a computer generated 'image' from a photograph. The final image is definately not a photo. Why trust a program like this which is like a photograph mangle! As soon as a photograph becomes unrealistic by using 'cheats' in Photoshop such as basically anything which cannot be done in a darkroom then again that photo becomes an digitally generated 'image. A photograph should be pure with absolutely the minimum necessary manipulation. Again its all about opinions. Last year a very badly and over manipulated 'image' won a local photography competition. After protesting against this, this years criteria has been tightened, but where do we draw a line. This is something i've often scratched my head over in disappointment. I remember another 'photography' competition where the winning entry was a 'image' which used a variety of complex photoshop techniques to get the final image, my arguement is that the winner was not a photograph but a digially generated and 'unreal' never happened scene. There is a huge difference and I wish photography was kept seperate from digially generated images from programs like photoshop and its huge array of wizadry pixel generators. You have, of course, managed to persuade the P.S.A. to accept your definition of a photograph. Have You ??? Roy G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Just what is a photograph | whisky-dave | Digital Photography | 1 | November 26th 08 06:04 PM |
Just what is a photograph | J. Clarke | Digital Photography | 0 | November 26th 08 03:44 PM |
When does a photograph stop becoming a photograph? | baker1 | Digital Photography | 41 | December 29th 05 07:04 PM |
Your right to Photograph? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 17th 05 06:48 AM |
Your right to Photograph? | Bob Hickey | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 14th 05 07:19 PM |