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?

In the old days? Depending on how old the days.
Did you start with a piece of clear glass and coat it with a silver
salt mixture imbedded in gelatin? Or did you put a roll of Kodachrome
positive slide film in your camera which was processed by Kodak and
arrived at your door as positive color images mounted in cardboard?
If you developed your own B&W negatives did you ever deliberately heat
the film to cause reticulation and get strange effects? Or exposed the
film part way through developing to make solarized images. Weren't
these all "photographs"?

It seems the two elements needed for photography are "images" and
"light".
All and everything we are now doing today with Digital work is dealing
with "images" and "light". Whether the light is being formed throught
the lens onto a sensor or images manipulated using a scanner. Whether
the images are printed with an Inkjet or viewed on a monitor they
require light to get to your eyes in order to see them. They are all
"photography".

"Frank Arthur" 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?

In the old days? Depending on how old the days.
Did you start with a piece of clear glass and coat it with a silver salt
mixture imbedded in gelatin? Or did you put a roll of Kodachrome positive
slide film in your camera which was processed by Kodak and arrived at your
door as positive color images mounted in cardboard?
If you developed your own B&W negatives did you ever deliberately heat the
film to cause reticulation and get strange effects? Or exposed the film
part way through developing to make solarized images. Weren't these all
"photographs"?

It seems the two elements needed for photography are "images" and "light".
All and everything we are now doing today with Digital work is dealing
with "images" and "light". Whether the light is being formed throught the
lens onto a sensor or images manipulated using a scanner. Whether the
images are printed with an Inkjet or viewed on a monitor they require
light to get to your eyes in order to see them. They are all
"photography".

In my mind a photograph (picture) is a point and shoot and it is either good
or bad, or somewhere in between.
Using a lot of digital editing (in my mind) is digital painting.
I know I will lose any arguments on this but thats how I see it.

SS wrote:
"Frank Arthur" 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?

In the old days? Depending on how old the days.
Did you start with a piece of clear glass and coat it with a silver
salt mixture imbedded in gelatin? Or did you put a roll of
Kodachrome positive slide film in your camera which was processed
by
Kodak and arrived at your door as positive color images mounted in
cardboard?
If you developed your own B&W negatives did you ever deliberately
heat the film to cause reticulation and get strange effects? Or
exposed the film part way through developing to make solarized
images. Weren't these all "photographs"?

It seems the two elements needed for photography are "images" and
"light". All and everything we are now doing today with Digital
work
is dealing with "images" and "light". Whether the light is being
formed throught the lens onto a sensor or images manipulated using
a
scanner. Whether the images are printed with an Inkjet or viewed on
a monitor they require light to get to your eyes in order to see
them. They are all "photography".

In my mind a photograph (picture) is a point and shoot and it is
either good or bad, or somewhere in between.
Using a lot of digital editing (in my mind) is digital painting.
I know I will lose any arguments on this but thats how I see it.

But using analog editing is OK?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"SS" wrote in message
...

"Frank Arthur" 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?

In the old days? Depending on how old the days.
Did you start with a piece of clear glass and coat it with a silver salt
mixture imbedded in gelatin? Or did you put a roll of Kodachrome positive
slide film in your camera which was processed by Kodak and arrived at
your door as positive color images mounted in cardboard?
If you developed your own B&W negatives did you ever deliberately heat
the film to cause reticulation and get strange effects? Or exposed the
film part way through developing to make solarized images. Weren't these
all "photographs"?

It seems the two elements needed for photography are "images" and
"light".
All and everything we are now doing today with Digital work is dealing
with "images" and "light". Whether the light is being formed throught the
lens onto a sensor or images manipulated using a scanner. Whether the
images are printed with an Inkjet or viewed on a monitor they require
light to get to your eyes in order to see them. They are all
"photography".

In my mind a photograph (picture) is a point and shoot and it is either
good or bad, or somewhere in between.
Using a lot of digital editing (in my mind) is digital painting.
I know I will lose any arguments on this but thats how I see it.


I may well be, digital painting, but so what?

--
Peter