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?

As soon as I decipher "What is art" I'll get back to you on "What is a
photograph". In the meantime I will continue with my joy of working
with images as long as my eyes continue to receive light.

Frank

"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?

As soon as I decipher "What is art" I'll get back to you on "What is a
photograph". In the meantime I will continue with my joy of working with
images as long as my eyes continue to receive light.



Funny how this issue was rarely raised when the artist painted on a
photograph.
I fail to see the importance of this, unless you are doing pure documentary
photography.

My reason, every photograph is an am impression of what the maker saw. I see
little reason for an arbitrary line.

--
Peter