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? 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". |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Just what is a photograph
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Just what is a photograph
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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Just what is a photograph
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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? | Colyn | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | October 17th 05 06:17 AM |
Your right to Photograph? | Bob Hickey | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 14th 05 07:19 PM |
Your right to Photograph? | William Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 13th 05 11:37 PM |