The Chemical rays of light

[Jim collum]

this is a debate is pretty much only found in internet forums, with only a handful of people arguing the point any more. The rest of the world (galleries, museums, etc) moved on over a decade ago. Another 20 years, and the general public won't even know what's meant if you use the term film (ask a random sampling of people now and ask them what Wet Plate Collodian is).

While an interesting intellectual debate, it really is irrelevant as far as photography is concerned.

Photographers have no "sword" except the strength of their imagery. It's the image that makes a photographer, and a finely crafted image can be accomplished by many means including digital or hybrid means. Trying to shoehorn the current definition of photography back into an 1839 definition may make one feel superior to the masses but it is actually totally meaningless-a sword swung at windmills. Analogue is now an alternative process. The people you are referring to are preservationists of photographic processes, no doubt a respectable goal and photographers may choose to use those processes to enhance their images-but the process is the process its not the image.

[hoffner]

I believe that "the Chemical rays of light" is the best sword photography has, it is sharp, it cuts cleanly, and it should be swung freely at pretenders.

The "chemical rays of light" expression is nothing else than an expression of insufficiently understood nature of light. Had he said "the chemical traces of light" he would have been right on.
Regardless, trying to save this incorrect definition as a commanding definition of photography is as useful as selling olive oil made of olives harvested by hand as the "true" olive oil. Well, it is in this category, at least.

[paulr]

There are layers treacherous water in this kind of argument ... an interesting topic in itself. Interpretation based on the (presumed) intent of an author or founder is only one of many viable options. This comes up in all kinds of hermaneutics, from scriptural study to law (especially constitutional law) to literary criticism.

In this case we have a founding definition based directly on a discredited definition. As the O.P. points out, in 1939 they didn't even know what light was. Yet they coined their definition with the word light in it. Where can we go from that?

And then we have the problems of definitions themselves, which belong not to logic or the physical world but to language. Language is mutable, as many have noted. If we ignore this, and use old versions of the language rhetorically (or attribute new versions of the language to old utterances) we are guilty of lexical fallacy—one of many philosophical ways of being full of shit. Wittgenstein said it most simply (believe it or not): "A word is defined by its use."

[Jac@stafford.net]

Interpretation based on the (presumed) intent of an author or founder is only one of many viable options. This comes up in all kinds of hermaneutics, from scriptural study to law (especially constitutional law) to literary criticism.

You might be interested in a book by Marianne Constable, entitled "Just Silences: The Limits and Possibilities of Modern Law" which answers the question of why we find very little in competent legal scholarship which uses the word "Justice". Methinks the same should be applied to discussions of Art.

[jnantz]

chemical rays of light seems to light as "ether" is to the 5th? element
i can see the difference between "photography" and "photography"
and i guess it is an important distinction to make if you are cataloguing &c
not sure why we have to live on a living history museum or seem like wannabes ...
if the negative was made by another way or is hand made or a found object your and an image created by
light and light sensitive ,materials your definition doesnt allow for it ..
im thinking paper megatives made ny rubbings, xeroxes ink/ laser print or photograms.
and in the end photography should be more inclusive not exclusive

but thanks for the history lesson its nice to know where what we take for granted comes from

[Drew Bedo]

I view the work of the pioneers of photography and physics with respectful awe. They were groping to place aspects of the observed world into a theoretical framework, but didn't have the physical tools or the foundations of modern theoretical physics to work with. Yet even today with the staggering array of technology available and the theoretical tools of quantum mechanics, the true nature of light is still not fully understood. Just as physical scientists do not fully understand the behavior of sand on steep slope, they still do not understand the action of light in the Daguerreotype process. The question of what is the terminology to use is moot.

I can only imagine the feelings of Fox-Talbot and Daguerre when they (each in their own way) found a way to reputedly fix an image. In another age they would have been burned at the stake for black magic!
Rather than explore this corner of photographic discussion much furthe . . .I'd rather go out and shoot.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Drew Bedo: Just as physical scientists do not fully understand the behavior of sand on steep slope,

Exactly, and that is why we employ physical modeling in hydrology and geology so that students and professionals can learn how systems behave. They, hopefully, gain knowledge through experience, then observation which can lead to empirical discoveries.

Similarly, there is the kind of knowledge available (so far) only through carrying out. See "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram. I worked without a great deal of success attempting to bring his methods into 3D space. No great success directly, but some new to me insights.

Light? What we experience.

[Drew Bedo]

I can't respond further as I am loading film.

[rdenney]

For me, the simple definition that 1) fits with what most people understand, and 2) can be used to simply resolve controversy is that photography is "making a picture using a camera." And a camera is a device for projecting light from a scene onto a surface. Consider a camera obscura, which had no mechanism for recording that light to make a picture (other than an artist tracing it by hand). It was not photographic because it didn't make a picture. So, what makes a camera photographic is that a picture is made--and that requires a technology for recording it. The essential element of photography is that a picture is made, and that picture is traced by projected light, not by the artist's hand. This definition is entirely consistent with Herschel, and it also presented what was important to him and his time, which was describing what made photography different from the dominant picture-making methods of the day.

Arguments about the technology used to record the light projected onto the surface in the camera would have offended the early photographers, who were all searching for new and better technologies for doing so. They would have seen it for what it is--an attempt to define away those methods the definer opposes for whatever reason.

Herschel was making the point that photography worked by the action of light, not by the action of the artist.

The direct link between the subject and the picture is the beam of electromagnetic radiation that connects them. I learned on this forum that there is a word for such a link: indexical. It seems to me that those aspects of the image that maintain that indexicality are purely photographic, and those that are manipulations directed by the photographer (including the photographer's choice of technologies) are not. Thus, most photography is a mixture of photographic and non-photographic elements. But when the outlines of the picture are indexically linked to the subject, most people consider it a photograph.

We use modifiers when the non-indexical parts are important, such as "hand-colored photograph" or "black-and-white photograph."

This language seems clear to me, and to people I talk to, including non-photographers.

Rick "who is not, however, grinding an ax" Denney

[Lenny Eiger]

Just because you can define a word such as indexical, it doesn't mean its useful. I would agree that an image drawn on a camera obscure is not a photograph. However, there is a clear distinction between a capture process and a printing process. There are many printing processes, some that degrade the image somewhat, some change its color from what existed, etc. I would say that there is no such thing as an indexical print, by your definition, the spectral response is not exact. In fact, it has to be inexact for the person to believe that they are seeing something "real."

There are also inconsistencies in the capture step. Years ago someone put things on top of a scanner and let it go... They were quite interesting. Harumph, not a photograph, many here would say. But then one has to consider how different it is, or isn't, from a digital camera. Now its not about indexicality, but about a lens? But then you eliminate everyone who doesn't use a lens, like the pinhole folks, who surely want to be considered photographers.

This is certainly a discussion about nothing at all. It's only purpose is to say "Im better than you, because I use such and such technology." And the funny thing is that almost of those people don't use the finest technology available. Indexcality, shmindexicality. Photography should have a very wide definition so everyone gets to express themselves however they see fit, new and interesting things happen and we all learn something new every day.

Lenny