are photographs still photographs...

[Flea77]

Yes, a photograph is indeed created when a light sensitive surface is used TO RECORD/CAPTURE LIGHT.

So we agree here, good!

PRESENTATION of that photograph is another matter altogether. A distinction you seem unable (I doubt, you seem intelligent enough) or unwilling to recognize for whatever reason. Which is fine with me, you should be free to have whatever opinion you want. Everybody has one, after all...

I think here is the rub. Your definition of a photo (and please correct me if I am wrong) stops after the capture, while mine does not. My definition requires that the end result, not just the original capture, be a direct result of the capture of light. This is why I argued about a line printer and ASCII art. In my definition, the ASCII art is automatically disqualified because it does not use light and a light sensitive surface (the same goes for an inkjet). In your definition it is disqualified because it does not look like a photo (unlike an inkjet).

Now suppose I take a black and white photo of a bunch of ASCII text. Now the ASCII art looks exactly like the photo, does that ASCII art qualify as a photograph even though it is printed using only letters and numbers like from a typewriter and is printed using an ink ribbon on tractor feed paper?

In the end, you are right - it does not matter at all. That's it from me, I've fed the trolls enough in this thread to last me a long time.

Once again though, referring to me as a troll is rather insulting. The wiki defines trolls as :

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

I would say that discussing ones opinion of what exactly a photograph is, on a photography forum, in a thread entitled "are photographs still photographs.." is precisely on topic. So unless I am misreading this definition too, I could not possibly be a troll. Thank you.

Allan

[Marko]

Allan,

You seem to be arguing for arguing's sake, and in doing so you keep committing a veritable list of logical fallacies as well as taking and twisting definitions to the absurd and/or using irrelevant examples (optometrist, ASCII printer, etc.). You did provoke at least one user into an emotional response and you did derail and disrupt this discussion. You also seem to be a fairly intelligent and coherent person, so you are obviously doing it intentionally.

Ergo, IMO&E, you are a troll.

No need to feel upset about it though. It's just my opinion - you have your opinion and I have mine. And besides, what's another definition we disagree about after so many?

[pablo batt]

mark you are a troll of the biggest order, and you are also in denial of the facts

[Henry Suryo]

So I was asked to visualize a kitchen scene, with specific furniture and appliances in mind, as well as how it would look with the soft morning light coming in from the terrace. Nothing was there at the time. So I modeled and simulated the scene as accurately as possible and set my virtual 6x12 camera with approximately a 65mm lens and employed a bit of front rise and rear swing. Then calculated the sun angle based on the orientation of the house, latitude and longitude for a specific time of day and year (a misty autumn morning in Amsterdam) and particle-traced the photons bouncing around inside, taking account how certain materials in the scene will reflect and/or absorb the rays. I had a final print size and look in mind so I "recorded" it with adequate pixels per inch for a "grainless" image and a bokeh like a sharp/soft anastigmat like the Cooke or Graf Variable.

Nothing like the joy of traditional photography and printmaking, but there's nothing wrong also with virtual visualization in my book. In the end it's the final product that matters. This may not be a photograph in the strictest sense but it takes as much judgment to make it a successful image, and perhaps more fun because you can have control on the variables that you normally can't, like controlling the sun. Make it a great day, OK?

[CatSplat]

mark you are a troll of the biggest order, and you are also in denial of the facts

[Brian Ellis]

so how does the imprinting on a digital file work as proof of non manipulation, and how do i get it on my camera.

and how would this show up on the print to prove its honesty?

is it recognized as a realistic and definite way of proving its honesty?

also the proof of non manipulation with a photographic image is of course the negative, i personally print once ,full frame ,straight print, and frame the photo with the negative sealed inside of the frame

a total time capsule of the truth, its really hard to manipulate a negative without it being very obvious under a brief inspection

only one photo will ever exist , if the picture gets destroyed then most likely the negative will be also

its honest and i enjoy the image a lot more this way.

i just wish that inkjetters would stop calling there work photography, i myself couldn't look someone straight in the eye if it was me.

plus im a awful liar

Couldn't someone buy your framed print, tear out the backing, break the glass, and destroy the frame to get at your negative? And couldn't they take your negative to a lab that has a film recorder and duplicate it? Then they could defile it by scanning it and changing it around in Photoshop so that it no longer represented the one and only honest truth. And - are you sitting down? you should be when you read what's coming next - they could make an INK JET PRINT from your duped and revised negative. And they wouldn't stop with just one. No, they'd make hundreds, thousands, they'd flood the world with INK JET PRINTS from what began as your negative. You'd start having nightmares about your negative, you wouldn't be able to eat or sleep, eventually it would lead to insanity and finally to suicide. Such is the power of Photoshop and ink jet printing.

[Chris Strobel]

so i think we can all agree that inkjets are not photographs buy definition and quality.

Pablo what is your EXACT definition of a photograph, and who do you consider to be some of the great photographers from the past?

[paulr]

I'm sorry but 'impoverished intellect' and 'retarded line of reasoning' is quite insulting. I have also addressed every point I have seen. I do feel however that you have refused to acknowledge several points made to you, such as words like bicycle and optometrist which have a literal meaning, just like photography.

Allan

It's your choice whether or not to feel insulted. My remarks, however, were addressed to your arguments, not to you. I don't know you; as far as I know your arguments are deliberately specious, and you're just having fun spewing them and watching the rest of us waste our time with them. As is suggested by all the troll cartoons.

I've already wasted a fair amount of time, and done so pretty thoroughly, I think. Your bicycle and optometrist examples are simply examples of definitions that haven't changed much. They don't do what you're trying to do, which is to enforce a prescriptive model of linguistics.

The dictionary (English or Greek) doesn't hold any authority over the evolution of language, or the evolution of cultural boundaries.

People have indeed had battles over usage, historically. But if you want to have one, I suggest you aim it at the groups of people who are in a position of influence: curators, art historians, etc...

My guess is that they'll find your opinion as unintersting as I do. But I can't speak for them. I only know how they've voted on this topic in the past.

[sanking]

People have indeed had battles over usage, historically. But if you want to have one, I suggest you aim it at the groups of people who are in a position of influence: curators, art historians, etc...

My guess is that they'll find your opinion as unintersting as I do. But I can't speak for them. I only know how they've voted on this topic in the past.

Having published several books on the history of pictorial photography in Spain I believe I have the right to count myself among the " photo art historians." I also make what most people consider to be real photographs, teach workshops on carbon transfer printing, and my work has been featured in several photography magazines over the past 5-10 years. Yet, by the definition of Flea and Batt my work would not be photography? These are strange times -- the Rapture must be near.

I applaud folks like Paul and Marko who have drawn the discussion out because it allows reasonable people to judge for themselves the lack of logic in the ideas of Flea and Batt. Let us concede that Flea and Batt have the right to whatever definition they want to use of photograph, but frankly their definition is out of the mainstream and about as interesting to me as the hair on a rat's ass.

Sandy King

[paulr]

The first problem, which you identified yourself, is that it is an image on the screen, not a photograph. Please see my other posts for more on that

Yes, I fully understand that an on-screen image doesn't fit YOUR definition of photography.

I wanted to convey that in many areas of the photography world (art, journalistic, vernacular), the working definition has been rapidly shifting. Not only has it been moving farther away from your definition, but it's been moving farther from the definitions that people held even ten years ago.

Second, an argument could be made that it is actually video...

Yes, it could. And the counter argument is that the distinction is becoming less and less relevent. This isn't my argument ... it's one that artists, dealers, and curators alike seem to be implying. Because the trend in photography has been away from traditional printmaking media, and towads video. As I'd mentioned, in both universities and museums, photography and video departments have been merging.

I'm not saying this as a cheerleader. Personally, most of the video art I've seen has left me cold. And my roots in photography have more in common with traditional photo / printmaking than with video art. But I'm seeing a trend ... one that's been building momentum for years ... and it's hard to pretend it isn't happening.

Ignoring all of that, if we talk purely about the effects of images now being displayed in electronic form as opposed to being printed either as a print, or a photograph, I think it will eventually get to the point where captured images will be displayed on the walls on integrated displays which are put on much like wallpaper.

Yes, this has already been done quite a bit.

This will allow many more images to be displayed in the same amount of space, more shows of different work on the same gallery wall, and eventually the decline of these images as serious art.

Well, this isn't the nature of what I've seen. If a gallery has filled a wall with images, it's generally because that was the vision of the artist to do so. It would be a particular type of photo or video installation. The impact, the sensory overload, etc., would be intentional ... an intrinsic part of the piece.

Why? Because they will be easier to make, easier to display, easier to manipulate, easier to copy, and ubiquitous.

That's certainly a possibility. But I haven't seen things going quite in that direction. What I've seen is video monitors that belong to the artist, along with all the attendant computer hardware and software and programming to make this kind of installation work (expensive; a pain in the ass to set up).

At its best, the work I've seen has taken advantage of the unique impact of this medium and this type of presentation. At its worst, it's been about novelty.