What should a photograph be?

[Fox Paw]

On Saturday, I attended a seminar put on by an Arizona Highways photographer, thanks to a tip from MissMia. I learned several things but one thing the guy discussed got me to thinking.

He mentioned Group f64, which name I may be garbling. (I know very little about the history of photography and I'm just reiterating what he said.) It was a group of landscape photographers way back when, including Adams, who rebelled against the "pictorialism" then prevalent in photography. According to the guy doing the seminar, the pictorialists had been imitating impressionist painters. The Group f64 people thought photographs should never imitate another art form. They liked "realistic" shots, preferably taken with small apertures so that everything was sharp and in focus.

I was thinking about how Arizona Highways, for example, bought into that viewpoint completely. This guy mentioned that he never retouches his photos, which are all taken with a view camera. I've heard elsewhere that if a photograph has been Photoshopped at all, Arizona Highways won't touch it.

It seems to me that the Group f64 view has become predominant in the US. In many people's minds, there's supposedly something better about an unretouched photo. Changing it is cheating somehow. And there is a kind of orthodoxy in landscape shooting that demands small apertures and sharpness throughout.

I don't have any sympathy for that view, even though I like many photographs produced by those who hold it. Particularly if you shoot in RAW, there's really no such thing as an unretouched photo. Even the default settings on your RAW converter reflect some designer's judgment as to what the default should be (and usually the image at those settings looks pretty bad). I feel no allegiance to the original image and I don't see any reason why photographers shouldn't imitate impressionists or surrealists or take off in any other direction they may choose.

Anyone have any thoughts? (Anyone care?)

[Aggie]

Having spent many many hours over a few months time with one of the founding memebers of F64 group, Henry Gilpin, I can understand their feelings. What they were rebelling against was not the changing of a photo to something else, it was claiming it was a photo. To them the photo was a real reproduction of what the photographer saw. Today we can easily manipulate the photo via photoshop and other programs. The more it changes from the ofiginal photo, the more it takes on a life of it's own and becomes another art form, ie digital art. Just like with my jewelry work, I rile against the wire wrappers and bead stringers. While they produce an item that is to be worn, it doesn't fall into the classical definition of fine art jewelry. It is a craft taking pieces that have been mass produced and put together to form what they call jewelry. I work hard to produce my work and spent many years in school learning it. Most the wire wrappers and bead stringers might take a weekend class and thus they call themselves jewelers. Adam's Weston, Gilpin and others in the group had the same feeling about their photography and what some pople out there did with it, especially as more avenues of manipulation came along. Another thing they didn't like was color becasue it distracted from the actual image by overwhelming the senses with a secondary input, ie color. But at the same time they were not above using such techniques as filters to talter what was seen. They would also use darkroom magic of dodging and burning, selenium toning and such. Weston was into Platinum printing was more acurate. Adams used all the tricks of the trade to get his prints. Personally When you start altering a photo into something it wasn't to me that is digital art. If it is produced even via digital to be as colose to what it was seen as, then it is photography. That is my two cents worth.

[icassell]

Well, I have read quite a bit about those folks and the history of photography in general and have looked at a lot of images. As with other branches of art, there have been many differing opinions. I absolutely don't sympathize with absolutists :)

Is a drawing a drawing if it is done with pencil? Pen? Magic Marker? How about if you paint around your drawing?

Is photography only photography with a view camera? How about 35mm? How about digital?

I feel that there is plenty of room in photography for those who subscribe to the f/64 approach and there is plenty of room for the Man Ray's among us as well ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Ray http://www.manraytrust.com/ )

[Overread]

What should a photo be?
A very simple question which torments people because, as something we invented, we really should have some idea what it is. Endless people have debated it from end to end and every little bit in the middle - digital photography, slide photography, colour -- new technology might add some more fuel to the fire, but I don't think it really changes the core of what makes a photograph.

I suspect there are, like Aggie shows, jewlers who debate what is jewelry - painters who debate just what is a painting - sculpters - sketchers - etc........

In the end I see a lot of people (especailly those who have spent many years working in a single methodology) will rally and fight against new ideas - often I think there is a degree of fear here. A fear that what they have spent a great part of their life creating will be judged as a lesser art; as old or incorrect; as a waste of time. Couple this with the (oft present) lack of understanding of the new or different methods and there is a lot of fear to be had. Thus people get defensive and things like "digital photography is not real photography" "photos must not be edited in any way" "colour distracts from the creation" And endless other blanket statements pour out from this source and that in a measure to defend their stance...



At the end of it all the question is not really "what is photography" infact that is a small side question which distracts from the question people are really asking - "What must I create to be accepted?"
That is the real question and that is the one we should really answer - because once you have the answer to that you know the answer to what is a photograph.

[icassell]

At the end of it all the question is not really "what is photography" infact that is a small side question which distracts from the question people are really asking - "What must I create to be accepted?"
That is the real question and that is the one we should really answer - because once you have the answer to that you know the answer to what is a photograph.


By this are you suggesting that it is only a photograph if we are accepted? I would argue that I don't care if my art is accepted, as long as it says to me what I want it to say.

[Fox Paw]

"...often I think there is a degree of fear here. A fear that what they have spent a great part of their life creating will be judged as a lesser art; as old or incorrect; as a waste of time. Couple this with the (oft present) lack of understanding of the new or different methods and there is a lot of fear to be had."

Whatever else, I think that's true.

[icassell]

"There is no progress in art, any more than there is progress in making love. There are simply different ways of doing it." -- Man Ray

I sort of like this quote ...

[Aggie]

"...often I think there is a degree of fear here. A fear that what they have spent a great part of their life creating will be judged as a lesser art; as old or incorrect; as a waste of time. Couple this with the (oft present) lack of understanding of the new or different methods and there is a lot of fear to be had."

Whatever else, I think that's true.

Since most of the f/64 guys were long dead before the advent of digital, you can't draw that parallel. In photography we have progressed from coating our own tin or glass supports to expose. We have done various methods of printing. What remained was essentially the same image unmanipulated into something it is not. When I was in Mexico City a few years ago, I helped put together a couple of photography schools. A man went with me, who told me he was going to take along only film cameras. He took along only his digital, and a portfolio of extremely manipulated photos that had all been turned into unrecognizable abstracts. He went around telling the students they were not with the times. They had to buy new expensive equipment to do as he did. These kids could barely pay for a roll of 35 mm film. They were far from getting digital cameras and computers to process with. We were to be there for two weeks. He left after one week. Everyone of the students was glad to see him go. To them photography was not the stuff he was pushing at them. Digital to me is photography, it is the manipulation of a photo into some abstract that to me changes it from photography into digital art. I love how people who never knew Adams, (I had a work shop with him back in the mid 70's) Or Weston go about today and say they would have loved digital. We will never know becasue they died before the digital age.

It's not about being acceptable it is about how far do you change it before it is no longer a photo but another medium? Then the question is why do artists who digital work, fear the term digital art? If that was what I was into, I would be proud of my digital art. No matter where the start of it came from. At that point a photo is no more than say a reed you use to weave a basket. It was a component, but it was not the end product.

I see some great work here, and I see some that makes me cringe. It is my taste that makes me either like it or cringe. Just like some may like what I do, and other hate it. I don't expect everyone to like mine.

[Fox Paw]

Aggie, I didn't mean that the f/64 guys were entrenched and defensive. Their view was innovative at the time. But innovative views can gradually turn into an orthodoxy that is defended with a degree of fear, as Overread suggested.

[KMann]

I think we no longer live in a world where people feel so empowered to define things for everyone else. I agree with Aggie regarding taste.

The f64 crowd made very beautiful images. Michael Reichmann makes wonderful images. I doubt very much if the f64 crowd would discount his product as photography.

Artists have a habit of arranging themselves in groups and publishing manifestos. It helps by providing a structure to hang your work upon.

I find narrow definitions of anything tedious. The older I grow, the fewer restrictions I will accept. I fully accept to be a dotty old lady eventually. Pretty soon maybe. :)

[Overread]

By this are you suggesting that it is only a photograph if we are accepted?

Of course - a photograph is only a photograph if it is accepted as a photograph. But ask yourself who it is who you need to have acceptance from. Is it me, LaFoto, Hertz, the 64 group, some guy in some university with some degree, the client -- or is it yourself who has to accept it??

[KMann]

I guess that personally, I don't give a flying squirrel who accepts my work as a legitimate photographic practice. But then, I'm pretty comfy in the knowledge that most everyone does. If I were working way out there on the line, I would probably want to offer some sort of explanation about what it is about .... or not, depending on how provocative I felt like being.

[Hertz van Rental]

Only just found this - which is a pity because... Well, it's sort of in the region I am supposed to be doing my PhD in.

Just a quick re-kindle then by adding my thoughts.

People endlessly debate a number of things in Photography but it's a bit like re-inventing the wheel - in as much as it's going around in circles.
Virtually all of the debate is based on personal belief (which is generally wrong), misconceptions or apocrypha.
Before the advent of digital one of the perennial debates was 'does the camera lie?'.
The advent of digital seems to have killed that one by default, which is a pity because it brings in to focus the photograph's relationship with reality.
'Does the camera ever lie?' is like asking 'does the typewriter ever lie?'. As soon as you transpose like that the answer becomes obvious: the camera has nothing to do with it.
The camera/photograph can be used for any purpose at all, but it is the intention of the user which determines the outcome.
That would appear to be the end of it but what is hidden in there - particularly in this digital age - is 'where is the line in post-processing?'. By that I mean 'when does post-processing become image manipulation?'.
Adjusting colour balance or contrast is OK. Sharpening is fine. Spotting or getting rid of pixel artifacts is not a problem. But what happens when you do something to make the picture differ from what was photographed? Cloning out a lamp-post, say.
The image is no longer an accurate re-presentation of reality* and it becomes something else, breaking the connection that has always given Photography it's power and authority.
Where should the line be drawn? How much manipulation is acceptable? If a photograph is manipulated to an unacceptable degree can it still be called a photograph? If the images that a photographer produces can no longer be considered to be photographs, is the photographer still a photographer?
There are no right or wrong answers as all these questions come under the umbrella of ethics. But I can give you my answers to these questions and explain my reasoning if you like. But before you disagree with what I say make sure your arguments are sound.
And before you start down that road, bear in mind that no-one has successfully defined the terms 'Photography' and 'the photograph' yet so you are going to be on to a loser.
So until we do just about any photographic discussion is a waste of time ;)



*I use 'reality' here in the normally accepted sense.

[Fox Paw]

"I use 'reality' here in the normally accepted sense."

Consensual reality is highly overrated. :)

[Terri]

Where should the line be drawn? How much manipulation is acceptable? If a photograph is manipulated to an unacceptable degree can it still be called a photograph? Can we define terminology as we move along? As much as I like to follow these kinds of discussions, I feel somewhat puzzled by some of the debate. But you know me and have seen enough of my stuff, Hertz, to know I dabble almost exclusively in what is generally referred to as "alternative photographic techniques". <<---This is now what is called image manipulating or post-processing, but never does it seem to be part of the discussion.

I can take a color slide and pop it into a slide printer like a Daylab, project that slide's image onto a piece of Polaroid film and take the Polaroid print and manipulate the lines of the image with that soft emulsion until it resembles something akin to an Impressionist painting. I don't call it anything other than a Polaroid manipulation. Having been so manipulated, is it still "photography"?

Bromoil prints start as darkroom enlargements, but are bleached back and the emulsion tanned, then the image brought back by applying lithographic inks. I don't call it anything other than a Bromoil print. Having been so manipulated, is it still "photography"?


If the images that a photographer produces can no longer be considered to be photographs, is the photographer still a photographer?
There are no right or wrong answers as all these questions come under the umbrella of ethics.

I love what I do and get great pleasure from not only taking the photographs and developing film, but then often moving ahead with certain imahes to employ these and other "alternative processes". Am I a photographer?

I would say there are other umbrellas than ethics involved. Take me further here.... :)

[Hertz van Rental]

Can we define terminology as we move along?

This is the crux of the biscuit.
There is no real framework in Photography within which meaningful discussion can take place.
In Art there is such a framework and terminology has been defined and agreed. This means that you can talk about types of Art and areas of Art and movements in Art and styles of Art and so forth. It also means that you can discuss techniques and media and style.
But in Photography?
I just flew a few kites there and already you can see the problems. Areas are excluded or questions aren't addressed and terms have never been defined.
And no other Art-form has the same relationship with 'reality' that causes Photography such problems.
There is a difference between altering the image and treating the image.
Alternative processes are a form of manipulation but not of the image itself, only of the appearance of the image. It's still a photograph if it is dyed pink or produced using Bromoil.
It is when you manipulate the image itself - that is, change things - that it's claim to being a photograph comes into question.
This was never a problem pre-digital because such manipulation was usually obvious and it was known as photo-montage.
But this has been lost with the advent of such toys as Photoshop. You can't always tell it's been done with the result that all photographs become suspect and skill with the camera becomes a devalued commodity.

[Terri]

And this is why you led off by saying such discussion usually ends up going around in circles. ;)

It becomes maddening because we seem to like things cut and dry, and so our discussions/debate continue. And the hell of it is they can be so interesting. :lol:


...bear in mind that no-one has successfully defined the terms 'Photography' and 'the photograph' yet...

I've heard you say this before. So the general Latin (I think it's Latin?) origin of the word is not acceptable when defined as "painting/drawing with light"? Why?

[Fox Paw]

Hertz, I ask the following out of genuine interest and without any implied comment: Why do the answers matter? If we could come up with firm and reliable boundaries for what is and isn't a photograph, would the categories do us any good? It seems to me there's still a human being encountering an image.

[Hertz van Rental]

Because, by using the dictionary definition, you are defining the meaning of the word and not defining the activity.

American noun a native or citizen of America.

That's the definition from Chambers but it doesn't tell me what one looks like, or what their religion is, or what they sound like, what they eat, what they wear, what they do, how they live, how they feel about things.
In short, the dictionary definition does not tell me what it is to be an American.
As an American, I'm sure you are aware that there is a whole lot more to being an American than merely living there so does that definition do you justice?

And you have to create the image using light?
Light, as recognised in Physics, is the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
So images made using X-rays or Infra-red light aren't photographs?
Already that definition is proving to be inadequate.
Painting/drawing with light?
The image recorded in photography is usually formed by a mechanism - that is to say, an arrangement of lenses and shutters following the principles of optics. Hardly drawing or painting is it? ;)



Footnote:
You may notice in all my discourses that I use 'Photography' and 'photography'.
This is intentional and not an accident.
I use 'Photography' when referring to the subject as a whole, and 'photography' when referring to the activity.
Part of the confusion that abounds in discussions on Photography stems from imprecision in the use of words that have precise meanings.
Vagueness is the enemy of clarity.

[Hertz van Rental]

Hertz, I ask the following out of genuine interest and without any implied comment: Why do the answers matter? If we could come up with firm and reliable boundaries for what is and isn't a photograph, would the categories do us any good? It seems to me there's still a human being encountering an image.

Think about it.
If what you mean by 'photograph' is different to what I mean then how can we have any kind of meaningful discussion on the subject?
To communicate we both have to agree our terms of reference. And that is all I am saying we should do.
And you are making the mistake that defining what a photograph is will, in some strange way, dictate how you should respond to it.
It won't.
Music has pretty clearly defined boundaries which makes it reasonable to say that birdsong, whilst it has certain musical qualities, is not actually music. But that doesn't stop us from enjoying it. Nor should it.
Defining things in no way affects our creativity or how we respond. It just makes it easier to understand what is going on and talk about it with others should we so wish.
And quite often by trying to define things we open up new, and richer, possibilities.

What I will say is that the act of photography is in two parts:
There is the act of taking the picture and then there is the act of viewing the picture. These two acts are quite separate.
Understanding that this is the case makes a lot of other things clearer.

[Fox Paw]

I think I understand your view. It seems to me, though, that people have useful discussions of photography all the time, even though the boundaries of that term are vague.

"But this has been lost with the advent of such toys as Photoshop. You can't always tell it's been done with the result that all photographs become suspect and skill with the camera becomes a devalued commodity."

FWIW, I'm not highly skilled at processing but I've worked on it a lot over the last year. One thing I suspect that everyone discovers is that processing software is no substitute for taking a good photograph in the first place. If anything, an increased familiarity with the software has made me value skill with the camera more rather than less. Processing just helps you get 90 percent out of whatever photograph you took rather than 70 percent. A sow's ear will be a slightly better sow's ear.

[alex best]

I personally enjoy all types of photographs from the honest straight out of the camera shots to the wildest digital art collage. Certain levels of skill are involved with a well done piece, and anything that stimulates the imagination while holding our attention is worthwhile. Photographic processes and post processing techniques are so varied and diverse that narrow descriptions can only fail to encompass the world of imagery.

So to me if it's well done then it's good and that is all that matters. I recently visited the home of an old friend and was amazed to find no less than a dozen of my own photographs in prominent places on their walls. Pictures I had taken over a vast period of time, depicting family and friends with varying amounts of skill and some with or without manipulation. The thing they all had in common was the moments we all want to hold on to forever and never let go. This to me is photography at its essence, telling a story with a picture and then stopping every now and then to look again and remember.

So take your pictures how you want. Process or do not. But remember to tell a story with your images and the rest will take care of itself.

[Hertz van Rental]

It seems to me, though, that people have useful discussions of photography all the time, even though the boundaries of that term are vague.

It depends upon how you define 'useful' and at what level you are discussing matters.
You can discuss any subject in a variety of ways (or 'modes') and at a number of levels.
I have experienced a great many discourses taking place at the highest (abstruse) level and the people involved have used modes interchangeably because they haven't realised they were doing it. The net result is, at best, confused and in all cases largely a waste of time.
For example, it is common for us to talk about a photograph but sometimes we mean it in the sense of the photographic image and sometimes in the sense of the object itself.
Once you think about it it becomes self-evident that the word 'photograph' can be used in these two distinctly different ways. The problem is that we haven't really thought about it because we haven't thought it was necessary.

Look at what I am doing this way.
It's like making a map.
If you know where you are going or just want to have fun you don't really need a map.
But if you want to know where you stand in relationship to everything else, or to find somewhere new then a map becomes useful.
Or it's like Science.
You don't need to know how a 'phone works in order to be able to use it. But the information is there if you should ever become curious.
I just discovered one day that I asked 'why' about a particular aspect of Photography and no-one knew why, because no-one had ever asked the question before.
I'm just doing the work so that the information is there should anyone else ever ask the same question.
And please do not judge what I do by these little discourses. Seen in totality my work makes (for the most part) perfect sense.

I'll leave you with a question (the first one I asked).
I have seen a photograph described as 'a frozen moment in time'.
It's seems a reasonable description.
But, in Photographic terms, how long is a 'moment'? :big grin:

[Chiller]

With no offense to anyone here, it is threads like these and a few other things(which I will keep to my self) that have turned me off of photography. The simple fun of taking a photo, has been taken over by all the techinical this, techinical that, blah blah blah. I honestly dont care how I achieved the photo, as long as I got what I wanted....it is a damn photo...it is mine and I can do what I want.
I will keep my camera bag stored nicely in my closet for a long time, maybe forever.:irked:

O.k...sorry....back to my non existance and peace and quiet away from all this forum stuff. :tapedshut:

[Hertz van Rental]

...it is threads like these...that have turned me off of photography. The simple fun of taking a photo, has been taken over by all the techinical this, techinical that, blah blah blah. I honestly dont care how I achieved the photo, as long as I got what I wanted....it is a damn photo...it is mine and I can do what I want.

No-one is arguing with you.
What I am doing is more in the realms of Philosophy anyway.
To put it in terms that you can understand - it's a bit like coffee.
You can make a cup of coffee and enjoy it without knowing how the bloody stuff is grown, harvested, roasted and ground.
You can find it all out if you want and even become a coffee producer but you don't have to and no-one is making you.
And if you find threads like this a turn-off then don't read them ;)

[KMann]

Hertz, it seems to me that the advent of digital photography has blurred the boundary between it and the other illustrative arts. As painting was freed from literal reality by photography, photography is now invading the edges of illustration and painting.

It's quite marvelous as long as we don't get out knickers in a knot about defining the absolute bounds of the initial discipline.

I tend to stick close to traditional practices, having come from a black and white practice. However, if I am confronted with a piece of garbage or a really ugly stand pipe in an otherwise beautiful view ... I admit I removed the hydro connection of a house on the lovely shore of Cape Breton. It was such a relief when it was gone! I didn't have to continue to ignore it.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the day (in my next life I suppose) when they have done away with all those wires. arg. ya know?

[Hertz van Rental]

It's quite marvelous as long as we don't get out knickers in a knot about defining the absolute bounds of the initial discipline.


Certainly it is not something we should stress over. We've managed for over 150 without a definition.
But with the advent of digital surely it becomes more important that we do define the boundaries of the discipline as accurately as possible.
How else can we see how digital and film relate, for one thing?
I am only trying to do what has already been done in Fine Art (painting, sculpture, etc). It hasn't stopped artists being creative or from pushing the boundaries. Yet there is always this paranoid defensive knee-jerk reaction in Photography whenever I explain to anyone what I am doing. You can see it clearly in a number of responses in this thread.
I can only assume it's because photographers are terrified that I will prove in some way that they are charlatans - merely mechanically mimicking reality instead of being true 'artists'.
Don't forget - I am a photographer first and foremost so if I'm not worried about what I am doing why should you?
And you never know, I may just demonstrate the opposite - or at least make it clearer in which areas of Photography we can truly be artists ;)

[Fox Paw]

"Yet there is always this paranoid defensive knee-jerk reaction in Photography whenever I explain to anyone what I am doing. You can see it clearly in a number of responses in this thread. I can only assume it's because photographers are terrified that I will prove in some way that they are charlatans - merely mechanically mimicking reality instead of being true 'artists'."

Maybe, to some extent. But you're also hearing skepticism about the feasibility of setting workable boundaries around a term such as "photography" and the usefulness of doing so even if it's feasible.

[KMann]

I remember my father commenting on my singing and playing the guitar when I was 16 or so - "that's not music". pppfffttt

No seriously, I hope you don't think that I feel negatively about your attempt at definitions what in included in the discipline and what it is not. It's a valuable exercise.

As for being in the "I'm an artist" club, LOL! When official people ask me to define my occupation I say "artist" and they write down "unemployed". Pretty accurate.