ku # 829 ~ Autumn color # 54

Dead tree ~ Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenI am also curious regarding your thoughts on the notion of when a picture, albeit made by photographic means / processes, is no longer a photograph?

Or, do you believe that, if a picture is made by photographic means / processes, it is always a photograph?

Update on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 09:33AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: "chuck" (no linked provided, as is always the case with spineless internet flamers) asked: "... And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

my response: I think the number is 1,879, but I'm not totally certain about that. I'll have to see if I can find some quotes from others to back that up.

Comments

[Sven W]

In my mind, a straight photograph of anything is always a photograph (can't think of an exception at this momnent).

However, once you manipulate an image - using filters or an image editor - then things can change. If the editing is to compensate for defects / shortcomings in the equipment or technique then it's generally still a photograph. But if you edit past this point (not a point ... more a fuzzy line) then the image becomes more of a digital illustration.

[chuck]

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Sven W]

@chuck: yeah, it's probably a pointless question in a general sense. Most people don't care / half-expect / too naive in regards to how much image editing goes on. Bit I do think it's relevant to photographers at a personal level: within your personal "style", how much editing is acceptable. From a practical point of view, if you don't set a limit then you can waste hours on the computer! ;-)

[John Linn]

>>a straight photograph of anything is always a photograph

I do not know what a straight photograph is. It seems to me that it is not possible to photograph anything without some level of "manipulation". The dynamic range of the film or sensor, the color characteristics of the capture medium, the optical qualities of the lens etc... all have an impact on the resulting photography. In the digital realm there is software in the camera and/or post processing in PS or similar. In silver photography there are decisions about what paper to use, what chemistry, exposure vs. time in the developer etc.

It seems there is a wide continuum, and what purpose is there to defining it anyway? Photography is an art in my opinion, just as much as any other art, but with unique tools.

[Sven W]

@John: I have a personal definition of 'straight' photography which is based on my interpretation of what others have written.

A 'straight' photograph is an image made with a camera, such that the image looks as close as possible to what a [typical] person would see with their own eyes from the same location.

I think the basic idea is clear but there is some latitude regarding the specification of the camera and the nature of any edits.

For example, a focal length of say 28mm to 200mm (35mm-e) would be ok but a fish-eye lens is certainly out.

Some image editing would be ok, for example removing barrel distortion. I would also allow some well-judged exposure blending (a'la Mark) but not over-the-top HDR.

An aperture of say f5.6 to f11 would be ok but what about a very shallow aperture of f1.4?

A neutral colour palette would be fine but what about B&W? And if B&W what about high-contrast or sepia?

So why do I have a [personal] definition of straight photography?

For me, it puts a boundary around the types of images I prefer to make. And in doing so it also puts a boundary around the amount of time (and $) I spend taking and editing photos.

[Paul Maxim]

This is an ancient argument / discussion, but one that's always fun. Probably because it's one that nobody can win. For me, it's pretty simple. It depends on where one wants to draw the line. My "line" goes something like this: if you add an object or thing that wasn't there originally, you've crossed the line. Similarly, if you remove something that was there, you've crossed the line. In either case, it's no longer a photograph by my definition. But it's just my "rule". Everybody else is entitled to their own rule.

With respect to Chuck's comment, the answer is either an infinite number or zero, depending on your personal religious beliefs. That's a no-brainer.