[monochrome]

Photography is simply capturing images. Whether it is a mom at a birthday party or Ansel Adams capturing a Moonrise Over Hernandez it is all the same. The image is captured and somehow manipulated until both are happy that what the image shows is what they saw.

+1 - with a camera.

[RioRico]

Let's go back to the Wikipedia definition:

"Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor." --Wikipedia, right now.

So it's a process and art, not just shutter-snapping. PROCESS means that work proceeds before and after the snutter-snap. ART means we make the pictures look like we want them to look. SENSITIVE MEDIUM means anything that can record the image. RADIATION means UV and IR and Xrays and even radio waves. Ever seen a radio-telescope photo of the sky?

But where do holograms and sonograms and ideograms fit in here? If I use a low-power laser to sketch on a sheet of photo paper, then develop that, I'm certainly "recording radiation on a sensitive medium" -- but is it a photograph? If I use sonogram data or seismic data or other physical|acoustic waves to build an on-screen image, and do a screen-grab and print that, it it a photograph? Is a sunburn a photo?

[tuco]

...
But where do holograms and sonograms and ideograms fit in here? If I use a low-power laser to sketch on a sheet of photo paper, then develop that, I'm certainly "recording radiation on a sensitive medium" -- but is it a photograph? If I use sonogram data or seismic data or other physical|acoustic waves to build an on-screen image, and do a screen-grab and print that, it it a photograph? Is a sunburn a photo?

I think it is like the definition of p0rn. Hard to define and categorize but you know it when you see it.

[redrockcoulee]

One other point is just because it was captured with a camera (film or digital) does not make the final product a photograph. I am thinking of photo-serigraphs, photoetching etc. The image was but the print is produced by a print making method and in my mind becomes a print. And those techniques are usually taught in a printmaking rather than a photography course. And is a photogram a photo as it can be produced in the darkroom the same way as a print but is not captured in a camera?

An image captured by a camera is a photograph until it has been converted to some thing else, where that line is drawn is personal opinions. But a photoetching would most likely be exhibited in a printmaking category rather than a photography category. My wife has done many of them and I have done one photo silkscreen (she is a printmaker first and photographer perhaps second or third).

Some of my images are snapshots; taken to remind me of a person or place with no artistic intentions or aspirations from the image. That might be said of my images that I take great care to create , I hope not. Not all photographs are snapshots but all snapshots are photographs. I would also think a photographer is one who works creating his or her image and a non photographer is one who takes pictures that are just snaps of what they want to remember. This post does not make me a writer.

[wildman]

Let's go back to the Wikipedia definition:

"Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor." --Wikipedia, right now.

It is a poorly expressed definition:
"Photography is the process, activity and art"...explicitly states that art is a necessary result of the practice of "photography".

Clearly photography can be just pure technique without any sort of artistic intent or result - a automatic surveillance camera for instance.

All photography is technique but not all technique, photographic or otherwise, necessarily results in art.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[magkelly]

Reading all this I got to thinking about art in general and how people like Picasso and Dali saw their world versus say Turner or Renoir or Waterhouse. I honestly can't stand the first two. I don't care how famous or lauded they are. I don't like their "art" at all but I still consider it painting and real art in terms of the tools and the techniques used. But photography like painting is all about playing with light, shapes, and, color. In my mind when I take a photo I'm doing the same thing a painter is only with a camera lens. I prefer more realistic images, albeit I like my colors brighter than some people do sometimes. But every now and again I also like to take a photo or batch of photos and manipulate them, make a collage, compost more than one image into each other. To me that's still photography, still art. But when I take filters and I turn a photo into something that looks like it could have been painted or in some other way completely transform a photo into something that's an extreme expression of the original image that's more digital imaging to me.

There's a place for both. Photography can be a jumping spot for other types of artistic expression for me. I don't feel they have to exclude each other but I do feel that there's a point where one becomes more the other. I actually don't mind "fake" landscapes of the mind so long as it's obvious. It's when people do things like that and deny they're doing it that it tends to annoy me. The pics NASA has been taking of the Earth of late. Looking at them I wouldn't think that there were many captures involved. But there are. Those are absolutely combined photos in stunning high res. Is that cheating to combine 10 captures to get one stunning realistic photo of the planet? I guess some would think so but it works for me. All I can see is the beauty of our world when they get done. But they're up front about doing that. They're not lying and saying they got that stunning pic in one shot. That makes a real difference to me.

[wildman]

I actually don't mind "fake" landscapes of the mind so long as it's obvious. It's when people do things like that and deny they're doing it that it tends to annoy me.

But they're up front about doing that.

They're not lying and saying they got that stunning pic in one shot.

It sounds to me that your main concern is the ethics of the creator rather than the creation its self.

All I can see is the beauty of our world when they get done.

That makes sense.
Judge the image on its own merits without any reference to how it was created

Ethical and esthetic judgements are two different things.

[magkelly]

Well yeah. There's a place for fantasy, sure, but if you're going to put 10 photos together to get one stunning image don't lie and say you didn't that's all. If I can't tell? Like with the NASA photos that's impressive actually. But I'd rather not be fooled. I'd rather know it's 10. It doesn't make the image any less stunning to me knowing.

[wmesser]

Actually photography is more like welding or painting. You can create a sculpture or build a bridge by welding. You can paint your living room or a make a painting called Starry Night. Not all of photography is art. I would argue that it is the least used purpose of it. Most is documentary. It records the moments of our lives. Or wars. Or protests, or sporting evens etc.

Nice statement.



To me, it is a discipline. If you are a casual photographer, then you are out taking pics. Sure, you want a nice pic, but perhaps you don't sweat the small details.
And there is nothing wrong with that, why would there be. If you are into the discipline of photography, you are out photographing, you sweat the small details...
you discipline yourself through continued education, trial and error, self-satisfaction upon reaching set goals. Yes, some days you may go out and just take pics.

When I first discovered golf, I had enjoyed playing the game. I quickly realized I also enjoyed the discipline aspect of it and self-taught my way to a single digit handicap.
I had friends who also were into the discipline of golf. I also had friends who like to play the game of golf maybe only a couple times a year, fine, I played the game whenever
they wanted to go out. I enjoyed both aspects, as with photography. My approach to photography and golf is no better or worse than one taking a pic or playing a game.
It is simply the path I choose.