[RioRico]

What are the bounds of 'photography'?? Various arguments rage in the forums about what is or isn't photography. Extremes range from ultra-orthodox purists who want images untouched by human (or any other) hands, to ultra-heterodox radicals who think that anything goes, as long as waves and/or particles are involved. Just what stuff do you think is allowable in capturing and presenting images? Choose as many as you like. Your obsessions will not be held againt you. (Yeah, right.)

[NOTE - I tried to enter this as a poll twice, and timed out. Now I've expanded it a bit. Talk amongst yourselves.]

* Visible light spectrum (even if you're colorblind)
* Invisible parts of EMF spectrum (IR, UV, Xrays, etc)
* Non-EMF waves (acoustic, gravity, mental, etc)
* Bit streams (subatomic particles, bullet sillhouettes, etc)

* Box or rangefinder or other single-taking-lens camera
* Multiple-lens camera (including stereo-optic)
* View camera (with or without full movements)
* Single- or twin-lens-reflex camera body
* Camera formed from mouth, fist, tree bole, etc

* No camera nor lens: shadowgrams, beam on sensor, etc
* Pinhole lens, diffraction grating, zone plate, etc
* Physical lens (glass, plastic, crystal, water, etc)
* Non-physical lens: magnetic, gravitational, etc

* Photo-sensitized surface or emulsion (film, plate, etc)
* Unsensitized surface (xray or laser or sun-burn, etc)
* Analog electric sensor (image orthicon, xerography, etc)
* Digital electronic sensor (any resolution/sensitivity)

* Density or polarizing filter(s) in front of lens
* Contrast or color filter(s) in front of lens
* Magnification or focal length adapter on lens
* Image aspect distortion adapter on lens

* Manual image capture on photosensitive emulsion
* Automated image capture on such photo-emulsions
* Manual image capture on analog or digital sensors
* Automated image capture on such electro-sensors
* Totally random image capture on any frame
* Failed image capture on any frame

* Manual processing of chemical (emulsion) images
* Automated processing of such chemical images
* Manual processing of (RAW) electro-images
* Automated processing of electro-images

* Slight manipulation of displayable images
* Moderate manipulation of such images
* Extreme manipulation of such images
* Total destruction of such images

* Stitching images into matrices or panoramas
* Constructing matrix images from smaller images
* Superimposing images in-camera (multiple exposure)
* Superimposing images in post-production

* Adding elements (text, icons, etc) to images
* Removing and/or replacing portions of images
* Cropping outside portions of images
* Physical retouching (paint, pencil, crayon, etc)

* Posterization (greatly decreasing color depth)
* Shooting ultra-high-contrast (Black/White only)
* Creating ultra-high-contrast in post-production
* Slightly increasing color depth
* Dramatically increasing color depth
* Altering (replacing) colors and tones

* Leaving images unlabeled, nameless
* Applying honest, informative labels
* Applying ironic or misleading labels
* Totally lying about images

* Copying the work of others
* Emulating the work of others
* Referring to the work of others
* Ignoring the works of others

* Faithfully recording reality
* Creating your own reality

---

Last edited by RioRico; 06-16-2012 at 02:06 PM.

[J.Scott]

58 choices, eh.

Hmmmm.......

[RioRico]

58 choices, eh.

Hmmmm.......

Multiple choice. Cheating allowed. Encouraged, even. Hey, the limit is 200 choices. I thought I was being good.

[tokyoso]

this list just might apply to the movie industry as well

[mysticcowboy]

How about all of the above? I'm not being a wise ass here, but some of the distinctions seem arbitrary.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

[GoremanX]

As far as he copyright stuff goes, I think it's not only impossible but also unwise to ignore the works of others. Our culture tends to build on other people's work, and pretending that's not the case usually leads to poor results.

On the other hand, blatantly copying someone else's work is just lazy. I see nothing wrong with copying, as long as it's to apply your own interpretation to it (and as long as you don't lie about the origin of the work).

As for the last two items on your super-long list, I think it depends on your own personal definition of the word "photography". Some people define "photography" as an art that uses faithful captured representations to convey something (a thought, an emotion, a story, etc). Others define photography as just a tool to attaining their artistic goals. For the first group of people, extensive post-processing ruins the whole point of their vision of "photography". For the second group of people, the pictures they took are just a starting point for a greater whole.

Since the expression is "There are two kinds of people in the world", I conclude that those two categories of people I invented above are the only ones that can possibly exist.

[RioRico]

How about all of the above? I'm not being a wise ass here, but some of the distinctions seem arbitrary.

Lots of them ARE arbitrary, and some folks get honked off over the distinctions. "It ain't really photography unless it's chemical, otherwise it's digital imaging," that sort of thing. Or, photography vs photomanipulation -- but since eyes and film/sensors don't see the same, ALL images are manipulated. I'd wanted to set this up as a poll to see where the conceptual fault lines lie. Oh yeah, the poll was a little shorter.

[Clicker]

Is there a prize?

i'm for all of the above depending on needs and ...i forget, this happens when i think too hard

[junyo]

Completely arbitrarily, any work primarily created by the effects of photons on a light sensitive medium or sensor.

[GoremanX]

Completely arbitrarily, any work primarily created by the effects of photons on a light sensitive medium or sensor.

(just to be argumentative)

What about painting a design on someone's back with sunblock and then having them get tanned/burned in the sun? Doesn't that fit into the description you just made? I'd hardly call it photography.

[kxr4trids]

Well, if a solargram is photography, I'd say the sunblock example would have to count, though it does raise the question of how important intent is.

[GoremanX]

Well, if a solargram is photography, I'd say the sunblock example would have to count, though it does raise the question of how important intent is.

My intent would be to have the words "KICK ME" tanned onto my younger brother's back. Is that photography?

[PentaxPoke]

Really, Rico? A poll with too many options to count? Couldn't we just look up the definition of photography in the dictionary and call it good?

I get tired just looking at that post.

[RioRico]

Really, Rico? A poll with too many options to count? Couldn't we just look up the definition of photography in the dictionary and call it good?

"Photography - The process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, such as x-rays or gamma rays." --Random House College Dictionary, 1973.

That was before digital, but after image orthicons and magnetic tape, so I guess videography didn't count then. And if gamma rays, why not alpha and beta rays, which are reallly isty bitsy particles? And if wee tiny particles, why not bigger particles, like a silhouette formed by firing a shotgun at a target with a background to receive the shot? If we're transferring energy to a surface, there's lots of leeway in interpreting any 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.

"Recording radiation on a sensitive medium" definitely includes sunburn solargrams. Anyway, I was prompted to write this poll by all the comments here about just what is and isn't 'real' photography. Shooping, HDR, in- or out-of-camera processing, posterization -- yay or nay? So many opinions, so little time.

I get tired just looking at that post.

I attempted to be exhaustive. I guess I succeeded.

[junyo]

(just to be argumentative)

What about painting a design on someone's back with sunblock and then having them get tanned/burned in the sun? Doesn't that fit into the description you just made? I'd hardly call it photography.

I've actually seen that done, and it was kind of cool. I would call that photography.