• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Defining Photography or as Asher would put it, "The "Red Blob" conundrum"!

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Defining Photography or as Asher would put it, "The "Red Blob" conundrum"!

I just had a very interesting discussion with a friend about defining Photography. We all know you need a camera (anything from a pinhole to a Brownie to a Point and Shoot to a Sinar) to start with. You need film or memory, light and an idea.

But where does the definition go from there? We can create snapshots and the cross over to professional level photography or variations of art using various software. So where does a photograph start and end and art begin?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe Hardesty

New member
Funny you should ask. I was just thinking about it this morning. For me, it is simple...

If I see a scene or subject and want to capture it, it is photography.

If I have a concept, emotion, or message, and create an image to express it, it is art.
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Kathy,

You need to precisely define the question, else it will go the way of all such discussions. Any way, if you're doing it, why does it matter what it's called?

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The Red Blob Conundrum and more!

I think the question should be what do we include in the subject of photography and when would we say, "This is not photography!"

We have a thread going on what do we mean as Photography as Art.

Here Cathy has challenged us. What might "photography" mean or not mean to us in OPF? We do want to show photography in the path of the great classical photographers and modern expression too. We for sure want work from everyone that carries a camera to earn a living or bring home the beauty of nature and select the stunning images that humbles us to respect what we take for granted.

But Cathy asks us more about what is or isn't photography. Here are some parameters to consider:


  1. Photoshop altered images: When, if ever, would we exclude "derived-work" or as some (I think derogatively) call "manipulated" photos. Must we tell the truth as a human might observe? (TIF) or truth in Photography. So some touchup is O.K.. Hmm! Is there some cut off point? Is there a point where we say this is no longer a photograph? Next, without even using photoshop:

  2. The "Red Blob Conundrum": If we use boiling acid to change a pristine photograph to a "screaming red blob" or else photograph a "screaming red blob", then are each similar end products to be called by us "photography"? One is a processed photo while the other is a photo of a process!

  3. Painting/ fixing some layer over a photograph: In some works, people paint over their photograph or may use wood, plastic or some other material to add form. Is this still photography?

  4. Making slicon chips: like 3 we use photography but it's just a methodology that gets totally hidden in the delivered product.


Ultimately Cath, I believe is asking us a simpler question "What should be included as ""Photography" in OPF?".

Asher
 
Last edited:

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Perfectly said

As usual, Asher stated it perfectly.

I take a photo, change the coloration in Curves frequently - the people/subject looks the same, but, I have taken it to another dimension. I have a photograph of two people that I took on display in my studio - and then printed on mettalic paper. Is it still a photograph - but - it looks a bit artistic because of the changes. I did this on purpose - partly because I did not like the color in the clothing - and i did not want to change them really. So what is it? Still a photograph or not?
 
For me a - vague, by all means - cut line between the art and photography is when I conscisously introduce/add *important* parts of the image that weren't and, most importantly, were highly impossible in the original picture. I know, a good makeup/props artist effort can stretch that statement far, far away, but that's my general point of view. It can be a newly created subject or it can be treatment so bold that it itself becomes a subject, pushing the original capture off the spotlight...
Just my 0.0002 of the f/stop :)
 
Top