What then is Photography today?

Mike Funnell said:

Sometimes it's no easier to determine a writer's intention from his words than it is a photographer's from his photographs.

...Mike

Click to expand...

I think this is always the dangerous part of the internet. We talk a lot about 'intent' here, but sometimes its very difficult to understand just what that is. Some people are much better being able to explain their ideas and intentions than others. I also agree its the same about photographs--or any visual medium. I suspect that a very low percentage of people taking photographs actually consider 'intent' when they snap that shutter though there is always some, even unconscious, intent.

Diane

A photograph, to me, is a mechanical recording of visible light, the electro-magnetic radiation in a particular spectrum defined by homo sapiens in this time period on this planet spinning around this quadrant of the galaxy in this universe.

Photography, to me, besides the process of taking and making a photograph, is the art form whereby the photographer attempts to interpret and communicate his perception of reality to the viewer of the photograph.

The problem, or perhaps the best part, is that at any given point, "reality" is always several generations of interpolation away from our perceptions.

Whether it be the construct of consciousness and 3-dimensional vision rendered with our eye-brain neural matrix; The DIGIC processing of photon-stimulated sensors fed into Adobe PP software; or the digitally-refreshed visible-spectrum 2-dimensional displays or micro-pulsed limited-gamut 2-dimensional paintblob drawings - nothing we use or touch or see in our process of producing a photograph is remotely connected to reality.

Whatever reality actually "is"!? - I guess we can leave the quantum mechanics out of this for safety's sake.

I think what my point is, is that Ansel, and I think Asher and others here as well, have it right. There is no "purity" in photography, because there really isn't even any reality in photography. There is only what we present, and what we interpret.

There's any number of 'rules' that can be made to overlay onto one's work. I think most of the conflict normally occurs when someone else attempts to enforce their rules on your work. The debate of 'is it real' has been going on long before digital hit the scene.... Are Jerry Uelsmann ( http://www.uelsmann.net/ ), Robert and Shana ParkeHarrison ( http://www.parkeharrison.com/ ) , or Joel Peter Witkin ( http://www.correnticalde.com/joelpeterwitkin/ photographers? They work with film and darkroom alone (light onto film , then light through film onto paper), and the photography world has long accepted their work as photography. How about Ctein ( http://ctein.com/ ). His work has historically been film and then dye transfer. A dye transfer print is ink layed down onto a substrate... not so different (although a *lot* more difficult) than an ink jet printer.

If they are photographers, and what they produce are photographs, then what about the digital equivalent.. say Maggie Taylor ( http://www.maggietaylor.com/ ). Her work originally is sourced from photographs and actual objects scanned. Then combined in photoshop. How is this work, then , different form her husband's (Jerry Uelsmann).

Most of what I do starts off as a digital capture, but I then print (via an inkjet printer), a negative from that image.. and print it traditionally (coat paper with chemistry and expose with UV light) in platinum over a color layer (put down by inkjet). As a result, the colors are mute, and are not typically a purely accurate rendition of the scene captured. But for me.. they are still photographs.

I find that I have rules for my own work.. but that's not out of a sense of something not being a 'photograph'.. but more as a personal decision as to how I intend to express myself. Those rules tend to be flexible as my vision and interpretation of what i do changes.

One of the things I like about this site, is a respect people have for each other's work, and the lack of the tendency to try to enforce one's own 'rules' on others. There are a lot of "i do this because.. " and very few of "you're wrong because you do ..."

JimCollum said:

I find that I have rules for my own work.. but that's not out of a sense of something not being a 'photograph'.. but more as a personal decision as to how I intend to express myself. Those rules tend to be flexible as my vision and interpretation of what i do changes.

Click to expand...

This is an important point. Personally, what I want to express & communicate is far more important than whether what I do is "photography" or not. It starts with a photograph and it ends up with a physical representation of my vision for the image originally captured/recorded by the camera. What it is called --provided we have a name for it-- is second to my creative desires.

JimCollum said:

One of the things I like about this site, is a respect people have for each other's work, and the lack of the tendency to try to enforce one's own 'rules' on others. There are a lot of "i do this because.. " and very few of "you're wrong because you do ..."

Click to expand...

I agree. It's important to have it this way in order to foster an open dialogue. Many people feel shunned out of other forums because they fear the negative response from participants. It's very challenging to say something personally meaningful when you fear what others are going to say. It's also very challenging to feel free to write when you don't know the actual names of the other participants.

I am personally committed to fostering an open dialogue on this forum, one that is respectful of all parties involved. I know Asher and Nicolas are too.

This discussion is important to bring out the need to respect each photographer’s vision as worthy. We don't have to go out and buy the work or praise it when it leaves us cold. However, for me at least, I like to celebrate differences.

When each of us presses a shutter, we have, (to vastly different degrees), already imagined how this will be printed.

I prefer to have intent in my mind. Sometimes it is refined on the way as I am processing the latent file. Other times I can't achieve what I want and my mind starts a new vision and tests variants.

This is how we all make pictures. It is a process.

Some of my pictures I have planned for days or months without the camera or lens. Some are impulsive shots of a passer by.

The processing could be a minute or 10 hours. None of this, however, defines a photograph.

What does?

I can't give an exact definition, but I have three approaches. Certainly, I feel it is not the undeveloped film sitting somewhere. Files pretty much the same.

I'd look at the final delivered product.

The first is what is the impression of people seeing the picture on a screen, in a gallery or in book. I have traveled to scores of galleries each year and never found confusion here.

The second idea comes from the body of work of celebrated photographers over the last 100 years.

The last is the method of creation and the words of the photographer

Anyway, we need to post photographs and then all this is just philosophy.

The photography is where the real fun is!

Asher

Gary Ayala said:

mmmh ... mmmh ... mmmh

Personally, I've always felt a difference between a photographer and a graphic/digital artist. What you are saying is that there is no difference.

I felt that one of the difference between a photographer and a graphic/digital artist was the beginning and ending point (in regards to manipulation of the media). And you are saying that the starting and ending point is not a difference at all. mmmh ... mmmh ... mmmh very interesting.

I felt that documentary photography followed a different path than other forms of photography ... and ... If one ends up with an image that looks like a photograph ... then it is a photograph ... So, if one ends up with an image which looks like an abstract painting ... is it a painting?

So what is photography? (we're back at the starting point) ... For me, photography is about capturing a slice of time vis-a-vis camera. That slice of time can be enhanced at the camera (lenses, filters, aperature, et cetera) and/or enhanced at the "print" (computer, paper, et cetera). Any manipulations/alterations which takes the image beyond a reasonable (subjective term) expectation of realty at the time the image was first captured crosses that blurry line between documentary photographer and graphic/digital artist.

Photographic/Artistic expression/communication utilizing the camera a tool in the process hasn't any rules. I feel that documentary photography can only be documentary photography if it follows certain post processing restraints.

A lot of food for thought here.

Gary

Click to expand...

Gary,

As one heck of a news photographer, you have a great perspective for what not merely should but indeed MUST be the rules for documentary photography. When entertainment factors step in, there's a temptation to manipulate whatever truth lies in a particular picture. Here, we all agree with your experienced POV.

Again, as you explain, there are no bounds or format or rules for artistic expression through photography.

Photography includes at least the following:

intent in the making of latent image from the light arriving at a photon sensitive device and then its processing to some visual output representation.

This, I would argue might serve as a reasonable overall definition of photography. It includes all types of intents, visions, light sources, processing, combinations and outputs that can then be eventually appreciated or not by some available observer.

Some variants of photography may be familiar to all of us, some only to a few. However, there is hardly anything new for the last 30 years except in computerization of labor intensive processes.

The only important exception to us as photographers is Documentation (News Photography included).

Here, the photography is used to support a serious process like child indentification, criminal records, crime scenes, pathology specimens, photo-enforcement of traffic rules, identification of objects offered for sale, the state of natural resources and wildlife and so forth.

No feature can be added or subtracted. Cropping cannot be done to exclude meaning. If one does, then by common usage, that photography, is no longer evidence, but contaminated evidence. In common usage it is therefore no longer a "photograph of what happened" but one of lesser value. It is still a photograph, but of less utility for the required purpose.

In all other areas of photography, that term should not be guarded as if it was somehow holy. It is not necessary and it is not fun!

Asher

typos only

Does the analogy between writing and publishing help? writing is equivalent to the process of capturing light to make an image and publishing basically equals everything after that from editing to producing a hard copy.

I find it useful to distinguish between what I do up until the moment I click the shutter - which in one sense is irrevocable, and everything that happens after that. In my loosly defined world of 'photography' there are 3, maybe 4 sub worlds - 1: collecting gadgets related to (2: pressing the shutter; 3: fussing with software and perhaps 4: printing). In a narrower sense, I would argue that only #2 is photography.

Going back to my first point, I think it's only coincidental that the 'photographer' and 'publisher' are usually one and the same - but in some professional genres, that's not necessarily the case.

Tim Gray said:

I think it's only coincidental that the 'photographer' and 'publisher' are usually one and the same - but in some professional genres, that's not necessarily the case.

Click to expand...

Actually in most cases of commercial photography photographer and publisher are definitely not the same:

- advertising (agencies have their graphical artists working on the photo)
- stock (although wanting clean, technically correct photos they urge you to not edit them)
- fashion/magazine (again it is the companies themselves working on the final image)
- news (they don't even care for the photographer's intention, cropping and editing to their fit)

Now, what has changed over the past 20 years is the amount of work companies outsource back to the photographers, who thnk it is a good idea to have as much control over the end product as possible. It's comparable to the shift from the corner shop to the supermarket - you have to invest in work to get a lower price*. With photography it is just turned around due to the companies being much more powerful than individual photographers.

There's several downsides to the new paradigm, firts and foremost we are attached to a computer much more than a camera. We are also much more responsible for the end result, at least we are held that. curiously enough our deadlines are much narrower - 'Hey, with digital cameras we can subtract any lab time!' - although we are asked to do more. And then there is the blurring of the line between producer and publisher [to borrow your terms and enhance them a bit].

'Photography' is a rather broad term, befitting a broad phenomenon. It reaches from collectors of gadgets through snapshooters to the fine arts with numerous professional branches scattered along the way. It does not matter if one has already done the jump from film to digital since the basic components for both are the same [digital allows only for easier manipulation, it does not offer any categorically different tampering]. There have always been those photographers making their images in camera, and those believing strongly in darkroom work, 'where the real image is created'.

A middle-ground did exist, too, studio photographers trying to get it all right with meticulous pre-shot work, and then enhancing their photos slightly in the darkroom. This middle-ground is what most of us are now in. We have the tools to easily manipulate photos to get the real image - and we do it, correcting digital shortcomings [there are less and less, many of the newer cameras offer superb in-camera algorithms], righting any mistakes like tilt or forgotten exposure correction still dialled in. Obviously we try to get the most out of the original photo to convey what we found fit to take a picture of in the first place.

In short: I don't see any reason to define exactly what 'photography' is, particularly not in any ethical terminology ['right' or 'wrong'; demarcation can also be ethical].




*Let's go into this a bit more for a better understanding: In the corner shop you get serviced, you are asked what you want, what you need, you get hints and tips about what would be a good choice, the shop assistant (actually the owner most of the time) will look for the best on stock. In the supermarket you have to do everything yourself; some even get rid of cashiers and let you check-out yourself.

I must agree with Dierk that it is pointless to define photography exactly and worse to wrap one's own expression in some sort of blanket of truth, righteousness. Photography in most cases is for entertaiment and commerce and instruction and serves the purpose not the truth.

(In documentation, however, the function is to act as a sort of impartial witness. Here the picture needs to attest and ajure that nothing was added removed and that it was not manipulated to alter meaning of the subject recorded. )

Otherwise, photography is nothing more than using a light sensitive material to record an image one way or another. If it is done well, it can be a work of art.

All very loose terms, but good enough.

One can say I prefer this kind, or I have no like for any composite or hand colored B&W image, all fine. However, any idea that one form of photography is more genuine is nonsense.

When is it no longer photography and is something else? Is that an important question?

To me what's important is "Does anyone value it?"

Asher

Repaired thread. I've reconstructed from memory the first post to anchor the thread and make it work again. We have protected against damage to threads happening in the future. OPF does not delete professional posts.

The topic of "What is photography then today?" is fascinating in the breadth of points of view.

For sure, when the newsphotographers and creatives get their goals mixed up, we're in trouble!

Asher