Photo-manipulations vs. photography

Started 3 months ago | Polls thread
knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 6,364
Re: Photo-manipulations vs. photography

mamallama wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Krav Maga wrote:

Offside wrote:

Krav Maga wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Only on a dpr forum are there arguments about the definitions of very simple fundamental things:

Dictionary definition:

Photograph: representing nature and human beings with exactness.

Both of your examples fit the above definition of a photograph.

So a black and white photo is not a photo.

Got it.

I doubt any reasonable person would make the statement you just made. You probably know that.

I think the definition of what is and isn't a photograph is determined by what it is used for. The processing of a "true" photograph should not go beyond making only those changes to best represent what your eyes saw. That's pretty liberal.

Nothing wrong with staging a scene to create a photograph, the example being bird feeders, etc. I do believe it is best to clarify what was done if a scene is staged.

I generally agree with you. I was responding to the notion that a photograph can only be a representation of "nature and human beings with exactness" which mamallama seems to advocate, unless I've misread them.

Scene representation does not need to include color. The early photographs were all black and white or sepia and white.

Using that definition, even using a lens filter would render a photograph as not being a photograph.

Using a lens filter is an attempt to obtain a better representation of the scene, not an attempt to misrepresent the scene.

The photographic process is not perfect but its purpose is to obtain an exact representation of the scene as the photographic capability allows. Deliberate attempts to misrepresent the scene is what deviates from being a real photograph. That distinction makes it clear what is a photograph and what is art based on the photographic process. Can some photo art be passed off as a photograph? Yes. But that does not change any definitions.

There is no way to reconcile your claim that "scene representation does not need to include color" with your claim that the purpose of the "photographic process" is to "obtain [as] exact [a] representation of the scene as the photographic capability allows."

Representation does not mean duplication of every attribute of a scene.

Then what does your claim mean that the purpose of photography is to obtain as "exact" a representation of the scene "as the photographic capability allows"? Isn't a color representation a more exact representation of a rainbow than a B&W one? Again, you can't reconcile your claims.

Photography was well established and accepted before the means of recording color was ever developed.

OK, but color recording has been well established for many decades. You're implying that B&W recording/conversion is no longer a legitimate method of representation of a scene since there's now a more "exact" method available. And if you concede that B&W capture is still a legitimate means of recording a scene, then you're beginning the slide down the slippery slope. You better grab on as hard as you can to your conceptual dissonance because it's all downhill from here.

Even now there is no technology to duplicate the three dimensions of a scene and yet we have photography.

And love it...

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow