Deep thoughts for a Tuesday evening...

[Rense Haveman]

A drawing of a photograph is, well, it already says, a drawing. Likewise, a photo of a drawing doesn't make ik a drawing, just like a photo of a nice young lady is that lady in fact.... The PS photo is not a drawing: it is not made with a pencil, but with a camera (+ computer, but you can argue the camera is a computer too).

Amphibian or fish - I am not a zoologist - might have to do with lungs vs gills in the adult forms. Among lots of other characters, I guess.... So there might be a strong character (like made with camera or with pencil)?

EDIT: please, don't read or mention the Freudian mistake in my young lady remark...

 

[Pete Askew]

So the originator could be a determining factor? Photograms anyone?

 

[Rense Haveman]

I think it could be useful to distinguish between photo journalism and photo art. The first should give a proper picture of reality, the second is not bound to ... well, anything....

 

[Rense Haveman]

So the originator could be a determining factor? Photograms anyone?

Am I allowed to be picky? A photogram is a photogram. Neither a photo nor a drawing, nor something else.

 

[Pete Askew]

There are certainly major divisions (Orders?) but plenty of fuzziness between them I think (whether intentional or implicit). And the extremes get very interesting indeed.

 

[Rense Haveman]

Completely off-topic: I like the discussion and your thoughts....

 

[Pete Askew]

And a pinhole or a camera obscura?

 

[Rense Haveman]

There are certainly major divisions (Orders?) but plenty of fuzziness between them I think (whether intentional or implicit). And the extremes get very interesting indeed.

I believe this is what led Darwin to his remark that it is not clear what species are: he was very much interested in the 'inbetweens'. Reading his books, he was quite aware of the nature of species....

 

[Pete Askew]

The one above was supposed to be about photography (divisions such as photojournalism being equivalent to Orders).

Have you seen the work done by blacking out hotel rooms and then using a pinhole to project the outside world onto the walls and then photographic that?

 

[Rense Haveman]

And a pinhole or a camera obscura?

A pinhole as such is nothing, a hole. A pinhole camera is a camera, a camera obscura..... I guess you can read my thoughts.
But still: only my thoughts of course! No truth watsoever!!!

 

[Pete Askew]

Abelardo Morell

 

[Rense Haveman]

The one above was supposed to be about photography (divisions such as photojournalism being equivalent to Orders).

Have you seen the work done by blacking out hotel rooms and then using a pinhole to project the outside world onto the walls and then photographic that?

Size doesn't matter, does it? Oh, and it makes a photo only when it was printed, of course. Otherwise it was just a projection....

 

[Pete Askew]

How's that for blurry!

 

[Pete Askew]

Size doesn't matter, does it? Oh, and it makes a photo only when it was printed, of course. Otherwise it was just a projection....

So going from digital camera to computer to RPF?

 

[Rense Haveman]

But still: does it matter? What is gained knowing whether a picture classified as photo or as something else? It's all about what you want to achieve, isn't it? A word, a classification, it makes not much of a difference, I feel....

 

[Rense Haveman]

So going from digital camera to computer to RPF?

Which would make a photo of a projection, isn't it? That is a photo, but not one made with the pinhole room camera. With help of the pinhole room camera perhaps.... Something like that.

 

[Pete Askew]

I think I am with you on that, Rense, but it is an interesting subject and very difficult to pin down should one wish to. I think the central question of where one feels comfortable within the continuum of manipulation / visualisation, whether by analogue or digital means, is the most important aspect. Even something simple like zapping a distant bird from a shot causes some difficulties but not others. And, of course, in most cases, only the photographer knows what they did (and why - assuming that it wasn't just twiddling until some was achieved I suppose).

 

[Rense Haveman]

Deep thoughts caused me a headache... Letting it rest for a moment, but I will check new comments when my head serves me again...

 

[John Allen]

But still: does it matter? What is gained knowing whether a picture classified as photo or as something else? It's all about what you want to achieve, isn't it? A word, a classification, it makes not much of a difference, I feel....

It is not only about the image. It is also about the originator. We call ourselves photographers. Photography can be an art, however it can also be simple documentation. Photographs take for purposes of insurance records are rarely considered art, but they can be turned into art. Anything can be turned into art.

Here's where I think it gets tricky. Imagine this scenario: I take a photograph with a digital camera and give a copy of the file to my friend who is an expert in Photoshop. My friend has never used a camera in her life. If she takes a digitizer and traces the image and saves the result is that still a photograph? That's basically the same thing the cartoon filter does in Photoshop. If you do consider the new image to still be a photograph, does this make my friend a photographer?

 

[John Allen]

But still: does it matter? What is gained knowing whether a picture classified as photo or as something else? It's all about what you want to achieve, isn't it? A word, a classification, it makes not much of a difference, I feel....

Are you an artist or a documentarian? Both can be photographers and a photographer can be both. That's not all that complicated. Now let's take it a step further. Are you a photographer or an illustrator? What is the distinction between the two? If an illustrator starts with a photograph, is the final image a photograph or is it an illustration? There is definitely a difference there, which is why we have two words with differing definitions. I think it depends on the amount of post processing. Which takes me back to my original question. Is photography being supplanted by computer manipulation to the point where the images are no longer considered examples of photography? And, if so, where is the dividing line?