What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

[Bearface]

Manipulation of photographs isn't anything new. Many of us know of the methods used by photographers in the past - both in camera and during processing - to alter reality in some way to achieve a pre-determined result which didn't necessarily reflect the original scene. However these days I think it's fair to say that the digital age has generated it's own sub-cultures in which people are willing to go to almost surreal lengths in order to distort reality, often to the extent where the recognisable photographic elements have all but disappeared from many images.

Blank Page today entered a very interesting image into the fortnightly salon contest. It was immediately recognisable as a photograph in the traditional sense, despite the fact that it had been manipulated considerably. It was asked whether or not such an image could be accurately described as a photo and I suggested that in this case it could, for the simple reason that it was still evident that a camera was responsible for producing it. However I also added that if an image had been so heavily manipulated that it no longer showed signs of being produced by a camera - for example if it had been turned into more of a graphic - I felt it would then be less of a photograph and more a piece of digital art; itself a perfectly worthy genre, just not strictly a photographic one....in my opinion.

In any case, I figured it would be fairer to run a poll to see what people felt about this subject, as unimportant as it probably is . Personally I love most types of artistic expression, but I somehow can't bring myself to describe heavily processed digital art (and I'm talking about those images which just don't look like photos anymore) as photographs. Am I wrong? Is there a right and a wrong in this context? Have your say!

The poll is open for 7 days from today. Thanks in advance for your particpation

[Archangel]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Hi Bearface,

Indeed the digital virus has infected everything and of course photography couldn't escape from it either.

I consider photograph anything taken by a camera (regardless of how good or bad) and any photograph that has been post processed to eliminate defects existed in the initial state due to camera's or user's fault. I also consider photograph the substraction of specific objects from a photograph (unwanted objects that couldn't avoided to be there), but not the addition of them in order to create a more pleasing effect.
Panoramic stitched photos are still photographs (is just stitching photos together to show a panoramic view which is actually something that exists but cannot be captured in a single photo) as well as tone effects like B&W/Grayscale Tones, Sepia (which are actually old film natural existed effects due to film processing or aging).

All the rest according to my opinion are photographic substitutes that cannot be considered real photographs with the worst substitute form being the fractals.

A photo (or shot used in a more formal way) represents photography.
An image, a picture, a fractal, e.t.c, represent photography substitutes.


Regards

George

[Andrew Thatcher]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

As you worded the poll I'm going to have to go for the top answer if you had removed the "true" then id have put the middle one

[Blank Page]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

This darn digital revolution is confusing everything.

I voted for Number Two. Maybe it's my age, but I think of a photograph as a more or less accurate depiction of a subject. The boundaries between photogrpahy and other forms of art can be blurred to be sure, thanks to human imagination, but I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is certainly a line between photography and painting, and I think there should be between photography and digital art.

The image I submitted in the Salon competition was not an accurate rendition of the original subject, and wasn't taken with the final image in mind. Nobody would know it was from a routine family picture of my father-in-law. It might be digital art, or something else, but I wouldn't call it a photograph.

The other submissions in the competition all show a certain amount of thought, skill, knowledge and creativity in subject selection, composition, and other aspects that go into creating a good photograph. In other words, they took a bit of work by the photographers. My image took a minute or two sitting at my computer. As another example, here's a snapshot I took one night strictly for the purpose of making a mirror image. With no thought to subject matter or composition or lighting, I just pointed my camera at a bush and took a flash picture...



Pretty boring, eh? But here's the final result after a minute of clicking the computer mouse:





And by rearranging the order, after a few more minutes I also had these:










They might be pretty designs, but they don't resemble the original at all, and it took no photographic skill to make them. That's why I wouldn't call them photographs.

The prosecution rests.

[bigbob]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

This topic has been argued about on just about every forum i've been on since digital took off .
Dodging,burning, cropping has been part of a photographers armoury since day one , now we have levels , curves, and saturation control as well .
I see nothing wrong with that , most digital SLR cams underexpose to keep from blowing out highlights , so post proccessing is something we have to do from time to time .
I try not to use clone unless i've really made a cock up , i'm of the opinion that whatever is in the scene is part of the photograph .
But i do agree that sticking a hippo's head on the mother in law is'nt photography , but fun
B..

[Stephen]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

I'll make a stab at my position on this, though I don't think in the context of the Poll there is a definitive answer.

Firstly I voted for the second option. I'm pretty flexible on how much manipulation can be used to an image out of the camera. I regularly use techniques that change the feel of an image to suit what I want or like in a scene.

However, let me open a new can of worms
The first option states

Only an accurate representation of the original scene will do

This shot is hardly that. Yet its exactly how it came out of the camera. The effect is created in camera and not in the software. This makes it a TRUE photo

In the context of this the third option in the Poll would appear to be valid

Maybe it could be said I'm being a little disingenuous in using this example. The point of this discussion is clearly referring to the practice of overmanipulating a camera image in order to make it into a piece of graphic art, perhaps even something that could have been created without the help of a camera.

I think the term 'True' photograph is meant to incompass an image in the more traditional sense though and therefore this would have to be something that is recognisable as being the result of a camera image. Hence my vote for option 2

[Tinka]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Hi,
But i do agree that sticking a hippo's head on the mother in law is'nt photography , but fun
B..
I have to agree with the above

A True Photograph In my opinion it is the "image as taken", perhaps with minor exposure correction/repair. to produce a pleasing hard copy.
Any manipulation, additions, removals, produces an "IMAGE"/ "PICTURE" In my opinion. The photographic process takes place in camera, either film or digital, all other processes are post photographic, IE: the printing process produces an image from the "Original" either negativ/positiv or digital information on the card, to produce a photograph. heavy manipulation that alters the recorded data to any substantial degree results in a the production of an image/Picture.
The first image posted by Blank Page is the photograph, This "photograph" forms the basis on which the following images/Pictures are produced from.
This my own personal opinion on the subject. "The camera never lies? maybe but the photographer/Printer does.

[Bearface]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

As you worded the poll I'm going to have to go for the top answer if you had removed the "true" then id have put the middle one

I perhaps should've made myself a little clearer in the original thread. What I'm asking for here are individual opinions as opposed to dictionary definitions of what constitutes a true photo. What are your personal views on what a true photo should be?

[Bearface]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

This shot is hardly that. Yet its exactly how it came out of the camera. The effect is created in camera and not in the software. This makes it a TRUE photo

I agree, but the scene is clearly photographic (in the sense that one can see that it's a single exposure, albeit a distorted one), whereas some heavily manipulated digital montages or composites look nothing like photographs and more like graphics, which in my book turns them into pieces of digital art rather than actual photographs.

The other point I would make is that a shot such as this one would inevitably polarize opinion (assuming that you didn't reveal the fact that it was made completely in-camera) in a typical photo forum, simply because there's a degree of ambiguity - especially to an inexperienced eye - as to how the results might've been achieved. However an accompanying explanation would virtually eliminate any scepticism about any potential software -based manipulations and people would more readily accept it as a photo than perhaps they previously would.

It's all very subjective, but it's clear from the responses so far that almost everyone draws a line somewhere in terms of what they deem to be acceptable, or representative of "true" photography, at least. Interesting stuff

[lumix]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

I perhaps should've made myself a little clearer in the original thread. What I'm asking for here are individual opinions as opposed to dictionary definitions of what constitutes a true photo. What are your personal views on what a true photo should be?

I voted for No2. Reason, for me a true photograph is one that is produced from one shot out of the camera. What alterations are made to it is inmaterial as long as there are no additions to it from another image. Removing parts ether by cloning or cropping is acceptable. Adjustments to exposure/saturation etc are all ok with me. If fact any variations to the original content is as I see it still a true image. Only when adding objects or parts of other images dose it become untrue. The exception here is panoramas which obviously are more than one image. Stephens example is really no different to adding filters to a camera to effect the taken shot.

[Bearface]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

The photographic process takes place in camera, either film or digital

Hi,

Some interesting points there, although I'm not necessarily in agreement with you on the above.

The only analogue-type camera I can think of in which the entire photographic process is conducted in-camera, is a polariod. With other film formats, whether they're slide, negs, plates or whatever, only the exposure has occurred in-camera -- the rest is down to the development and printing processes, which take place after the event and in which adjustments / manipulations are routinely carried out.

Similarly with digital cameras. If you have a prosumer type camera you might get a reasonably polished-looking JPEG more or less straight from the camera, but this is only because the camera itself is processing the shot quite aggressively on your behalf. In most other cases - and particularly when using RAW - a digital camera produces files which actually require development in order for the full potential of the original to be realised. It's exactly the same - at least in concept - to developing film; the camera gives you the raw ingredients and you then make the necessary adjustments (on your PC) in order to "develop" it and complete the process.

This is why I felt the need to challenge the quoted comment. Hopefully that makes some sense...?

[Mike Parr]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Photo.........from the greek for light.........Graph........write write using light,
No problem for me use a tool to write an image or symbol i.e the modern camera......
So when that guy used a box a lens and and a plate with silver on it he had a photograph. Is an image manipulated by digital technology which allows me to see it on a screen and not hold the image in my hand really a photo.
I dont see how you can take issue with any image on here are we not geting a little purist..
For me anything goes othrwise it would be like saying a Monet is an artist as we know it but Piccaso was a painter
Mike

[Bearface]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Photo.........from the greek for light.........Graph........write write using light,
No problem for me use a tool to write an image or symbol i.e the modern camera......
So when that guy used a box a lens and and a plate with silver on it he had a photograph. Is an image manipulated by digital technology which allows me to see it on a screen and not hold the image in my hand really a photo.
I dont see how you can take issue with any image on here are we not geting a little purist..
For me anything goes othrwise it would be like saying a Monet is an artist as we know it but Piccaso was a painter
Mike

Thanks for your comments Mike.

Not exactly sure why you think anyone is being a purist, nor why you might think there are any issues with images displayed on this site, but this thread was started because I genuinely wondered what people's individual views were on the subject. It would seem from the responses so far that opinions are polarised and that while nobody has particularly extreme views, everyone (who has commented, at least) seems to feel that there are limits to what we can refer to as a photograph.

If I'd wanted the dictionary definition, I'd have looked in the dictionary

[bigbob]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

If I'd wanted the dictionary definition, I'd have looked in the dictionary

Trust a Yorkshireman to call a spade a spade .

B..

[Pops]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

I went for No 2.
I'm sure that I am not alone in applying some processing to most of my shots. If spending a few minutes with curves, usm and noise removal etc. enhances a shot then I'm all for it. I consider myself a low level amateur, especially when viewing some of the shots in the gallery, and as such a few tweaks here and there are pretty much the norm for me.
I think each individual will have their own level of acceptance as to how much manipulation can be applied before passing over the line between photograph and digital art. Enhancing a photograph to make viewing a more pleasant experience can't be bad.