What Is A Photograph?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 мар 2015
- What Is A Photograph? I think this is an important idea to reconsider from time to time if we are looking to improve our own work.
By just that nature of the world today, the definition of what a photogaph can be is a very complex one - much more than it was in the 19th century. We're at a point in history with such a rich tradition leading up to an explosion in technology - there are many possibilities.
At the same time, I think as photographers we are sometimes too close to the "forrest" to see the bigger picture.
These are some thoughts - would love to hear your voice! Leave me a comment!
=========
Sponsor: Audible.com - for a free audiobook of your choice, visit audiblepodcast.com/aop
=========
Subscribe for more videos!
ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
Twitter: / tedforbes
Instagram: / tedforbes
Facebook: / aop.podcast
Pinterest: / tedforbes
Website: theartofphotography.tv
Watch More Episodes:
Photography Books • Photography Books
Photography, Truth or Beauty • Photography: Truth or ...
Who Influenced Saul Leiter? • Who Influenced Saul Le...
And get on our mailing list to stay up to date on photography news and the latest episodes:
theartofphotography.tv/about/m...
Thanks for watching - if you like this video, remember to share it with your friends!
Ted Forbes
The Art of Photography
3100 Main St #135
Dallas, Texas 75226
My name is Ted Forbes and I make videos about photography. I’ve been making photographs most of my life and I have a tremendously deep passion for photography that I want to share with you on RUclips.
The Art of Photography is my channel and I produce photography videos to provide a 360 degree look into the world of making images. We all want to get better so lets do this together!
I make videos covering famous photographers, photography techniques, composition, the history of photography and much more.
I also have a strong community of photographers who watch the show and we frequently do social media challenges for photographers to submit their own work. I feature the best and most interesting on the show when we do these so come check it out and get involved!
So come check it out! If you’re a fan of DigitalRev, Fro Knows Photo (Jared Polin), Matt Grainger (That Nikon Guy) or Tony Northrup - you’ll love The Art of Photography. I make video’s giving you a deeper dive into photography techniques, composition and history to compliment the other channels you love to watch.
New shows come out every Sunday, Tuesday and Friday. 
Наука
Very nice reflection Ted.
I think you have answered part of your question without realizing it. You have teach us that what you “leave out” in an image is as important as what you leave in.
That is what you have done here. You have given a straightforward definition of a “photograph” without revealing the apparatus that creates the “photograph”, i.e. the “camera”. And that’s what’s important here. The final image has absolutely no connection to the object that is use to create it.
When we see a painting, we rarely refer to the canvas or type of paint that was used to create the painting. We might relate to a specific color that an artist uses, but will attach no significant importance as to the medium that was used to create the artwork.
A photograph is quite similar to a painting. The viewer does not need to know the technical know-how behind the artwork to appreciate it. He does not need to be a photographer. The photograph stands by itself. It is a representation that freezes a certain moment. We certainly cannot say that a camera is a “representation”, although it is the instrument that captures the moment.
I also have found out through time that my first impressions were inaccurate because I failed to see their meaning at first. As I learn more, I am surprise to see that I cherish images that were unappealing to me when I first saw them. I think “maturity” has a lot to do with it. When I was younger, I wasn’t open-minded as I am today. I wanted to rebuild the world without knowing what had already been done. And to say that I thought that old people were single-minded when I was young. I am now glad to say, that I was wrong (I changed my opinion).
I enjoyed this chapter thoroughly! I wanted to add to the part of equipment and philosophy of photography that on the Mercury missions to the moon, the astronauts left by the Hasselblad bodies there and brought the film holders back" in order to save space and weight but brought back what really mattered, the film (70 mm bulk rolls). If only I could find a way to get one of those Hasselblad bodies back!
Even as a amateur photographic enthusiast you can’t get true satisfaction from your work by simply producing images for presentation on the web. You can gain a bit of satisfaction from a digital rendering but to find full satisfaction there’s no better feeling than producing a final printed photograph. It feels so good in the hand.
Great talk and it comes at just the right moment for me. I have been contemplating this question myself for a few weeks now as I watch my students. Having fun with their gear, happily mega-pixel bashing each other. We get a lot of laughs about it. But, what does photography mean to me, what makes it so special? Sharing personal moments, documentation, journalism and fine art (which I put above anything else) all important concepts. But I think there is one really amazing aspect to photography (and maybe I am being a bit philosophical now); catch a single fraction of a moment in time, something that never ever happens the same again, and save it 'forever'. I think that's pretty beautiful.
Manuel Meewezen love it. Funny that we forget to see the small beauties sometimes.
+The Art of Photography Don't worry about being too "rambly". There is much more that could have been said on that. I have yet to see a good photograph (in the content and meaning sense) from people bragging about equipment and megapixels.
To use a completely off-topic analogy - it is like kids on a slope arguing whose snowboard is better and who's got the classier outfit while guy on 15 year old board does a tornado flip over their heads...
Technology is actually an entry point to photography for most people I would say. Because it is easier to derive some objective conclusions from comparing technology, than it is when assessing the actual outcomes and their meanings. Some people past that point, but most people freeze there.
A healthy reminder that 'perspective' is important not just in an image but about photography in general. Your last comment resonated with me the most - often we enjoy things more when we learn more about them. Sometimes the learning can turn around opinions around entirely. There's a broader lesson here too!
Thanks for another thought provoking video Ted.
Hey Ted!
First of all: Well done video! It is so important to think about what youre doing as a photographer on a philosophical or abstract level. It is also one of my favourite Bresson quotes: "Question yourself - it's essential!"
Having said that, I will continue with a weird mixture of philosophy, science theory, and personal thoughts - though I am used to scientific and technical argumentations I hope, that there are some good thoughts for you, who are still reading this post!
If we are talking about this topic, I think that we have to go a littele deeper still and ask ourselfs the question: "What is Art?" or more precisely: "What is the reason for human beings to create art?" In my opinion one possible explanation is the quest for a meaning of live, geometry, color, and so on. More precisely: It is for me a aproach to understand life and to illustrate compley thoughts, that were gathered by contemplations (case studys) in a physical way.
Following my argumentation I divide the construct "Visual Art" into two different items: First there is the visual and conceptual part and secondly the workmanship which transfers our thoughts into a physical thing, which can be contemplated by other people. By this seperation we draw borders to e.g. Literature and as well distinguish conecpt and the creation. Furthermore they are quite suitable to contemplate the difference between photography and photographic art. It has to be said that interactions between those two items are difficult to include in this argumentation.
Probably everybody would agree that the concept part is common to all artists per definition - I can hardly imagine how one could create art whithout thoughtfulness. The key thing to make visual art perceptible for other people is the objectification which is achieved by the artist with oil and brush, a chisel, and so on.
Photography describes, like you mentioned, the physical act of capturing electromagnetic waves and saves the gathered information on whatever medium. In my argumentation, to take a photograph is a direct way to objectify a Physical scene. For me it does not make a conceptual difference whether you display this object on a paper or a screen (though real prints could be more beautiful from an aesthetical point of view, which is highly subjective of course). In the end its light again, which will be percieved by ones eyes and converted into a sensation. Though the craftmanship had been replaced by chemistry and digital technologies I would tend to conceptually consider it the same thing.
For the conceptual part it is all about the person behind the camera. For me this is the key point of the discussion: If somebody is conscious of himself taking a picture and if he furthermore does this because of an intrinsic motivation, its a photograph.
I want to end with a freely trnslated quote of Heidegger: "Mankind is about to geto onto the whole world and their atmosphere [...]. The same mankind is unable to explain in a simple way, what really is, that we call a thing. Everything there is, is the object of a single will to exploration."
Photography isn’t really one thing. It’s a whole array of almost completely unrelated things. That’s actually one of the things that fascinates me about it. One can divide photography into commercial, documentary and fine art, but even then, a fine art landscape has very little in common with a fine art portrait. A fashion photograph may stand somewhere in between commercial and fine art. Documenting the behaviours of an ant colony has nothing in common with documenting dental work.
Different types of photography, and different photographers, demand different techniques, different equipment, different approaches, and most definitely different priorities. Two photographers may voice completely incompatible claims and both be right within each of their own particular frameworks. This is mind-boggling to new photographers. In my opinion, the first step you must take is to take everything and everyone’s claims with a grain of salt, and try out things for yourself. The only people who realize their own biases are usually the ones who don't make claims, or that finish or start all their sentences with "to me" or "in my opinion".
To ask what a photograph is, is like asking what a written document is. It can be too many things to list. "To me" it's in many ways a delight.
Wow... Take a breath and now take a BOW. Great piece. Just got in to photography and love the Passion.
Thanks but it's just a rambling start ;-)
The Art of Photography
We like you for your rambling. it would be horrible if you`d just read of a script.
I've tried that - agreed, you don't want that ;-)
Ted I would love for you to do a video on camera-less photography. Some practitioners that come to mind would be, Susan Derges, Adam Fuss and Hiroshi Sugimoto lighting fields series.
For me, photography is capturing the world trought my eyes. I love looking on how others interpret places, people, things that i saw too and the same time, but little bit differently.
Filip Švácha I agree - the interpretation keeps it interesting!
Great video. I think having some level of passion for photography may be one of the most important aspects. This was discussed in the video, but I think having passion is the main thing that leads to being able to take photographs rather than snap shots. I think this is one of main things for people to consider when starting out in photography. Even if it's just a hobby. Usually when someone asks me how they can take better pictures, the questions are usually about gear. I steer the conversation towards composition. But sadly, more often than not, the person looses interest. A lot of people think they will take much better photos if they by an expensive SLR. Of course, that isn't true.
Excellent episode, as always! I agree with everything you say about the photograph being more than the technology that produced it. I especially liked your comments about photographs that you did not like immediately; but upon getting to know them and getting an understanding of the context, you came to love. I really appreciate you doing AoP -- it is very helpful to me in many ways.
Very well done! After 5 years studying the technical aspects of cameras, softwares, printers, papers, and tools, I'm now switching to phtography and visual art history. Reading and looking at the masters there is a lot to learn and I feel I'm getting more selective in my judjment on my pictures and Others'. The only problem is that I also realise how much time and effort it takes to improve, even though it does pay back with a lot of satisfaction. This video channel is well thoght as it gives a little of both. Thanks
Thanks Sal
In my humble opinion the core magic of photography haven't changed since the very beginning: capturing a moment, a feeling, a mood which won't ever return in the ever-changing world. You can try and take several pictures of the same subject anytime, but you're never going to recreate the same moment again, because everything changed including the photographer - you yourself as well. So being able to seize a moment and preserve it for the future is such a great ability and possibility we almost have forgotten about while falling into technical details. It does not matter what your intention is: documenting, expressing your thoughts, making art or simply preserving memorable moments in your or someone else's life. And also doesn't matter what technique or gear you use. You can cut out these never-revolving moments from the timeflow and make it an eternal thing. That's the real core magic - at least for me - of photography.
Well, another thought provoking video Ted, thanks. It makes me worry that, after 40 years of taking photographs, I still don't have a signature style. I seem to be going in three directions at the moment. I post exclusively on social media, haven't done any print work for ages.
Also, I get a much bigger audience online. I post on G+, which is great, international, so many huge groups you can post to etc. On Facebook, I post public, and share with a couple of photographic groups. That's great, and I've met with some of the local photographers, it's nice and friendly.
I think the point is though, that it's all free. I couldn't afford to print, mount, and frame up, some of my best work.
Also, about two out of ten of the pics I post online, are what I myself really like, and they tend to get ignored, others, which I like ok, they're sharp etc, get more attention.
It ls the internet that that makes this possible, and even if I was a successful fine art photographer, sold a few prints, sold a few books, more people see my pictures on the internet.
If I suddenly became really famous, you might do a documentary about me :-)
So the place of photography, both within art, and society, is changing by the minute.
Great discussion. I guess we should always be ready to do a rethink on just about anything and everything.
Jack Reckitt absolutely
I met a street photographer who learnt a great lesson about having the best equipment. He became a fantastic chef, one of the top young chefs in the UK, but he had always taken photos from an early age. He made a lot of money very early on and bought the best Canon camera and all if the L series lenses etc etc. He found, however, that his quality of photography went down dramatically. After a few years he quit being a chef and wanting to become a professional photographer and he sold EVERYTHING. He bought a cheap canon film SLR and a 50mm lens for about £30 and his photography improved dramatically, he's even publishing a book. He inspired me to continue shooting film even though i had found it difficult to work with in the very beginning and that its the photographer who creates the photograph not the equipment.
Matt Hexagraphic Great story! I've often felt that way. It seems the limitations can actually make you work harder on the final result.
Good job! I started to get into the technology and equipment when I used film. When the film camera died, it was years before I got another camera and I had been photographing since I was 8. In 2005, I bought my first Digital camera to take on my first trip to Europe. I found it disconcerting that so much was computerized but spoiled rapidly. Folks kept trying to sell me on a bigger better DSLR and I borrowed 2 from friends and went around shooting. I was not impressed over what I could get on my simple little Canon Power Shot. I don't want to carry around a lot of equipment. I have always taken a shot when I connect with what I am seeing. I go for the connection in all ways, the colors, or not, the textures, the feeling I have at the moment and have become really good at taking a great shot that seems simple to me and gets raves from others. I too look at this a bit from the artistic standpoint, I don't know any other way to do it. I have argued the equipment stance and often have to realize that these are the geeks of the photo world. Nothing wrong with it. Like you said, fun things to play with and many folks are gadget people. I am not.
The more I learn about photography the more I realize how much I truly don't know. And the more I learn the more diffucult photography becomes. Meanwhile, the process is so magical and therapeutic I dive in! Thank you Ted. Asking questions is the most important thing to me:)
David Rothschild Me too - and because there's so much I don't know is why I think I love it so much. Always exciting!
photography to me is a record of time. It's proof that I existed in that moment.
This is a great video. It brings to light (pun?) photography proper. I stopped chasing gear and now I spend my time thinking about what I am taking a photograph of. As scientific as the act of photography is I learn about it as much as I can and then I take everything I've learned into the actual "Art of Photography" so that eventually down the road you will enjoy the stories I brought to each image :)
Brian Anderson Yeah at some point you have to make stuff. Most photographers get bogged down before they get to that.
To me it's about respect. Respect your cameras, respect every frame that you captured.
Thank you sir for very informative information .
Bravo on this episode Ted! Technology is not art, technology is a means to make art.
Rich Klein thanks Rich
Great video. You touched on a lot of things that I think about with my photography. As a former graphic designer and one time publisher/creative director of a small web based mountain bike magazine I have worked with a lot of photos and photographers over the years and have learned to really appreciate the variety of skills they each can bring to people (commercial, print, advertising, fine art, travel, food, etc.,). Through all of that I've become more inspired to try and have a camera with me nearly all the time, whether it be phone/p&s or DSLR) and to keep learning the aspects of photography that I neglected over years in Auto Mode. Yet no matter how much I learn or how many photos I take, I always question if I am a photographer or a picture taker? Ha, either way, it's all good, for me it's about learning, keeping my creativity going and helping to tell stories whether it be through goofball blog posts or Facebook and Instagram. I also enjoy the access we have to viewing so many amateur and pro photographers and "picture takers" and I never get tires of that feeling you get when you see a photo or style that you KNOW you like (or don't like). Thanks again for your work.
Jason Mahokey Well truth be known, auto mode doesn't prevent you from being a photographer. Keep learning and more importantly - have fun and learn how to tell stories with the camera.
Not even big on photography but this video sat well with me. You got a new sub.
Ab - So - Lutely. Very well said Ted, another fantastic thoughtful video.Please keep it up.
Chris Searle Thanks Chris!
We take thousands of pictures every day with our phones, digital cameras, etc, and there's nothing wrong with that. But for some reason I always have my beloved film camera with me, just to shoot what I like on the streets. So I guess for me a "photograph" is different from an average picture I take with a phone, because there's just something more to it. Even if the final image is not great (or if it sucks), the intention behind is what counts. Everything - whether it's digital or film - could be a photograph (and not just a meaningless picture) if you've got something to say with that.
I always think about Vivian Maier who wasn't recognized as a photographer when she was alive, and yet she was just shooting everything she saw - until she died. I guess that's one possible answer to your question. :)
Ted, I am very happy to understand what you said in this episode. Thank you so much.
Very good questions raised in this episode, made me think, that when I had my camera with just one 28mm lens , I had way more "artistic" fun and results almost always kept me happy .Now I have several cameras, dozens of lenses, its also a great fun too, but I feel its a bit like a gadget fetish that dims the real reason of wanting to capture life around me... Maybe I should try "One lens-One month " treatment :)
This is a very classy way of pointing out that some people could be more open minded and not think everything should be done their way or it does not matter. I suspect I know some of the reason behind this, but let's just say your videos are very thoughtful and honest, while staying worldly and open to new ideas and styles. There are some people on You Tube who expound their way or no way, and cannot see the bigger picture. I am glad you are not like that.
Chris Wray thanks Chris. Its interesting when I ask for feedback on things like this - there is a lot of cynicism that's present. I'm actually interested in why that is…
Thank you for your contributions to the knowledge of eager students of photography.
Alexander Ovodenko Thanks Alexander - I try ;-)
Thank you for introducing me to photographers that I wasn't aware of.
Angel Rocha Absolutely!
To me, a photograph is a representation of a certain place, at a certain moment, from a certain angle. The picture itself gives informations about the subject(s) and/or environment(s) involved, it can suggest a purpose, an emotion, a vision of life and the different universes we live or do not live in. However, it can't impose an idea or a way of thinking. It's more of an inspiration to creativity, a playground for interpretation, the seed of interest. Photography doesn't give it all to you, you have to put your own memories and experiences into it to make it happens, works, comes to life. Sometimes that activity asks a lot of patience, to deal with our own perceptions and/or preconceptions, at other times it's as intuitive as it can be, a passion that attracts us to merge with it.
I think that, as for any inventions, from the simplest stick of wood to the most complex social network, linking from satellites floating into the outer space to computers (which are pretty complex inventions themselves) around the world, we can do a very good or a very bad use of photography. I don't really mind about the overuse of photography by the medias or by the high percentage of people using it that are not artists or intellectuals. I care about beauty, interest, experience, spreading concerns, informing the population. In fact, i guess i'm more attracted by trying to share and understand than trying to impose.
I know one guy that is a top leader into sharing, trying to understand and not trying to impose, Ted Forbes. I gotta thank you a lot for what you're doing up here, it's a real joy to mention your channel when i'm explaining to people what i'm doing for a living. I'm doing photography and i'm following a guy's channel who gives higher education level advices and commentaries. I follow every video you're posting and I think that this concept is the futur of learning. I deeply thank you once more for your incessant pertinence and your unshakeable enthusiasm! Keep up your excellent work! Later!
- Marc-André -
Always look forward to your videos. Thanks
buttcaner thank YOU!
This may speak more on my own personal upbringing but to me, its all art. Art, historically, refers to the way in which a person carries out a task. I think of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", or the way in which someone goes about living their life. In this respect, the word "art" is somewhat synonymous with "method", "technique", or more broadly a "methodology" which is a more general philosophy which may include specific "methods" and exclude others. Thus, electron microscopic photography, for example, while it has its practical applications, belongs every bit as much in MoMA as Eggleston, Bernhard, or Bresson because of its "Art", i.e. method, technique, etc. This view encompasses (in my opinon) all aspects from gear, to application, to meaning.
James Taylor VERY well stated. I like that!
Photography for me is....Everything.
Currently, I would be very inclined to take in consideration the differences or similarities between the interaction between the photographer and the photograph, in either cases of a Facebook album (and this further dialogue between expectations of feedback and feedback itself), and of course of the artist and his own work (vimeo.com/28480882).
Great video as always.
OriginalLelis thank you!
I think another thing to consider is the reproducibility of the work. Photography's popularity and usage took off with the calotype, and gelatin based film. And with digital, a 1,000,000,000th generation file should be exactly the same as the first.
Thats what makes photography almost unique, at least by those methods, of course a daguerreotype is unique. And for that its great, but is equally flawed.
I think in that way The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, is as relevant today as when it was written back in '36.
Which i suppose would allow me to make a leap towards "What Makes a Photographer?" i think what makes you a photographer is the sharing of work. Good or bad. Thats what i don't like, even from top photographers i've met, when i ask about a working progress, they don't share their work. You very often learn more from looking at contact sheets than from the 1 negative out of 100 that they've chosen.
rorrt Excellent point and an interesting way of looking at it. Maybe the "photographer" should be a video too ;-)
The Art of Photography
Thats an amazing idea for a video! "What Makes a Photographer?"
:-D
For me the difference between a photgrapher and someone who just takes a picture is, what they look at in the viewfinder. When you take a picture and only see or look at the person, animal or whatever is your subject. You`r just someone who takes a picture. A photographer sees the whole frame and, conciously or not, considers compositition, framing, lighting etctera. Do you have to think about what story you want to tell with a photograph? I don`t think so. In my opinion not every picture has to tell a story. I press the shutter button often just thiking, that will be nice to look at.
I must warn you, that i change my opinions about every ten minutes.
Lorenz E.
Good point.
And i'd add to that, that being a photographer is constantly trying to improve yourself, and not just in terms of your technique..
But in your approach to images, and taking them. Or is it making?
I always think of taking photos and not making them...
Dear Mr Forbes, the Dutch (ex-)photographer (today he calls himself a 'photo detective') Hans Aarsman was of great influence about my thinking of photography. Here's a link to his TEDx-lecture: ruclips.net/video/7l-I82-Q0y0/видео.html
Although I do not totally agree with Aarsman's rejection of 'beautiful' (i.e. pictorial) photography, it is inspiring, and in practice very difficult, to look at and/or make images in this context. I collect vernacular photography and it is my experience images indeed 'change' within context, or when combined with other images. Sometimes an image gains importance through its context. The problem for me is what to do with all this when I'm out and about with my Rolleiflex. Even Hans Aarsman admits to 'not seeing' the proper image sometimes. Is taking 'beautiful' photographs really as superficial as Aarsman suggests?
Unfortunately photography today is often about getting recognition and approval. You see a lot of people doing pretty much the same thing just do get recognized. Oh the irony. For me photography is more close to the exact opposite of that. It's about individuality and personal expression. I love to see peoples 'point of views' in life. I get very little recognition for my work but I love my pictures,
WayTooLongUsername the love of doing it is what its all about!
And therefore my problem with the idea of "abstract" photography. By definition, photography is representational and although representational images can be highly altered, it is at its foundation a copy of something in the real world and therefore not abstract (discounting photograms and other non-image/non-lens means of exposing film). There are certainly lots of images, some famous ones, that are at some distance from crispy-clean and perfect, but there are no abstract photographs in the way that there are abstract paintings. So, what do we call photographic images that have been abstracted (muxxed, glitched, defocused, ???). Surely there is a more technically accurate (and respectful of the photographer's intent/practice) term than "abstract" photographs? Thanks for the philosophy episode Ted.
Qwen Wan Sure but even abstract is made from some kind of projection.
The Art of Photography I hear what you are saying, but if you take an art theory definition (say of Clement Greenberg), abstract means non-representational and on that basis it is hard to categorize any photograph as abstract because the technology is essentially representational. Don't misunderstand, I very much enjoy abstracted photographic images and create them myself with a degree of success. Good abstract art, irrespective of medium, is very stimulating to me. I'm just struggling with the terminology and I certainly don't have an answer. It's great to come to your videos to be challenged though so keep up the excellent work.
I don't consider a person who takes digital pictures and posts them exclusively on the internet and doesn't print a photographer, they are not a photographer. I draw the line at whether or not one makes a print. It's the same as a painter who doesn't use paint, they might be an artist of some sort but they are not a painter if they don't paint. You can even take a brush out of that person's hands but they are still a painter if they use paint. The problem I see is people never referred to negatives as a "photo", so I don't see why it should be any different if an image appears on the screen? It's still not a print at that point. There is a reason why people don't use the term "Photo Analyst" in the military anymore, instead they are "Imagery Analysts" because of the digital switch. One who uses a photographic medium to create digital images are is not any better or worse as an artist in my eyes, but it is a distinction between a digital artist and a photographer, a photographer prints. For what it's worth, that's how I see it.
And how would you interpret someone that make "prints" but never shared them, are they artist?
To be an artist is to be renown and that means that you have to "publish" your work, whether it be sharing/selling "prints" or posting them over Internet.
A rare case came up recently. The Vivian Maier photographs. She never published any of her work while she was alive and yet, at her death, she was discovered. Many people have elevated her to the standing of artistry but the curators feel quite uneasy about what she would have to say about her own work. It is just sad.
Publishing a "portfolio" over the Internet and commenting on your work might just propelled you to be a "photographer" and letting people know what your work is about.
Rejean Nantel Of course they are artists, in Vivian Maier's case, her work was printed so yes, I consider her a photographer. To be fair, a person who gets a 36 exposure roll of film developed and then printed on 4x6 I consider a photographer. Albeit, perhaps, not a good one but still technically a photographer. Anyone can be an artist and anyone can use any medium to create art. I would say though that if she didn't have anything printed today, I don't think she would be recognized as a photographer, and that is my point. Regardless, my narrow definition of what a photographer is elitist and only my vision of what I consider as what a photographer is to me.
Barry Andersen I understand your viewpoint. A photographer takes "photographs" and to you the final representation of a photograph is a printed image (a physical piece of art). My point is that some writer prints book on paper and others publish them on electronic format, i.e. eBooks. Here the results are the same. It is the content that is important not the medium.
I won't be as drastic when comparing printed images and those that we see on the Internet.
I have to agree that in film photography, the print is the artwork. The chemical processing, the choice of paper, the dodging and burning are all part of the ritual that creates the artwork. But in digital photography, when the post-processing is complete, it can already stand as an artwork by itself. Of course, if you want to print it, you will have do go through the "output processing" so as to better the quality of the image.
Of course a printed image is much better than one that appears on a monitor. My guess is that might this might change in a near future - although I am not sure it will be for the best.
What I am saying is that a good photograph is good whether printed or displayed on a Monitor (but I agree that it looks much better when printed). But there may be another Vivian Maier to be discovered that does not print images but post them over the Internet. And since she has more chance to get notice, it might well happen while the person is alive. And if that happens, she will be asked to print her images as a "photographer".
Rejean Nantel Barry Andersen It is a strange reality is that VERY few photographers print their work these days. The internet is the canvas. I agree - its a sad change, but that's news is delivered.
The Art of Photography So true, Erik Kessels did that project where he filled a room full of pictures and it was every image uploaded to flickr in a 24 hour period. I'm glad people don't print everything they capture but it's so weird that people don't print for the most part.
Are there any aspects of photography that you feel shouldn't qualify as art, science or documentation and should be a practice that people put a stop too?
I try to appreciate photography as often as possible and try not to take a cynical vies to other peoples photographs but one thing that annoys me more than anything that people do with their cameras is to take photos of museum paintings. It annoys me immensely when I see it happening in museums and even more so when I see it later on whatever social media.
A more reasonable example is that there is a strong school of thought that street photographers shouldn't take photographs of the homeless as it is very hard to fully represent their circumstances.
MrMatthewEx With great power comes great responsibility. Intentions are not always the best. But that equates to mediocre photography and poor choices by the photographer.
Isn't Holography, in the traditional context of a film captured 3D scene wave front, within the realm of photography ?
Photography = Applied Quantum Electrodynamics, Lets go play with some Photons !
Photography captures the interplay between Photons and Electrons
taking place in, and preserving, a moment of the electromagnetic Now. It
is achieved by the union of many fields of Science and Engineering -
Optics, Mechanics, Electronics, Chemistry, Mathematics and in itself
becomes a tool for Science - Astronomy, Nature, Zoology, Geology,
Meteorology, Biology just being a few. Science and the exploration of
the Universe is my passion and it is through Engineering and Technology
that I play. I conduct illustrative photography and my images come from
Nature, both seen and unseen, often ignored as common, which I capture a
bit differently.
Steaphany Sure does - there's a lot of things I didn't mention that could be considered in the photographic realm. I think that's why its so fascinating - its complex! Technically motion picture and film is also photography…
My Holography comment was prompted by you describing photography recording an image in 2D, There are so many ways to capture and expand the content of an image.
Steaphany Agreed. But a Hologram is still a 2D surface. The image appears very much 3D, but its a representational effect.
The technical stuff "... do not have any impact in the final story". So crappy film or low dynamic range in a sensor doesn't have any impact? Not ANY impact?
The person learning won't be misled into doing some bad habits or influence the photographer by limiting his/her situation or at BEST as a distracting issue when shooting or make them less than satisfied with the results when using inappropriate and/or inferior gear? I suspect a rather too much of a broad brush statement, Ted!!!
Brian Richman ha - well… depends on what story you're telling. I've seen some amazing "lo-fi" shots… my point is that its the medium, not the story.
The Art of Photography Um... Isn't that leaning towards my point Ted? The medium is the way we generate the story... ???
Brian Richman I might have been a little rambly… I've had people show images and immediately tell me what kind of film it was taken on. Or I see people arguing on and on in forums about the superiority of one sensor over another. This type of obsession is fine in context, but I think often it keeps people from actually making images. They are so tuned in to the fine details.
"a little rambly…" That's a nice phrase. I'll have to remember that for the future... You have been warned!!! ;-)
Brian Richman ha! You do bring up an interesting topic though - I think it is worth exploring more what the relationship between medium and message is exactly.