How do you define photography?

[prince]

Hello Everyone,
I was talking to one of my friends and we got into this topic, I guess a debate, about what is photography? In his opinion, photography is ONLY about "an image directly from the camera, in its purest form, without any post processing" not even adjusting brightness, contrast, sharpness, not even a hint of photoshoping or using any graphic editing software..

I was, and am of the opinion that post processing is an important and integral part of photography. Though not all images require to be post processed.

All the various blogs of professionals I have visited, from and off the forum, have images, almost all of those that are on sites, which are post processed.

So what finally is photography? How do you say it's a "photograph" vs. "image" (I mean image = edited image) where you are not sure if it is the person's photography skills or his/her image editing skills..

Thought I'd put out for discussion and see what others think.

I'd love to know your views.

Thanks

[Major_Small]

In it's strictest, from the book definition, photography is capturing an image on any light-sensitive surface. So taking the picture is an act of photography. Anything done after is, well, done after. But probably about 90% of the work you see out there is post processed in some way. Whether it's "straight from the camera" or not. If the image was ever in a format other than the camera's native RAW format, it's been processed somewhere by something.

As for how much (or "what kind of" may be more accurate) processing turns a photograph into something else, well that's a call you'd have to make on your own.

[dakwegmo]

One of the things that intrigues me about the various attempts to redefine "photography" in the digital age, is that most new definitions exclude every photograph ever shot on film. The idea that photography is only about an image taken directly from the camera is utterly ridiculous when applied to film. Film has to be post processed in order to even see the images that were captured. Photographers have always manipulated the developing and printing process to achieve the desired results. Why shouldn't digital photographers receive the same latitude when processing their images? And if the camera image is the key "without adjusting brightness, contrast, sharpness" does this mean that these adjustments made within camera are acceptable but something other than a photograph is created when processed through a RAW converter? I am inclined to agree with Major_Small, only you can define when an image becomes something other than a photo.

[prince]

@ Major_Small and @dakwegmo - I am very much in agreement with you both. In this digital age or rather any age, photography has never been in it's strictest form. There is always some amount of post processing involved.

An example me and my friend were discussing on was
He: An image of earth is converted to an image of mars in PS.. is that a photograph any longer?
Me: No. But what if am image of an earth is taken and adjusted the sharpness, contrast, colors, so that the blue, green, etc etc. pops out to make the original photo look more interesting.
To me it is still a photograph.. So he asked "where do you draw the line"?

I think once the photo loses it's original meaning or content (earth turning into mars) I would say it has crossed the line.

I doubt photography in its truest form exists, unless you are at the perfect place, at perfect time, with perfect setting...

I hope more members reply and express their opinion on this...

[Mr Guy]

Well, in it's STRICTEST form, photography means writing down light. As far as I know, there's only been a few instances that would qualify as truly "pure" photography, and they occurred when the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima was so bright it burned the shadows of those in front of it into nearby surfaces:



Everything else is manipulating light to create an image. To me, it's the result that matters. Even colors and filters don't really matter, because you can distort light however you wish. To me, it only transfers from photography to image manipulation when you ADD or REMOVE subjects that weren't originally there. As long as the image comes from bouncing radiation off something that was in front of some sort of imaging medium, what you do with that radiation after it's been captured is, to me, irrelevant.

[geotography]

This is an interesting question and there will be many perspectives.

For me, I see the act of composing, thoughtfully and creatively, with a camera, as an art form or artistic expression. A human creates visual form with the use of a tool, be it a brush, a carving knife, a welding torch or, a camera. All digital information requires some level of processing as does film medium. More involved post-processing is, to me, an extension of that photographic art form.

Thanks for posting the thread. I think it is good for us to ponder these things; although, I must say that I am not compelled to always define or categorize things that just are. Humans have continuously reinvented their creative expression and art forms. Heavier post-processing is simply a reinvention of the photographic art form.

Thanks again for the thread

[prince]

@Geotography - You are welcome. I did think this will be an interesting topic.. Not as much for the conclusion, but it will bring out the perspective people have.
@Mr Guy - That was some deep explanation, which was well followed up by Geotography.

And thats what I thought to myself that photography is very rare or rather unheard of in recent times to be in its "purest" or "strictest" form.

To me, it only transfers from photography to image manipulation when you ADD or REMOVE subjects that weren't originally there.

I was trying to make this point in my previous reply when I said

I think once the photo loses it's original meaning or content (earth turning into mars) I would say it has crossed the line.

[Mr Guy]

Heh, I must have made a mental transposition, I read "meaning and content" as "meaning and intent". Call me post modernist, but I'm not huge on preserving the artist's original meaning. I've said it here before, but I do think it's important to remember that until very recently, art was pretty much whatever you could get someone to pay for (ie patronize), and if someone thought your results had enough value to survive, you could live as an artist. Otherwise you get a different job! That's why I focus on photography in terms of the original content, because I think you are free to do whatever you want to change the image until the viewers get the tone you were shooting for in the display of that image, regardless of how the image looked to the camera originally.

[prince]

haha.. np.. for me I think photography and post processing go hand in hand.. I mean there is some amount of rework or touch-up required to make the photo look better.. as long as I dont transform the photo entirely like changing an earth photo to mars I believe I am into photography ...

I wish there are more thoughts into this may be there are more perspectives to this topic

[prince]

Ok, my friend's brain is very curious after reading this thread.. so for him I am going to ask this question..
When the photographers get awards for their photos "photograph of the year", do they allow manipulation (post processing), and how do they decide on the winner?

How do they figure out how much PP is done and all that?