What is a photograph?

KILL FAJITAS !! =p

just kidding.

I think a photo is the thing you actually physically hold in your hand btw. Its the end result that is important.

I think a central question is whether the meaning of a word can change or is locked to the original intended meaning.

The word photograph has greek roots:
Photo = light.
Graph = write, draw, describe, record.

The word photo(light) has expanded in definition beyond that part of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to ancient greek eyes, so now includes the infra-red band for example. For me that alone is a slam dunk, the full meaning of a word can change as knowledge and technology expand.

If we stuck with the greek roots for our definition of 'photograph' then a sketch, painting or even narrative describing a vision could be a photograph and the vision could be imaginary, but a new word can expand or reduce the meaning of it's combined roots without affecting them, so 'photograph' coined in 1839 by Sir John Herschel can be taken as more specific and originally intended to relate to the chemical processes of the day. The field was already exploding with different technologies and so the set of things fitting the definition of 'photograph' has expanded.

There are almost 8 pages on "photography" in Chambers's Encyclopaedia Vol VIII of 1891:

Photography, the art of producing pictures by means of the action of light on sensitised surfaces. It is usual to regard the observation by the alchemists of the 16th century that Luna Cornea or Horn Silver (native chloride of silver) is blackened on exposure to light, as the first chemical step in the history of photography, while the foundation of photographic optics was laid by Della Porta in the invention of the camera obscura (1569) at a somewhat earlier period.

The honour of having been the first to produce pictures by the action of light on a sensitive surface is now very generally conceded to Thomas Wedgewood, an account of whose researches was published in 1802 in the Journal of the Royal institution, under the title, 'An Account of a Method of Copying Paintings upon Glass, and of making Profiles by the agency of Light upon Nitrate of Silver; with Observations by H.Davy.'

Wedgewood couldn't fix his images but there is a hint of experiments as far back as ~1791 in a letter from Watt (Chapter XIII) referring to "silver pictures".

Niepce however mastered fixing, so he is often credited with producing the first photograph using his heliograph (sun-writing) process (1825 image of an etching according to wikipedia, or 'A View from a Window' 1826 according to wikipedia, 1814 by Chambers's, 1816 by niepce.com). Strictly speaking his was the first photograph with 'good' persistance even when exposed to daylight, but not the first photograph.

On Jan 25th 1839 William Fox Talbot showed his 'Photogenic Drawings' at the Royal Institution and on the 31st described his process using paper coated with Silver Iodide to produce 'negative' and 'positive' images, though Herschel seems credited with coining those terms in that year. The Daguerrotype was also introduced that year, then subsequently the Chrysotype, Calotype, Ambrotype, Tinytype, the Collodion process, and it has kept expanding.

So the word 'photograph' covers things originally named silver picture, heliograph etc., and as the technologies continued to proliferate so has the full description of the word photograph, it has never been a static set.

Regardless of all the history, common use of the word among the upcoming bebo generation now assumes digital, you'd generally have to specify film or even print.

Generally speaking a photograph is whatever i want it to be.

Personally, i deal in the finished image and once that matches up to what i set out to do in the first place i am happy.

As far as i am concerned, drawing lines and implying you don't like or wouldn't do something simply means you are limiting your own creativity.

Don't get me wrong, everyone should have and discover and enjoy their own sense of photography is. The second you start telling me what mine should be is the day i tell you to **** yourself.

Anouilh wrote: »

There are many groups on Flickr that could help refine ideas on this topic, notably:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/94837392@N00/discuss/

I have to admit that I seem to have outgrown many undergrad discussions which ultimately are more a means of bonding with other people than in coming to any decisions on life, photography and naming of parts.

A photography is probably an image captured in light, as anybody who joins the Light Painters Group will find.

The optics of digital cameras, optical glass and sensors have caused me to read a bit more, so as to understand what I am doing.

Interesting link thanks, just had a quick read about Barthes punctum on wikipaedia.

I can't recall if we discussed this before, but a bard once pronounced "a writer writes for himself, or for no-one". Rather than an amoral call for selfishness, it recognises that a writer, or to extend - a photographer, cannot control the subjective perception of others, so should singly focus on personal satisfaction in his/her work. The only perception one can use as a guage is ones own, at least satisfy that or you may satisfy none. Personal change over time plays a role, I may be delighted with my work today, but not tomorrow, or visa versa.

This approach of promoting personal satisfaction with the work requires discipline, because of our innate desires to be fully understood and appreciated by others, deep emotional needs that crave satisfaction at every turn, particularly when neglected. Those needs are best satisfied in meatspace, online interaction even realtime audiovisual, is no substitute for physical contact for example, the simplest of things yet the most fulfilling.

Photography as an art then becomes primarily a subjective personal thing without apology, anything after that is a bonus.

elven wrote: »

But how many of us would continue to shoot in any way as profusely if we weren't sharing the results with anyone else?

Photography as an act, is very much like just pointing and saying "look what I saw". Would you do that if there was nobody to tell what you saw?

Sorry, a little o/t

No worries at all, I've no loyalty to this idea, just testing it out really. Your point is well taken, I'm not arguing against sharing as the last line in my post vaguely implies "anything after that is a bonus". I share photos myself both for feedback as I learn and hoping that others may derive some aesthetic satisfaction or what not.

The main point is that perfect communication is impossible, we are diverse in nature and nurture and changing over time. For example what I find appealing may not be so to others and visa versa, or what I perceive as important can be very different to the perceptions of others.

So for any given artistic expression, you cannot be in anyone elses mind like a Vulcan mind-meld to verify accurate reception, only your own. If your work gets the message through to you perfectly, that's the best you can do, then share it with the world and let people take it in their own ways.

I think Barthes was on a hiding to nothing in seeking the holy grail of punctum - the ability of a photograph to punch through and make the precise impact the photographer intended. Take any pulitzer photograph, ask ten people to write about it and you'll get ten different stories. There'll be overlaps for sure, but not the perfection of communication Barthes seemed to seek.

When he wrote camera lucida apparently half of it was about his grief having lost his mother. It suggests to me that he was unable to deal with his grief in the normal way, and in large part because he sought refuge in communication, as though someone else experiencing his state accurately were the solution. As the song goes, every form of refuge has its price. I think most people are happy if someone can empathise with them in their plight, but don't actually expect that person to have lived an identical life which is what is needed for identical perception. The closest I can imagine is Siamese twins.