Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 27, 2010, 4:12 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Since a photograph is a photograph and since there is Nothing in the definition about cameras, then a photograph from a rendering program meets the definition - Which is why I call it a delemma. And it also means that you do Not agree with the definition.

Dave
You are correct...a camera is not mentioned. However, the word photograph is mentioned in the definition. And a photographed is defined as:

pho·to·graph (ft-grf)n. An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

v. pho·to·graphed, pho·to·graph·ing, pho·to·graphs
v.tr. To take a photograph of.

v.intr.1. To practice photography.
2. To be the subject for photographs:

I will assume that since a camera is mentioned in the definition of a photograph (which is the result of photography by definition), then a camera is required to practice photography. So I guess it's ok for me to agree.

Of course, rendering software is not mentioned, so maybe you are strictly right, and we do have a dilemma.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 4:35 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjseeney View Post
You are correct...a camera is not mentioned. However, the word photograph is mentioned in the definition. And a photographed is defined as:

pho·to·graph An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

v. pho·to·graphed, pho·to·graph·ing, pho·to·graphs
v.tr. To take a photograph of.

v.intr.1. To practice photography.
2. To be the subject for photographs:

I will assume that since a camera is mentioned in the definition of a photograph (which is the result of photography by definition), then a camera is required to practice photography. So I guess it's ok for me to agree.

Of course, rendering software is not mentioned, so maybe you are strictly right, and we do have a dilemma.
Sorry, no good, your definition specifically states, "especially a positive print, recorded by a camera"

Meaning that you don't need a camera.

Other dictionaries don't even mention camera at all!

Quote:
pho·to·graph
   /ˈfoʊtəˌgræf, -ˌgrɑf/ Show Spelled[foh-tuh-graf, -grahf] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a picture produced by photography.
–verb (used with object)
2.
to take a photograph of.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary,

Quote:
Word Origin & History

photograph
1839, "picture obtained by photography," coined by Sir John Herschel from photo- + -graph "instrument for recording." It won out over other suggestions, such as photogene and heliograph. Neo-Anglo-Saxonists prefer sunprint. The verb and photography also are first attested 1839, all from a paper read before the Royal Society on March 1
Online Etymology Dictionary
As you are probably aware, there are numerous machines that allow you to transfer photographs from your computer directly to a positive print. Such machines couldn't care less about the source of the photograph.

But it gets worse. If I hang one of my "photographs" in a gallery, are you going to stand there and protest, saying, "But you didn't use a camera, it's Not a photograph! Who ever heard of a dog fighting it out with a giant bug?"

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 5:27 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Every definition of "photograph" includes the provision that it is an image created by recording light. If you didn't record light to create the image, then it's not a "photograph".
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 6:48 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Ok RJ. Im with ya. If it comes from a camera its a photograph. But once in the computer how much manipulation before you would say...No this picture is ineligible for entry into the Photo contest because of ......
I take a lot of pictures, some of which I had plans to work on and treating them as only the beginning steps of a final image. Does a photo always remain a photo no matter what gets done to it?

Good input Tcav. clearer definition of a photograph and closer to one that makes some sense to me. Recorded light. Not light created by a plugin.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 6:53 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Every definition of "photograph" includes the provision that it is an image created by recording light. If you didn't record light to create the image, then it's not a "photograph".
Modeling programs have all the bells and whistles of photographic lingo, Including the placement, direction, intensity, etc, etc of lights and light. I not only have total contol of the lights, but I have total control of the "ambient light." At least the high end ones do. Indeed, movies like "Avatar" depend on such programs. There are better programs then the one I use, but "Strata Professional," is up there. I don't render my scenes, I take a "snap shot." I might add, a 32 bit snapshot...

Nor am I quibbling here. After all, when you load an image into Photoshop, you [I]do almost the exact same thing - Raising the light, or if you use the Rendering filter, "Lighting Effects," what is that?

"A Touch of Summer"



Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 6:56 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post

Good input Tcav. clearer definition of a photograph and closer to one that makes some sense to me. Recorded light. Not light created by a plugin.
I don't think any of us, including me have thought this through. Recorded light as opposed to light created by a plug in?

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 7:08 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Modeling programs have all the bells and whistles of photographic lingo, Including the placement, direction, intensity, etc, etc of lights and light. ...
What happens in the virtual world doesn't actually exist, as much as some of us might like to think it does.

I just read somewhere that a student paid $28,500 (that's real money, not virtual money) for an island in some virtual world. He's earning about $10,000 per month (again, real money) charging people a fee to come to hunt on his virtual island .

But that's not we're talking about. The "light" you're talking about isn't actually 'light', however 'photorealistic' it might be.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Feb 27, 2010 at 7:11 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 7:14 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Just for a pause from this. What is your opinion. Is this a photo or a piece of art?
Attached Images
 
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 7:48 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Just for a pause from this. What is your opinion. Is this a photo or a piece of art?
Far more relevant; is she single?

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 7:58 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
What happens in the virtual world doesn't actually exist, as much as some of us might like to think it does.
You have got to be kidding me...

Here we are talking about image processing, filters, HDR, this technique and that technique, and you're going to say, uh, "This is real light, and THIS is fake light?" Heck, when you're working in your computer and you dramatically alter the light, that somehow makes it real? In what way?

I do believe that there are purists who tell us that even working with the computer is a violation of the Bible and Gods laws.

NB. I'm not happy with the dictionary definition. I gather that Your not happy as well. Let us not pretend that in some strange manner, "virtual" photographs are not photographs, but the most complex form of processing, magically is not virtual.

I don't know about you, but I'm not going back to chemicals and the dark room. (If I was, I would really be ranting at you damn heretics!)

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:58 AM.