A new definition for photography
23/03/09 22:08 Filed in: photographic culture
A new proposal for the definition of photography
The new e-book readers, like the Kindle, will for the first time in history, separate the reading experience from the printed page. In the past, reading was directly coupled to the availability of the printed pages and the printed book. From now on, reading a text can be done from a screen where the text is digitally projected on a screen.
Books will loose part of their use, but will continue to be printed as objects of design and art. Reading a text can be done more easily with an e-book reader, but the physical pleasure of leafing through a well printed book will be lost.
When discussing photography, classical or actual, digitally captured or chemically preserved, the focus has always been on the technique of capturing and the available instruments. Perhaps it makes sense to change the focus: a painting is only then a true painting when there is a canvas and a brush and paint. It does not matter who or what operates the brush: a human or a robot. The final result is a physical object: a canvas covered with paint that is deposited on the surface by a brush.
The inventors of photography were focused on the final result, the print or the Daguerrotype. A negative was just an intermediate step to get the final result. As Ansel Adams noted, the negative is the base, but the print is what counts.
But there was more: the technical base of photography was the proportional response of chemical matter to the intensity of light. And the whole process of development and printing was focused on preserving tonal values and tonal range.
The negative was not always perfect and some changes in tonality were accepted: dodging and burning, matching the characteristic curve of the negative to the gradient of the print emulsion. The whole process of photography was dedicated to get a range of tonal values into the physical print that resembled to a large degree the tonal distribution of the original scene.
In fact the only changes allowed (or possible) in the chemical process were changes in tonal value and range/contrast.
Let us now try to define the true photographic process: the process reproduces the tonal values and range of the recorded scene/subject and produces a physical print with a comparable range and factual distribution of tonal values as are seen in the original scene. The claim that the distribution of tonal values in the print should be identical to the original distribution in the scene rules out any manipulation of the image other that a change in tonal values.
This definition is independent from the technical process: a digital camera and a digital print do qualify as a true photograph if the restriction to tonal changes is accepted and the final result is a physical print that cannot be manipulated.
To be concrete: A picture with an M8 and developed with a certain program and printed with the Epson 3800 on Hahnemühle baryta paper is equal to a picture by an M7 loaded with TMax100 and printed on Ilford baryta paper with the Heiland Splitgrade system.
In both cases there is a very restricted range of changes in tonal values and tonal range/contrast.
In the digital procedure we must be sure that the program only allows tonality changes and contrast changes based on matching characteristic curves and that the final result is a physical print. programs like RAW Developer in the Apple environment and Capture One would qualify as ‘chemical’ developers as they only offer a restricted range of manipulations closely related to the traditional darkroom process. And we must ensure that the in-camera processing is limited to tonal preservation. The Leica M8 in Raw modus would qualify, the Olympus E-30 would not, nor the Canon 5 D II: their software is too sophisticated!
A true photograph then is a physical print where the tonal values and contrast range are recorded as available in the scene and the subsequent processing is restricted to dodging, burning, toning and curve matching between negative and positive.
What we need in the digital realm are post processing programs with less options and manipulative capabilities than are offered currently by Photoshop and clones.
In the past this approach of direct recording and un-manipulated representing of the scene was referred to as straight photography. We could re-invent this approach and define true photography in this philosophy. Any departure would be called image manipulation or digital photography.
The new e-book readers, like the Kindle, will for the first time in history, separate the reading experience from the printed page. In the past, reading was directly coupled to the availability of the printed pages and the printed book. From now on, reading a text can be done from a screen where the text is digitally projected on a screen.
Books will loose part of their use, but will continue to be printed as objects of design and art. Reading a text can be done more easily with an e-book reader, but the physical pleasure of leafing through a well printed book will be lost.
When discussing photography, classical or actual, digitally captured or chemically preserved, the focus has always been on the technique of capturing and the available instruments. Perhaps it makes sense to change the focus: a painting is only then a true painting when there is a canvas and a brush and paint. It does not matter who or what operates the brush: a human or a robot. The final result is a physical object: a canvas covered with paint that is deposited on the surface by a brush.
The inventors of photography were focused on the final result, the print or the Daguerrotype. A negative was just an intermediate step to get the final result. As Ansel Adams noted, the negative is the base, but the print is what counts.
But there was more: the technical base of photography was the proportional response of chemical matter to the intensity of light. And the whole process of development and printing was focused on preserving tonal values and tonal range.
The negative was not always perfect and some changes in tonality were accepted: dodging and burning, matching the characteristic curve of the negative to the gradient of the print emulsion. The whole process of photography was dedicated to get a range of tonal values into the physical print that resembled to a large degree the tonal distribution of the original scene.
In fact the only changes allowed (or possible) in the chemical process were changes in tonal value and range/contrast.
Let us now try to define the true photographic process: the process reproduces the tonal values and range of the recorded scene/subject and produces a physical print with a comparable range and factual distribution of tonal values as are seen in the original scene. The claim that the distribution of tonal values in the print should be identical to the original distribution in the scene rules out any manipulation of the image other that a change in tonal values.
This definition is independent from the technical process: a digital camera and a digital print do qualify as a true photograph if the restriction to tonal changes is accepted and the final result is a physical print that cannot be manipulated.
To be concrete: A picture with an M8 and developed with a certain program and printed with the Epson 3800 on Hahnemühle baryta paper is equal to a picture by an M7 loaded with TMax100 and printed on Ilford baryta paper with the Heiland Splitgrade system.
In both cases there is a very restricted range of changes in tonal values and tonal range/contrast.
In the digital procedure we must be sure that the program only allows tonality changes and contrast changes based on matching characteristic curves and that the final result is a physical print. programs like RAW Developer in the Apple environment and Capture One would qualify as ‘chemical’ developers as they only offer a restricted range of manipulations closely related to the traditional darkroom process. And we must ensure that the in-camera processing is limited to tonal preservation. The Leica M8 in Raw modus would qualify, the Olympus E-30 would not, nor the Canon 5 D II: their software is too sophisticated!
A true photograph then is a physical print where the tonal values and contrast range are recorded as available in the scene and the subsequent processing is restricted to dodging, burning, toning and curve matching between negative and positive.
What we need in the digital realm are post processing programs with less options and manipulative capabilities than are offered currently by Photoshop and clones.
In the past this approach of direct recording and un-manipulated representing of the scene was referred to as straight photography. We could re-invent this approach and define true photography in this philosophy. Any departure would be called image manipulation or digital photography.