| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/17/2014 04:47:40 PM · #1 |
| I'm certainly not the only one who thinks this thread has pretty much run its course. It's about time to shut 'er down and devote our energies to less circular pursuits, eh? Onwards 'n upwards, citizens! |
|
|
|
05/17/2014 02:05:54 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And where's the question that I was asked? I only see statements in the quoted remarks. I cannot answer questions which weren't asked. I am many things, but I am not a mind reader.
I've asked lots of questions here, about what others would consider a photograph, and have yet to receive an answer to many of them. |
If you need it posed in the form of a question, then Spork, what do YOU consider a photograph?
This is a query. it is not a threat nor an attack. |
A question is usually in the form of an actual question so that the person being asked knows that it's a question and NOT a statement.
In any event, how about you answer first, I've asked plenty of times and the only conclusion I've gotten to, via a hodge-
podge of replies from various people is that photography is whatever you want it to be. So, taken to the extreme, a bridge can be a photograph if you want it to and that's just as good as saying a picture from a camera is a photograph. I got no definitive answer when I asked if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph, is it? How about starting with a blank exposure and simply drawing on that? The result would have EXIF data and everything. How is that different than what typically succeeds under Expert rules? |
Yes, I have answered, and so have many others who have bothered to follow this exchange. So far, the only person who has not contributed their "definitive answer" (or any other kind of opinion) is you. We all have made an effort to verbalize our thoughts; that they do not meet your definition (which is still a mystery) does not mean we have not tried to respond to you. Anyone can reject anyone else's opinion. But without offering their own, the rejector becomes irrelevant to discussion.
To address your question directly ("if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph"), if the image is made from a ton of different things OTHER than a photograph, [b]IMO it is not a "photograph".[/b]
So now, your turn. I cannot ask it any more clearly. My question was simple and said nothing about photoshop. But let me try again:
Spork, what, according to you, is a "photograph". And please, make it a "definitive answer" :) |
You only answered one of my questions and with the most circular answer to a question I've ever come across. It's a photograph if it's a photograph. So if you change the photograph in photoshop, it's no longer a photograph because it's now something made in photoshop, which is not a photograph. HUH? What differentiates that from taking a picture of the inside of your lens cap and making every part of the image from that in photoshop? Everything in the result would have "come from" a photograph and according to you, that would make it a photograph, but the exact same thing created from a blank in photoshop is not, is that correct? If not, what do you mean? |
I'm done. I answered your question, regardless of what you think of the answer. You have yet to provide an answer of any sort to my direct question. Answering a question with a question is avoidance. Give and take or it's just you bashing whatever anyone says. |
|
|
|
05/17/2014 01:30:58 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by tanguera:
To address your question directly ("if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph"), if the image is made from a ton of different things OTHER than a photograph, IMO it is not a "photograph".
|
This is the most cricular thing I have ever heard in my whole life.
What is a photograph. A photograph is something that is made from photographs.
Excellent. A very definite answer. You really nailed it.
:-D |
You gotta keep up! The question he posed was "if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph". The implication is that NO photographs were used. Ergo, my "circular" answer. |
Why isn't it though? It would be just as easy to take an image of the inside of a lens cap, fully black and use Photoshop to the exact same image from that, changing colors, brightness etc. So that would be a photograph, right? |
|
|
|
05/17/2014 01:27:44 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And where's the question that I was asked? I only see statements in the quoted remarks. I cannot answer questions which weren't asked. I am many things, but I am not a mind reader.
I've asked lots of questions here, about what others would consider a photograph, and have yet to receive an answer to many of them. |
If you need it posed in the form of a question, then Spork, what do YOU consider a photograph?
This is a query. it is not a threat nor an attack. |
A question is usually in the form of an actual question so that the person being asked knows that it's a question and NOT a statement.
In any event, how about you answer first, I've asked plenty of times and the only conclusion I've gotten to, via a hodge-
podge of replies from various people is that photography is whatever you want it to be. So, taken to the extreme, a bridge can be a photograph if you want it to and that's just as good as saying a picture from a camera is a photograph. I got no definitive answer when I asked if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph, is it? How about starting with a blank exposure and simply drawing on that? The result would have EXIF data and everything. How is that different than what typically succeeds under Expert rules? |
Yes, I have answered, and so have many others who have bothered to follow this exchange. So far, the only person who has not contributed their "definitive answer" (or any other kind of opinion) is you. We all have made an effort to verbalize our thoughts; that they do not meet your definition (which is still a mystery) does not mean we have not tried to respond to you. Anyone can reject anyone else's opinion. But without offering their own, the rejector becomes irrelevant to discussion.
To address your question directly ("if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph"), if the image is made from a ton of different things OTHER than a photograph, [b]IMO it is not a "photograph".[/b]
So now, your turn. I cannot ask it any more clearly. My question was simple and said nothing about photoshop. But let me try again:
Spork, what, according to you, is a "photograph". And please, make it a "definitive answer" :) |
You only answered one of my questions and with the most circular answer to a question I've ever come across. It's a photograph if it's a photograph. So if you change the photograph in photoshop, it's no longer a photograph because it's now something made in photoshop, which is not a photograph. HUH? What differentiates that from taking a picture of the inside of your lens cap and making every part of the image from that in photoshop? Everything in the result would have "come from" a photograph and according to you, that would make it a photograph, but the exact same thing created from a blank in photoshop is not, is that correct? If not, what do you mean?
|
|
|
|
05/16/2014 08:27:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by ecroce:
I have to agree with Marluca regarding the fact that 'minimal editing' challenges are a breath of fresh air... Too bad they are few and far between.
Not sure why we can't have a minimal editing challenge every other week together with the slew of 'advanced editing' and 'expert editing' challenges that are opened every week. |
It seems to me that 30-60% of the challenges posted are from ideas in recent "Challenge Suggestions" threads -- suggest some suitable topics and specify you want Minimal editing and there should be a better chance of having some posted.
Message edited by author 2014-05-16 20:28:00. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 06:22:14 PM · #6 |
I have to agree with Marluca regarding the fact that 'minimal editing' challenges are a breath of fresh air... Too bad they are few and far between.
Not sure why we can't have a minimal editing challenge every other week together with the slew of 'advanced editing' and 'expert editing' challenges that are opened every week.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2014 05:13:50 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by tanguera:
To address your question directly ("if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph"), if the image is made from a ton of different things OTHER than a photograph, IMO it is not a "photograph".
|
This is the most cricular thing I have ever heard in my whole life.
What is a photograph. A photograph is something that is made from photographs.
Excellent. A very definite answer. You really nailed it.
:-D |
You gotta keep up! The question he posed was "if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph". The implication is that NO photographs were used. Ergo, my "circular" answer. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 05:01:33 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by tanguera:
To address your question directly ("if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph"), if the image is made from a ton of different things OTHER than a photograph, IMO it is not a "photograph".
|
This is the most cricular thing I have ever heard in my whole life.
What is a photograph. A photograph is something that is made from photographs.
Excellent. A very definite answer. You really nailed it.
:-D |
Woah! Look who's here!!! Are you back to grace us with some of your photography, or you just felt like sparring a bit in the forums? :-D Cool to see you here.
Um ... please, Please, PLEASE, tell me you didn't venture back because the site is going all "Expert" on us. LOL |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 04:55:48 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
To address your question directly ("if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph"), if the image is made from a ton of different things OTHER than a photograph, IMO it is not a "photograph".
|
This is the most cricular thing I have ever heard in my whole life.
What is a photograph. A photograph is something that is made from photographs.
Excellent. A very definite answer. You really nailed it.
:-D |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 04:27:42 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And where's the question that I was asked? I only see statements in the quoted remarks. I cannot answer questions which weren't asked. I am many things, but I am not a mind reader.
I've asked lots of questions here, about what others would consider a photograph, and have yet to receive an answer to many of them. |
If you need it posed in the form of a question, then Spork, what do YOU consider a photograph?
This is a query. it is not a threat nor an attack. |
A question is usually in the form of an actual question so that the person being asked knows that it's a question and NOT a statement.
In any event, how about you answer first, I've asked plenty of times and the only conclusion I've gotten to, via a hodge-
podge of replies from various people is that photography is whatever you want it to be. So, taken to the extreme, a bridge can be a photograph if you want it to and that's just as good as saying a picture from a camera is a photograph. I got no definitive answer when I asked if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph, is it? How about starting with a blank exposure and simply drawing on that? The result would have EXIF data and everything. How is that different than what typically succeeds under Expert rules? |
Yes, I have answered, and so have many others who have bothered to follow this exchange. So far, the only person who has not contributed their "definitive answer" (or any other kind of opinion) is you. We all have made an effort to verbalize our thoughts; that they do not meet your definition (which is still a mystery) does not mean we have not tried to respond to you. Anyone can reject anyone else's opinion. But without offering their own, the rejector becomes irrelevant to discussion.
To address your question directly ("if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph"), if the image is made from a ton of different things OTHER than a photograph, IMO it is not a "photograph".
So now, your turn. I cannot ask it any more clearly. My question was simple and said nothing about photoshop. But let me try again:
Spork, what, according to you, is a "photograph". And please, make it a "definitive answer" :) |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 04:02:38 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I got no definitive answer when I asked if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph, is it? |
If an image were made wholly in Photoshop, it is not a photograph; it's a photoshoppograph! Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all night.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2014 03:58:20 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And where's the question that I was asked? I only see statements in the quoted remarks. I cannot answer questions which weren't asked. I am many things, but I am not a mind reader.
I've asked lots of questions here, about what others would consider a photograph, and have yet to receive an answer to many of them. |
If you need it posed in the form of a question, then Spork, what do YOU consider a photograph?
This is a query. it is not a threat nor an attack. |
A question is usually in the form of an actual question so that the person being asked knows that it's a question and NOT a statement.
In any event, how about you answer first, I've asked plenty of times and the only conclusion I've gotten to, via a hodge-
podge of replies from various people is that photography is whatever you want it to be. So, taken to the extreme, a bridge can be a photograph if you want it to and that's just as good as saying a picture from a camera is a photograph. I got no definitive answer when I asked if a creation made wholly in Photoshop is a photograph, is it? How about starting with a blank exposure and simply drawing on that? The result would have EXIF data and everything. How is that different than what typically succeeds under Expert rules? |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 02:03:12 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
And where's the question that I was asked? I only see statements in the quoted remarks. I cannot answer questions which weren't asked. I am many things, but I am not a mind reader.
I've asked lots of questions here, about what others would consider a photograph, and have yet to receive an answer to many of them. |
If you need it posed in the form of a question, then Spork, what do YOU consider a photograph?
This is a query. it is not a threat nor an attack. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 01:40:30 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Spork, you're awfully talented at telling us what is NOT a photograph, and not very keen on telling us how YOU define a photograph. |
And you're awfully talented at telling us that it doesn't matter because everything is a photograph. |
And you once again successfully dodge answering the question ... besides mis-stating you "opponent's" position ... |
What is my "opponents" position? Are they attacking or threatening me? The two are different, no? From what I see in this thread, their position is that which constitutes a "photograph" is wide open to anything and everything. If that is NOT the proposed definition, what is their definition? Why is a bridge or my big toe NOT a photograph. With the level of Photoshop in the "photographs" being discussed, why is a camera even necessary except to create a base with the required, for DPC anyway, EXIF data, upon which to construct the entire image?
And where's the question that I was asked? I only see statements in the quoted remarks. I cannot answer questions which weren't asked. I am many things, but I am not a mind reader.
I've asked lots of questions here, about what others would consider a photograph, and have yet to receive an answer to many of them.
Message edited by author 2014-05-16 13:55:34. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 01:33:51 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Spork, you're awfully talented at telling us what is NOT a photograph, and not very keen on telling us how YOU define a photograph. |
And you're awfully talented at telling us that it doesn't matter because everything is a photograph. |
And you once again successfully dodge answering the question ... besides mis-stating you "opponent's" position ... |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 01:18:20 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Spork, you're awfully talented at telling us what is NOT a photograph, and not very keen on telling us how YOU define a photograph. |
And you're awfully talented at telling us that it doesn't matter because everything is a photograph. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 12:52:10 PM · #17 |
| Spork, you're awfully talented at telling us what is NOT a photograph, and not very keen on telling us how YOU define a photograph. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 11:56:34 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
OK, so if it really is "anything is a photograph" I could build a bridge and call it a photograph |
I recall a competition/exhibition (actually I was a participant) where the winning entry was this:
The artist made a paper cone. Then he took an an analogue photograph of the cone; a quite well lit and composed though necessarily simple image. Then he made a small (6x6?) print from the negative, and did not use any fixer. Then he destroyed the negative. He entered the print in the competition and won. The print continued to naturally develop while mounted on the wall in the gallery, gradually darkening. He timed it so that the cone was still clearly evident at the judging, but was already fading to full black by the time the post-judging exhibition ended.
The point of the work was to explore the question of "What is a photograph" by deliberately having the image of the paper cone disappear. Among the many questions raised was, "If it was self-evidently a photograph to begin with, but apparently not a photograph at the end (these positions were pretty much agreed by everyone asked for an opinion), at what point did it cease to be a photograph?" It's a puzzle somewhat similar to Magritte's pipe. And to this forum thread.
The elegant post script is that it was an acquisitive competition, so the competition's sponsor became owners of a black square.
Message edited by author 2014-05-16 12:00:42. |
|
|
|
05/16/2014 08:12:15 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by nygold:
No Star Wars, no Avavtar, no Terminator, no Matrix, etc.... Just Jersey shore :P |
no, they watch Star wars, only episodes 4-6, 1-3 are digital special effect garbage to them. ;) |
1-3 are garbage for lots of reasons, starting with Jar-Jar Binks. Even my kids hated him from the start. |
first there is an edited version that cuts out jar jar, its the first three combined to 87min or so. i have yet to watch it.
second only the stipulation of photographic in nature exists pretty much on dpc and no one else really cares how you create your art, besides it wouldn't pass validation without a photograph. |
So, start with an exposure of the inside of the lenscap...every pixel full black.
OK, so if it really is "anything is a photograph" I could build a bridge and call it a photograph |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 11:39:39 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by nygold:
No Star Wars, no Avavtar, no Terminator, no Matrix, etc.... Just Jersey shore :P |
no, they watch Star wars, only episodes 4-6, 1-3 are digital special effect garbage to them. ;) |
1-3 are garbage for lots of reasons, starting with Jar-Jar Binks. Even my kids hated him from the start. |
first there is an edited version that cuts out jar jar, its the first three combined to 87min or so. i have yet to watch it.
second only the stipulation of photographic in nature exists pretty much on dpc and no one else really cares how you create your art, besides it wouldn't pass validation without a photograph. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:55:47 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So we've both put our opinions out there - obviously we both feel passionately about our POV. |
In the case of a draw, the points go to tolerance. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:46:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by nygold:
No Star Wars, no Avavtar, no Terminator, no Matrix, etc.... Just Jersey shore :P |
no, they watch Star wars, only episodes 4-6, 1-3 are digital special effect garbage to them. ;) |
1-3 are garbage for lots of reasons, starting with Jar-Jar Binks. Even my kids hated him from the start. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:43:51 PM · #23 |
So if they created an entire image in Photoshop is it still photograph? How would you even know? Why even bother with the camera? It's not like it's even necessary.
Originally posted by Mike:
so its the same argument, composition in darkroom or in Photoshop.
the end product was great for its time and technology makes it better and easier to create fantastic stuff.
I love photography, does it really matter how its made? nope not to me. |
Message edited by author 2014-05-15 23:07:49. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 09:59:58 PM · #24 |
| Reminds me of the guy who said "An opinion is just the place you stop when you get tired of thinking." :-) |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 09:06:31 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
According to you ... to others, the following is NOT a photograph anymore.
 |
That's the same argument in reverse. If you submit that posthumous' argument is weak you condemn your own to be in no sense any stronger. |
Yeah. He already used that argument. So we've both put our opinions out there - obviously we both feel passionately about our POV.
Although I still think this statement (which you omitted) doesn't hold water. :-D
Originally posted by posthumous:
What Gyaban does is photography because it's nothing else. ... |
|
|
