There have never been more creative options available to photographers. Whether it’s in camera, in post-production with software like Photoshop, or at the touch of a button on a smartphone app, choices seem limitless. But when is it no longer actual photography?
Among the wider photography community, which encompasses dozens of genres and styles, it’s almost impossible to get a definition of what photography actually means that is ubiquitously accepted. Almost everyone has their own interpretation of how they see photography through their own eyes, which means that how I see it might be completely different from how others see it and define it. To that end, I asked about 25 of my freshman photography students to give me a one-sentence definition of what they think photography means.
I sifted through all the sentences and the various definitions and separated them into common themes. By far and away, the most common ideas could be summarized like this: photography is seeing something interesting and capturing that moment in time with a camera. Of course, this is not a proclamation of any kind of official definition, it’s simply what 25 of my photography students came up with when they were asked to define the word. However, in reading this definition of theirs, I immediately had some questions and inner conflict that I found difficult to resolve, especially in the context of whether something is photography or closer to the realms of digital art.
Is Photography What You See?
The first part of the definition that tormented me related to the idea that, in part, photography is capturing what you see. Why did this torment me? My immediate thought was black and white photography. Regardless of whether you consider yourself a photographer who shoots in color, black and white, or both, I’m not sure anyone could successfully argue too often that whatever they see in front of them at the time is literally black and white. Yes, there might be exceptions such as a black road and a white pedestrian crossing, but my point is this: our eyes do not literally see the world in black and white. Our minds might visualize an image in black and white, but it’s not what our eyes literally see at the time. Take these images below, for example.
The above image is an unedited file taken in the south of Japan during a typhoon. I used a filter over the front of the lens in order to allow me to keep the shutter open for a few seconds so I could capture a sense of motion and commotion in the ocean. However, as soon as I got this shot, I knew I would edit it to create a final black and white image. Whenever I have a combination of motion, texture, and analogous color schemes in a single frame, I almost always edit in black and white.
I like how the edited black and white version above turned out, but in the context of defining photography in relation to it being something that we see, obviously, that is not what I saw when I took the original shot. In that sense, can it be called photography? Or is it digital art created by software?
Are Photography Capturing Moments?
The second conundrum I had regarding the definition my photography students came up with related to the idea that photography is about capturing moments in time. As you might have guessed from the images above, I love using filters, especially filters that allow for long exposures, such as the Lee Filters Big Stopper. I live in rural southwest Japan in an area that is full of lush valleys and verdant mountains. That means that not a lot of light gets into many of the areas that have waterfalls or flowing streams. As a result, if I use a 10-stop filter to create a long exposure in such conditions, I often have to use Bulb mode and keep the shutter open for minutes at a time. Take a look at the image below, for example.
In this image, I was wedged between two giant boulders and had my camera about a foot from this branch, which had become lodged as it flowed downstream. In getting this photo, there was nothing momentous about it. The exposure time was just over three minutes, as it was late evening and there was very, very little natural light available. Thus, if photography is about capturing moments in time, how would I describe this image, which took three minutes? In fact, adding a modicum of support for this concept, it’s not at all uncommon for people to say that long exposure photography is not real photography because it’s not what you saw (the favorite go-to for my mother).
Do Official Definitions Shed Any More Light?
Rather than using a definition created by 25 photography students, I went to the official Cambridge dictionary to see what it said about photography. Here’s it’s definition, verbatim: “the skill or activity of taking or processing photographs.” I don’t know about you, but as soon as I saw this, I was more confused than ever about what photography means. Why? Because this definition includes both taking and processing photographs.
Thus, is it fair to deduce from this Cambridge definition that anything done in camera or in post-production with software such as Lightroom or Photoshop constitutes photography? If that’s the case, then one could legitimately make the case that anything you do in post-production to an image taken with a camera could be called photography. Personally, I’m not sure I’m so comfortable with such an all-encompassing definition. Take a look at the images below for the purposes of argument. The first image is a quick shot I took of a guy getting out of the surf. I liked the shape of the swallow tail on his surfboard and knew I could work with it.
Below is what I came up with. It’s the same image, but I’ve obviously done a lot to it. I used tools in Photoshop such as the Liquify tool, the Clone Stamp tool, the Content-Aware Scale tool, and all manner of Adjustment Layers. In short, I went to town on it to see what sort of creation I could come up with. The finished image isn’t too bad if you like that kind of abstract thing, but is it photography?
According to the definition of my students, absolutely not. It’s not what I saw, not by a long shot. However, according to the Cambridge dictionary definition, it is photography, as its definition includes the processing of photographs. Interestingly, which definition do you think a random sample of 1,000 people on the street would be more likely to trust? To me, this is digital art, as it's had some heavy processing done to it. However, processing falls under the category of photography according to Cambridge, so where does that leave us?
Summing Up
In summing up, photography is not easy to define. Whether it’s black and white, long exposure photography, or images that have been heavily processed in computer software, everyone will have their own idea about what constitutes photography and what constitutes digital art. Where do you sit on the matter? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.
DEFINITIONS:
Visual art: a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination
Photography: the art OR practice of taking and processing photographs.
(Note the “OR” ).
Visual Art, can run the gamut of a toddler;'s scribbling with crayons on a wall, to Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
As to Photography VS Art: if a photographer at a location accidentally hits the Shutter button resulting in an image of spectacular quality, exceeding those consciously executed; to a viewer the image may appear to be art, though it would not meet the criteria of art creation.
Staging a scene to photograph, and/or manipulation in Post Processing comes closer to the definition of art then merely clicking a shutter button.
So many times I marvel at a great image and then my heart sinks when I see the word “composite”. To each his own. Wear a fake Rolex and add rainbows to all your photos.
Photographers were commonly doing composites more than a hundred years ago. There were probably few portrait photographers back then that didn't do composites. Nobody questioned it being photography.
Have you never showed your students William Mortensen
I've found in my professional experience that most of the people that balk at anything that flirts with the boundaries of the craft are generally criticised by those who are incapable of doing it. When the "available light" photographers look down on flash and adding light because it's too complicated to learn, or they can't do it in a convincing and natural way.
To me, any toolset that sees my creative capabilities expand I am happy for. Becoming skilled in Photoshop will be imperative going forward as a professional. If you're looking for a way to set yourself apart from the crowd of iPhone photographers, look to what those phones can't do.
Like trying to grab fog with your hands.
Once you start compositing, it's a new art form.
To me, photography is grabbing a moment in time.
Enhancing, post-processing that communicates THAT moment can be part of it.
The boundary where it ceases to be a reflection of an actual and real moment is left to the viewer.
First off, about definitions; there could be some debate about your interpretation of the word 'processing' in that dictionary definition. It's probably there because in analogue photography, it was not possible to view a photograph unless it had first been processed (bar Polaroid and other instantly printable photos). So processing is an essential part of analogue photography. Now we may argue that the same is true with digital RAW files, and that though they are viewable with a RAW-reading software, they cannot be printed or even viewed by the 'layman'. They have to be therefore processed into Jpeg files. HOWEVER. Is editing them beyond that point (and I refer to your painstaking work in Photoshop, with layers and masks and brushes) indeed processing? Is editing a part of processing, or is it a separate step? I maintain that it is separate.
Now, having said that, at what point does processing become editing? Is everything done in Photoshop after the conversion from RAW to Jpeg therefore editing? The removal of a tin can from an otherwise pristine beach is certainly editing, but is that then no longer photography? I think it is not. But does that then make the image no longer a photograph? Again, I think not. It is still a photograph, but the editing work being done on it at that point is probably not photography.
And my definition? I believe photography is 'the photographer's expression of a point in time'. It may not be what his physical eyes saw, but it is how he viewed that place at that time, expressing an emotion, a sensation, an idea.
So then, back in my wet darkroom days, if I did any dodging and burning, I was no longer doing "photography." What about cropping in the enlarger? Ferricyanide?
At that point, you've reduced "photography" to a mere mechanical exercise, and kicked Ansel Adams, W. Eugene Smith, and a host of other giants out of the club.
Any definition of "photography" that excludes such luminaries is the wrong definition of photography.
Did you not understand my point on processing vs editing? The original question itself suggests that there actually is a point where photography stops and digital artistry begins. There is no digital artistry in the darkroom anyway, so I'm not sure that's worth discussing. Digital art only exists where there is digital manipulation.
Your distinction between digital artistry and wet process artistry is fallacious. My avatar here is purely a matter of film wet processing, for instance.
Lol it is not my distinction; it is the distinction of Ian Stanley, who asked the original question, specifically mentioning digital art. The darkroom manipulation done to your avatar is still very basic stuff in the context of digital manipulation, and could be done in Lightroom in a couple of minutes. The fact that it takes two days to do it in the darkroom doesn't change what it is. You are still manipulating the process, so it is still photography. What Stanley has done with the image he has used as an example requires far more extensive editing.
What really should be the concern for photographers is robotics and AI, it is the biggest danger to all mankind. Whose development means "you are no longer needed". The conversation begins while our product will not replace humans but ends with the machine and software can do it better than humans. Most of the filters Photoshop has you could in processing, printing, or another step with graphic film prior to digital photography.
Photography might be a little like pornography - it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it. This is even more so in the case of photography, as it is all too obvious in some images that they have been manipulated. Aren't overly-manipulated photographs a bit corny when construed as actual photography, as we instinctively know that the situation they depict is not possible in experienced reality?
Photography, as the article points out, allows the image to be different from what you saw, ie. in black and white - we presuppose that the photographer was working in a historically-established medium, ie. Black and white film, which is definitely photography, as long as the resulting image is not discernable as having been manipulated to an unrealistic degree. There's a difference between what mediates between that original, inspiring visual perception and the audience, and the image itself - infra-red film, for example, is simply a medium.
Post-production is still part of photography, but as I learned as soon as digital cameras began to appear, you can make a good photograph great through post-production, but you can't make a badly-taken photo into a great photo without the manipulation becoming obvious.
Therefore my definition for photography is images taken with a camera that are discernable as grounded in real experience, though they may have diverged from that original visual perception to some degree, through post-production, filters or mediums established in photographic history such as infra-red film.