The virus and photography: give up your camera!

LCSmith said:
And yet, you take pictures of pictures. Whatever the "object" of a photographic process may be, the photographic process remains even if it is another picture. The "camera" that I use to scan my negatives is my scanner...
RichC said:
OP here...

I'm happy to call myself a photographer, and don't always use a camera. A project I'm finishing off uses "found" snaps of war in Finland from the 1940s that I've collected .. The two top rows are photos I took myself in Finland, the bottom row photos are not me but WW2 snapshots by anonymous photographers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's true for this project - I am scanning and reprinting the WW2 photos. But in other projects I exhibit found photos untouched, exactly as I got them - as here, from a gallery exhibition: it's an old photo album in which I've placed two photos, displayed on a plinth (part of my Insecta project).

I still consider myself a photographer! ;o)

49851337967_b429dfe401_c_d.jpg
 
RichC said:
That's true for this project - I am scanning and reprinting the WW2 photos. But in other projects I exhibit found photos untouched, exactly as I got them - as here, from a gallery exhibition: it's an old photo album in which I've placed two photos, displayed on a plinth (part of my Insecta project).

I still consider myself a photographer! ;o)
Click to expand...

You're of course free to consider yourself whatever you want, and if it's important to your well-being, I have no issue with adhering the label you identify as in your presence :) . But if you only did this and never used a camera (or had someone else push the button for you, the discussion of what part of the credit goes to art director vs. photographer, or when we call which of the two what, is a different one and also doesn't solve the issue of physical presence which is the premise of the thread) I wouldn't be able to identify you as a photographer. Same as for example a chef who uses meat isn't a butcher. We could discuss "photographic artist", how about that?
 
I consider myself a photographer on hold. Not much inside here I'd want the world to see at this moment, but I'm working on that. Plus planning how I'm going to revamp my gear, what cameras and lenses to get rid of, what to get to fill out the kits I'll be keeping. I've got enough stuff to open my own camera shop, but unfortunately usually only one of any item, unless you count all the boxes of filters.


PF
 
Street photos from cities and small towns around the world are enjoyable to me. Making and showing photos is a gift from the photographer to everyone, even though I myself don't post mine.

It's just normal that we also enjoy the tools used to make photos.
 
Rich, can you let us know what your intention was with this thread?

To encourage us to stay at home? Why? Going for walks, taking photos while keeping some distance is safe for all we know.

To encourage us to think about other ways of making images or art in general besides with a camera? Why? What tells you we don't already, why in this obscure way?

To hear our views on what "photographer" and "photograph" means? Why? It doesn't seem like you're interested in exchanging arguments, more in circulating your views, but so far without actual arguments as to what the benefit of breaking the conventions might be.

To convince everyone that your or other's work that doesn't involve operating a camera is photography? Why? Can't it find at least as much acceptance without that label attached?
 
retinax said:
Rich, can you let us know what your intention was with this thread?

To encourage us to stay at home? Why? Going for walks, taking photos while keeping some distance is safe for all we know.

To encourage us to think about other ways of making images or art in general besides with a camera? Why? What tells you we don't already, why in this obscure way?

To hear our views on what "photographer" and "photograph" means? Why? It doesn't seem like you're interested in exchanging arguments, more in circulating your views, but so far without actual arguments as to what the benefit of breaking the conventions might be.

To convince everyone that your or other's work that doesn't involve operating a camera is photography? Why? Can't it find at least as much acceptance without that label attached?
Click to expand...

Why post this thread?

I'm stuck indoors because of the virus, so I'm working on photography projects that don't need me to use a camera.

That said, I do use a camera (virus notwithstanding!). Some of my projects are all my own photographs, some are a mix of my photographs and found photographs (e.g. snapshots from a junk shop - maybe manipulated/reprinted, maybe used exactly as found).

I'm interested in what exactly is "photography". Many on RFF have a narrow view, but the contemporary art has a much looser definition. I'm in the latter camp, but I genuinely do not know where the border is between "is a photographer" and "is not a photographer". I have a broad view of what photography is, but am not attempting to convert anyone who defines it more narrowly. I'd like to hear where RFF members draw the line, and why.

Cartier-Bresson famously gave up photography to return to painting. But like us I'm sure he couldn't help see potential photographs around him. Can still be called a photographer in this part of his life despite no longer using a camera?

Turning to technology... Is a scan of a letter a photograph, a screenshot from Google Streetview, a photogram (going back in time here - and if it is, how is that different from a scan of a letter?)...

What about photo manipulation? Software now lets you change a photo completely? How much can be transformed and cloned until it's no longer a photo? Nothing, 10%, 50%, 99%? When does a "photographer" become a so-called "digital artist"?

Technology is fast advancing too. Cameras automatically enhance images by removing lens aberrations - but this is just a taste of computational photography. AI has been used to add missing detail, remove objects, alter the weather, and change the viewpoint and night to day[url], for example. Are these still photographs if the camera with no input from us is creating an image that never existed in reality, such as turning a spring meadow into a snowy field?

There are camera-less "street photographers" today who who wander the virtual roads of Google Streetview, capturing moments the same way as Cartier-Bresson but as screenshots. These views have never been seen before by a human, and had to be seen and captured by someone with a photographer's eye. The end result is a photographic print, and the starting point is Google's automated camera. The computer/screen/keyboard is being used exactly as a camera would, and the person is acting exactly like a traditional photographer. But is the former still a camera, and the latter a photographer?
 
OK, so the concepts of "photography", "photograph" and "photographer" are fuzzy around the edges, most concepts are. Discussing the marginal cases would be much more interesting with context though. Like this, on the dry, I and probably most others wonder "what does it matter?". Is a museum rejecting work because it's unsure if it's photography? Is a photography teacher rejecting work? Photojournalism? Where are medium-based arguments ("that's not real photography!") relevant at all except maybe in camera clubs or internet forums or other sandboxes? Do painters argue if something is watercolor and where the margins of the concept are? I doubt it.
So what is underlying your interest in these questions? Does it perhaps have something to do with the idea that photography has a different relationship with truth than other media? If you can answer these questions to yourself and tell us about it, the discussion could become more fruitful.
 
dont need to go out for photography. I experimented light photography with my kid at home. And my father told me they used to experiment light pandelum on film with interesting results (I am yet to try that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom