What was it that attracted you. The American flag?
George
Thanks, Joachim for that definition! I would have loved to get that already 2005 when I started with digital photo. I should have read you many years ago 
I wonder if the problem with this doesnÂŽt spring from using a common word like âmanipulated/manipulationâ as a very specifik concept. That is never a good idea.
Thanks again!
Feel free to laugh at me, but no, it was the building and the light at the bottom left, and then I noticed the flag, and only then I noticed the light at the right, same design. Itâs likely a ânothingâ photo, but something about it appealed to me. Also, that several things point inwards, towards the building. It was far off, in the distance, and my 120mm lens wasnât long enough to do what I wanted. I find it difficult to explain in words - and I remember thinking to myself, why am I bothering to photograph this - but something âclickedâ, and I followed my instincts. I pictured it being in B&W at the beginning, but then I thought why not show the flag in color, and then I stopped thinking about it.
Youâre welcome @Stenis I just thought this is obvious? Anyway, never mind. Truthfinding has never been a motivation for me to dive into photography.
Ah, the wonderful world of words!
âPicture yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skiesâŠâ
âPhotograph yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skiesâŠâ
âImagine yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skiesâŠâ
âImage yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skiesâŠâ
1 Like
So Mike, based on your definition above, only images directly out of a camera are actually photographs. Once manipulated in any way in post processing software they are no longer a photograph.
Of course digital cameras also post process images in camera with a variety of user and non user controlled settings for contrast, tone, sharpness, etc. These settings are generally applied to Jpegs only. So to be clear, again based on your definition, even jpegs straight out of the camera are not actually photographs because they have been manipulated by internal software after the image was captured.
That leaves use with completely unmodified straight out of the camera raw files as the only true photograph available from a modern digital camera. Of course a raw file is just data. To see and use it you need to first demosaic it in a program like PhotoLab, Lightroom, ON1, etc. These programs use proprietary algorithms as part of this process which is why some of these raw processors will give you better results then others. But wait. by demosaicing weâve just manipulated the original data in software outside of the camera. Oops!
So, I guess the real takeaway is that modern digital cameraâs canât produce actual photographs since significant manipulation of the captured data is always required which by your narrow definition means digital cameras output is no longer a photograph.
Maybe instead you should get your head out of the sand and think in terms of broader definitions of photography in the digital age instead of limiting your thinking to how things were in film only days, as well as your continued adherence to photojournalism rules that do not apply to 99.999% of the photographs captured today.
Honesty, if you unable to get away from your old ways of thinking perhaps it is time for you to consider dusting off your old Leica film camera and ditch digital altogether. Maybe you will be happier with that âpurerâ form of photography. Franky, we spend far too much time trying to expand your thinking and approach to digital photography and every time we think were making some headway, after thousands of post, we realize that nothing much has changed.
Mark
1 Like
Nothing new here, after images were taken on film, the end result was influenced by the development process, followed by the printing process, along with dodging and burning-in and all the other things photographers did in the darkroom to create a finished print.
The type of manipulation Iâm referring to is removing and replacing parts of an image, to create a more pleasing image.
So, what is YOUR definition of a âphotographâ?
For me, Iâll stick with the dictionary definition, what comes out of a camera, the definition I already posted.
Nobody else has to agree of course, unless/until they do something like enter a contest where there are rules of what is, or is not, permissible.
Photojournalism - that is a completely different topic, mostly regarding the photographer, not the image, the intent being to get people to trust the photos they would see in the newsâŠ
âŠwhich means that at the very beginning of photography, no-one was a photographer, because success was mainly based on how good one was in retouchingâŠ
Again, wonderful world of words.
Why donât we simply ignore âcorrectâ and do/create, instead, something we want/like/imagine etc.
For all the photo journalists in here: Stick to the rules, get out of the discussions and take photos!
3 Likes
Mike you spend way too much time focusing on what things are called and whether they are are or are not still photographs. Even heavily manipulated composite photos made from multiple images are still generally considered photographs by most people. You keep bringing the subject up which is why I and others feel the need to revisit it with you.
Do you really think a digital photograph of a beautiful bucolic scene where some inconsiderate jerk decided to dump his garbage is preferable to removing it digitally with no obvious trace of the digital manipulation? What is the end goal of your photography? Is it to meet photojournalism standards or is it to make pleasing and interesting photos. The two are often mutually exclusive.
Mark
2 Likes
Of course not. Me? I would just call it an image or a picture, problem solved, everyone is happy. End of story.
I agree, but MOST people seem to just call it a picture.
Another point of view:
Photographs vs pictures: Whatever you call it, a photograph is still a photograph
The word photograph literally means drawing with light.
The Oxford English dictionary defines photograph as âa picture that is made by using a camera that stores images in digital form or that has a film sensitive to light inside itâ
Websterâs defines a photograph as âa picture or likeness obtained by photography.â They define photography as âthe art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor).â
Nothing in those two definitions limits the use of the word photograph to unmanipulated digital images. You are free to call manipulated digital image anything you want, but they are in fact, still photographs.
Mark
1 Like
Let me add my two centâs worth here.
From the GreekâŠ
ÏÏÏÏÏ = light
ÎłÏαÏÎź = drawing
Photography = drawing with light
There is nothing in that definition to say that the light cannot be manipulated on its way to the recording medium. If I wanted, I could use a fine point light pen and trace the outline of a subject on a sheet of light-sensitive paper. But, by moving the source of light, as I would a paintbrush, I am manipulating a source of light to create an image. Strictly, that is now a photograph. It certainly wouldnât bear any resemblance to what we now accept as a photograph, but it is irrefutably a drawing made with light and, thus, has the right to be regarded as a photograph.
On the other hand, if I use an inkjet printer to create a print of a totally unaltered digital image, that cannot be strictly called a photograph because it is âdrawnâ with dots of coloured ink, not light.
However, whatever the source of the original image capture, if I use a digital Lambda printer on photographic paper, to make a print from a digital file, then that has to be regarded as a true photograph because the printer used laser light to draw onto a light-sensitive paper.
Conclusion - only prints or films that have been exposed directly to light are worthy of being called photographs. According to your reasoning, a digital image can never be classified as a photograph, even if it has been digitally retouched unless it is printed on a Lambda printer.
Conversely, any image, however created (painting, drawing, iPad), digitised and printed by a Lambda printer on photo-sensitive paper has to be regarded as a photograph because it was created by drawing with light.
You see how ridiculous this meaningless restriction on manipulation becomes, when all I have to do is output it to a photo-sensitive surface, using a laser, and it instantly reverts to being a photograph.
And, I have to say, having had Ilford Harman print some of our LF negs with such a printer, I wish I could afford the money and space to install one - the results are simply stunning.
So, having now got to the stage where I can output a manipulated image in a way that demands it is called a photograph, I donât see the problem with using an inkjet printer.
For the same reason that I use a digital sensor in the camera instead of film, which as others have pointed out is not strictly drawing with light but is, in fact, creating a bundle of digital data that has to be converted into a visible image by manipulation, I see no reason not to allow a digital file to be rendered by an inkjet printer.
The phrase âdrawing with lightâ doesnât preclude manipulation. That idea came from self-opinionated snobs who forgot that a final silver print from a silver negative has to be spotted to remove the spots caused by dust on the negativeâŠ
- from when the film was inserted into the darkslide,
- from when the the sheath was withdrawn from the darkslide before the shutter was released.
- from when the dark slide was re-inserted after the exposure
- from when the negative was inserted into the enlarger
Not forgetting the white spots created from when the dust fell out of the air onto the printing paper before or during the exposure, etc.
You see, Mike, there never has been a time when, what the world recognises as a printed photograph, didnât pass through all sorts of manipulations in order to create a beautiful print.
Except for the photographer who created the photograph, who is justified in judging such an ill-founded appellation as coming from a pretentious fool (no personal offence intended)
And you, Mike, what would you call a digital image printed by light on photo-sensitive paper? Can you really maintain your stance when such a print fully satisfies the literal meaning of the word photograph?
But you somehow managed to apply a manual distortion correctionâŠ
⊠instead of using the optical module, which would have corrected it properlyâŠ
So, yet another âimageâ that cannot be regarded as a photograph because you allowed optical distortion to be corrected 
I will certainly go along with what you have written. Who knows, maybe I really am a pretentious fool.
At the heart of this discussion, if I were then to manipulate an already captured image, removing parts of the image (garbage) or perhaps an entire sky, replacing them with whatever I choose do replace them with, is the resulting image still a âphotographâ. To me, it is not. To others here, it is.
That is what is at the heart of this discussion here in the forum. I will go along with whatever you say, regardless of how I may or may not feel about it.
Except you have ignored my point about outputting to a laser printer, which then makes it into a true photograph, drawn by light.
PhotoLab wanted to download the optics module or whatever I should call it, for the 14mm Sigma, and I let it do so. I noticed the camera was not level, so I fixed that. I should have re-taken the image. So yes, you are correct.
I donât know. according to the dictionary, I get a very simple choice. Technically, you are correct, and that could be an additional meaning that should be included in the dictionary. Of course, I have no idea how I could actually do what you describe, and no reason to want to do so. The only printer I have is a Canon laser printer for B&W text.
My stance - simple, if I take a finished photograph and modify it by replacing parts of the image with other âstuffâ, it is no longer an image from my camera, and therefore not a photograph. Very simple.
By the way Mike, I know you are fond of using the term Photo Illustration for images that have been manipulated. I just spent some time looking up various references to it.
There is no absolute standard definition for it. Any standards or rules for what is and isnât photo illustration seems to be dependent on which individuals or organizations are making them. Further there are large differences of opinion on the type and extent of the manipulation before a photo is labeled photo illustration. In other words the definition and usage of the term is somewhat arbitrary, unlike a dictionary definition of a photograph which is absolute and unambiguous.
But there more. Since you seem to doggedly adhere to the term photo illustration for manipulated images, I must point out that you have added your watermark to almost every image you have ever posted here. Unless your watermark was on a small sign with a stand which you placed at the scene of every photograph you took, then you have manipulated all you images by digitally adding a distracting object which was not in the original scene captured by the camera. By your definition anything with your watermark is actually a photo illustration, not a photograph.
Mark
1 Like
Itâs been so long ago, I donât remember where I got it from. Easily solved though, what term would you prefer? âEdited Photographâ? If we can mostly agree on a definition, simply for this forum, from now on that is what I will use here and elsewhere.
Oooh! Nice catch 
Nope. Unlike you I am perfectly fine just calling them photographs since that is what they are. Calling them anything else would be silly even though they are a perfect example of your arbitrary definition of photo illustration.
Mark
2 Likes