When musing about how long photography has been around one should also consider why we’re asking the question at all. Of course, one could be considering how long it has taken for it to arrive where it is now. The fact that it all started in the mid 1820s on a French balcony would only be of interest to someone from an intellectual viewpoint. Light which took about 8 hours to make enough of an impression on a coating of ‘Bitumen of Judea’ to create something just about viewable is probably not what most people would mean by the beginning of photography.
But go on only a few years, and we start to see images and processes which resemble those we see and use today. Well, some of us still do! So, from a more practical viewpoint, let’s call it 150 years for cash. Well, roughly 150 years of interesting things like films of various types and chemicals of various smells, and about 20 years of digital. Actually the word digital is a terrible misnomer and is much older than 20 years, but not from our modern day practical point of view. So, for about 170 years we’ve been making pictures with something other than charcoal on cave walls or paint on pieces of canvas.
But defining a photograph is a difficult thing to do as it has become so many things depending on who’s looking. The advertising man is only concerned about selling a product. This may require an emotional reaction or it may require an accurate rendering depending on the product. Instruction books require cold blooded accuracy, and photography just makes it easier than drawing a diagram … sometimes. Then there’s the portrait of the little horror who lives on the corner the street, and who’s mother is the only person on the planet who thinks that he’s wonderful. So you have to make him look angelic. “You only have what you have to work with” just won’t wash with her. And then there are the holiday snaps you want to show to the neighbours to make them jealous. Of course, these are only of any interest to those who went there, and are probably only ever looked at twice. The second time when you bore the neighbour into an inevitable submission just before he unnecessarily turns the burger over on the BBQ for the tenth time, purely as a displacement activity, while wondering how big your SD card is.
Over the years, discussions have surfaced about photography versus art. Even as a young man I reacted to this with detached amusement due to the obvious ridiculousness of the point of the argument. I still react the same way but admittedly with rather less detachment than before. To start with, what do these people mean by art. I guess they are referring to painting, given the fact that both paintings and photographs are flat things most commonly presented on various types of paper. Please don’t get me started on computer screens or we’ll be here until the next millennium.
When all that people ever saw was an oil painting or a watercolour, or maybe a charcoal drawing, the emergence of photography from the shadows (pun entirely intended) was a revelation, and comparisons were inevitable and entirely understandable. But please, surely we’re more sophisticated now. You must be joking. More sophisticated? Please stop or I’ll do myself a serious injury being even more detached about my amusement. As we get deeper and deeper into the digital domain, suddenly everyone is a photographer. What on earth has the capture method got to do with anything? Right, I’ll stop this now before I digress too far from the point of this piece. That being, ‘what is a photograph?’
The elements requiring consideration are these. Lighting, subject matter, content (different to subject matter), composition, film choice, processing decisions, perspective, colour rendition (if colour), contrast, tonal range, detail level, depth of field, paper choice, and more. Quite a lot more, actually. You could argue that perspective goes with composition, and it does. You could also argue that film choice and processing decisions go together, and they do. But all these areas are chunky subjects on their own which is why making a photograph is so interesting and indeed difficult. Digital changes very little, unless you treat it, as some do, like a small boy treats an afternoon in an old fashioned sweetie shop.
It will probably not surprise you that there are classical rules to all this but here’s an interesting thing. Following the rules is one thing but knowing how to break them is another, and it is the latter that can often bring surprisingly rewarding results.
There is one thing about photography that one simply can’t get away from, and it is this very thing that separates it from painting. When painting a subject you may or may not have the subject in front of you. After all, it may all be coming from the mind of the artist. With photography however the subject is always in front of the camera. Always. It’s what you do with it that makes the difference. It’s what you do with it that ultimately defines your interpretation.
This is what you are looking at when you look at the images on my website. Interpretation. How I want the images to look. Not how the subjects looked like in real life. I mean, why would you want your art to look like reality? If you only want to look at reality, then you can do exactly that!
Photographic interpretation of a subject is much like two orchestral conductors being supplied with the same orchestra and the same symphonic score, and performing it after a month of general mayhem and frustration. The two results (interpretations) will inevitably be different. Sometimes very different. The elements (the notes) will all be there and the phrasing will likely obey the original score but the two conductors, being the only variables, is where it all gets … well, variable. This kind of variability, the unpredictable ingredient, is as nothing when compared to the creative licence wrung out of a subject when two reflective and thoughtful photographers get to grips with it.
To sum up. A competent photographer will visualise his finished image and work through all the variables in his mind, including the darkroom/computer work, before he gets anywhere near his camera bag. So, if you see a photographer excitedly pointing his camera at stuff in a desperate attempt to get some ideas, you really do have to wonder if he chose the right occupation.
Therefore, I suppose what we really should be asking is this … ‘what is a photographer?’