Is this a real photograph?

I have been thinking about this question for a while. I make many pictures like the one below, where I combine 3 or more images taken from the same tripod mounted viewpoint, and later combine them together in post. HDR, has got a bad name, but it is the best tool I know for avoiding blown out highlights and loss of detail in the shadows.

A photograph is usually considered to be the capture of a single moment of time. Are my three moments of time images combined into one still a photograph?

In this case, yes, and to claim otherwise would be nit-picking.

It seems to me that the crucial consideration is that neither the focal point (or whatever it is called) of the camera nor the building moves between the taking of the three images: time is suspended, and is not a significant parameter, even if by the clock the images were recorded several minutes or hours apart. Therefore the images can be considered as having been taken at the same instant. As I understand it, the reason for such a panorama is that you dont have a lens covering a wide enough angle to take the whole photo in one shot, so you are simulating such a lens by stitching together three compatible images.

I have no problem with the legitimacy of such a technique.

David

It depends on how you define "photograph".

I take "photograph" to mean the image created from the light captured during a single shutter actuation.

Of course, you can then combine several photographs for whatever purpose to create a valid image, not a photograph.

Basically, every photograph is an image but not every image is a photograph.

I agree with your last sentence and I agree with the first. The middle two are contentious. I'd argue that a photograph isn't restricted to a single shutter actuation but I agree this is up for debate.
There's some relevant discussion at the moment on Mike Johnston's blog. Yesterday's and today's posts.
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

So we are in agreement that it depends on how someone chooses to define "photograph".

How do you define "photograph"?

According to AI, the term "photograph" can have several definitions these days. Therefore the term is best used with a qualifier to offset any ambiguity.

Not unlike "resolution" or "exposure" ... ;-)

You linked to my inspiration for this post! I was inspired by his first post, not the second post, which basically says that what we did in the darkroom once upon a time and which often took great skill, is now much easier in our digital darkroom. I love Capture One, because it mimics very closely the sheets of cardboard with a hole and the cardboard disks on the end of a wire that I used to dodge and burn my prints. I am not too sure if I agree with Johnston this time. Maybe a bit of film nostalgia crept in.

The strait negative shot of this photograph has a mid grey background. It was difficult to print in the darkroom, but much easier from a scan. A copy of this print made thirty years ago is still hanging on the wall of my local record shop.

My finished darkroom prints were often very different from a print made without any manipulation.

I agree that three differently exposed "negatives" shot seconds apart from the same spot, and angle and then combined in software is still a photograph.

You have hit on why I think this image is still a photograph. My exposures often last 30 seconds. I have just interrupted the time element to make three absolutely identical pictures. Aperture, and Iso remain constant too. I use the self time that triggers the HDR set in sequence automatically on my D850/Z7.

My picture was not a panorama, but the same concept applies. Here is a typical HDR set. It makes ETTR redundant. I have three shots, one normal, 1 at +2 stops and 1 at -2 stops. I consider it to be just a way of giving my camera sensor seemingly, more dynamic range.

These three unmanipulated shots are added together in Capture One

The final result with a bit of manipulation in post is this

I found this definition, outdated but quite good as it is almost pre digital.

The Oxford English Dictionary describes the medium of photography to be, "the process or art of producing pictures by means of the chemical action of light on a sensitive film on a basis of paper, glass, metal, etc.." If we are to break apart photography and trace its roots back to their origins we would find that according to the OED, "graph," when used as a noun means, "A kind of symbolic diagram (used in Chemistry, Mathematics, etc.) in which a system of connections is expressed by spots or circles, some pairs of which are colligated by one or more lines." To trace "-graph" as a suffix, we find that its root is Greek and was used to form an adjective of the passive voice of "written." "Photo-" as a prefix simply means light. The word, "photograph is a conjunction of Greek words and means 'mark produced by light'." ( Encyclopedia of Aesthetics , p.491) If we combine some of the elements of these roots we can see that photography has something to do with some form of writing with the use of light. The Grove Dictionary of art defines photography in relatively the same manner as a "term used to describe the technique of producing an image by the action of light on a chemically prepared material." Here we see that the medium of photography as a process or technique. If we combine some of the elements of these definitions we can conclude that what is ultimately produced from this process or technique is either a picture or an image.

In his book, Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes argues, "a photograph can be the object of three practices (or of three emotions, or of three intentions): to do, to undergo, to look." (Barthes, p.9) He considers the photographer to be the operator, those of us who look at the photographs to be the spectators, and the person or object photographed, the target. It could be argued that all three (operator, spectator, and target) need to be present in the medium of photography. Photography, in its concrete form (the photograph) functions as a medium in which something is transmitted to a receiver. Photography, when used to describe all aspects of the medium (the photographer, the process, and then the photograph or image produced) can also function as a medium through which something is transmitted. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a medium to be, "An intermediate agency, means, instrument or channel. Also, intermediation instrumentality: in phrase by or through the medium of. (specific medium)" (OED) The image of the object photographed, the target is transmitted by the photographer (the operator) through the medium of photography (specifically in the photograph) to the spectators.

The medium of photography is known most for its reproducibility, its ability to communicate with the masses, its notion of reality that is induced in the spectators, and its ability to abolish time and space and allow for anyone to feel they have witnessed an historical act, been to a far away place, or communicated with the realm of the dead. Beaumont Newhall argues in his book, The History of Photography, that "the ability of the medium to render seemingly infinite detail, to record more than the photographer saw at the time of exposure, and to multiply these images in almost limitless number, made available to the public a wealth of pictorial records exceeding everything known before." (Newhall, p.85) Yet, we must not forget the aesthetic and artistic value of photography. It is not merely a mechanically reproducible medium with many functional purposes and objectives, but it is also an art form created by a more modern and methodical type of artist (the photographer) who wants to depict the world in a different way than the painter or the sculptor. The artist gives us in a sense a kind of coated reality of his construction that can only be transmitted through a photograph.

Perhaps there is a confusion in the use of image and photograph in this context.

To my mind, (and ignoring the Greek derivation of the word), a photograph is the final result and can be made from one or more images.

Unfortunately, one could argue quite the opposite; but using both definitions just muddies the discussion.

David

The distinction between photograph and image is very clear for me as described earlier.

with film your taking a photo, with digital your taking an image, its not a photograph till its printed 😊

Good point👍

Nigel - quite fascinating to see the work/technique that goes into producing one of your final "images". Whilst pictures of the interior of churches, etc don't particularly interest me, I always look at yours because of the sheer quality (that's enough of the compliments - or it'll go to your head!)

As to photograph vs image vs anyotherterm - the simple fact is that different people use different terms to define different things. We'll never get universal agreement on a single set of definitions. So, in my opinion, use the terms as you wish - but be wary that others may be using different definitions

Tim

If at +2 stops you still had highlight headroom in the raw data then no, ETTR has not been made redundant. ETTR for that shot in the HDR sequence would have outputted a higher SNR in the raw data and so resulted in less visible noise in the +2 stops image.

For the shot in the HDR sequence that will be used for the shadows in the final image, using ETTR for that shot in so far as getting as much light onto the sensor without clipping the shadow areas of the scene will maximise the SNR in the shadows resulting in minimising the visible noise in the shadows in the final image.

In any case, ETTR is most beneficial in low light scenes where the aim is to maximise the quality of the raw data by maximising the SNR resulting in minimising visible noise in the final processed image.

In high contrast scenes, ETTR is unlikely to be of significant benefit if taking only one shot of the scene. But for HDR, ETTR can be of significant benefit when taking the shot that will be used for the shadows in the final image. Well, it is for me at least 😊

As I never make hard copy of my photos, your definition seems rather limited to me. 😊

David

So we come back to it depends on your definition of "photograph" for the answer to this thread's question "Is this a real photograph?".

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question.

What is your definition of "photograph"?

Now we are into a maze. With film light hits a light sensitive chemical, that produces a latent image. I need a chemical developer to convert the latent image into silver crystals and coloured dyes for colour photography. With digital the latent image is just a series of one and zeros. It needs developing in a Raw processor.

So I guess digital and analogue are both similar in a way.

Depending on dictionary definition, it is maybe true a paper print is a photograph.

This post is mostly a reaction to a a couple of posts on "[The Online Photographer].(theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2024/09/disillusion.html)"

I just thought it might make an interesting debating point. I was also very unsure about the logic of the TOP posts.

I don't print: therefore, I am not a photographer ...

I was once subscribed to a forum where any comment that did not include "the print" was ignored. 😉

I had an SLR back in the 1980's and mostly took slides...

I would say, we have a captured image, be it contained in negative / slide film, digital, or some form that then allows it to be viewed on some other medium and that is when we are seeing the "photograph"

Not really. More properly, it is an array of words, one array per pixel.

... unless it's a Foveon raw - for which "development" is not strictly necessary:

These are the "latent" sensor values, no "development" and, of course, no de-mosaicing.

Or even a Bayer raw with the two green pixels averaged and no de-mosaicing:

Because they are what the sensor saw, I claim that they are real photographs, more real than raw conversions.