LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

Really?
No, it is not a photograph in any form, simplistic or otherwise.

What it is, is a bunch of cleverly arranged 0's and 1's. Ask RichieC at the bottom end of page 5 if you don't believe it.

That being said, the "art" of photography doesn't even enter into this stadium.

NormPR

This only graphic manipulation. No photographic skills whatsoever, just taking others photos and shaping them into a picture he thinks is worth posting in a photography forum. No photography skills here!!!! No camera even used. Great (computer) flying, why don't you get a pilots license?

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

It's not a photograph. It's an image, but not a photograph. It's like drawing a picture in MS paint and calling it a photograph, except someone else actually designed all of these things first and you just rearranged them.

At the very BEST it's like a sampling in music.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Heavens! This discussion has not stirred up nearly enough ideas, conch think? So, here's how the "cultural leader," the New York Times answered, or did not answer, the question of "What is a photograph?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/arts/design/with-cameras-optional-new-directions-in-photography.html?_r=5

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Alas, as much as I'd like to read the article, the link goes to a log in page that requires I give up my email and accept cookies from the NYT in order to enter the web site and get to the article. Dang!

amehta Loc: Boston

I had a problem the first time too, but then I tried it again, with only the part up to the .html, and it worked:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/arts/design/with-cameras-optional-new-directions-in-photography.html
Either that, or it realized that I do have a NYT guest account.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

If we are going to use "drawing with light" as the standard for photograhy, wouldn't that make a laser show, a photograph?

zincgt Loc: Tucson AZ

Or perhaps the graphics logorithm and resolution of a video game???

Oliverp Loc: Miami, FL

It's simple! I'll screen shot a couple of Picassos and I'm rich!

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

After reading the NY Times article, "The Next Big Picture," I have to conclude this thread is on the cutting edge of the discussions in the art world. The reporter, Philip Gefter, was covering an exhibit opening Jan. 31 at the International Center of Photography, interviewing four curators of photography in major institutions like the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, the Art Institute of Chicago, and Pier 24 in San Francisco. One question intriguing these experts is: Can the "captured" image taken on location continue to hold its own against the "constructed" image made in a studio or on the computer, "often with ideological intention? (The implication is that the "captured" image is free of ideological implications, which is nonsense in my view.) One curator commented, "The biggest problem facing curators and historians of photography is the overflow of images." One "artist" downloaded and printed every photo uploaded to Flikr in 24 hours, producing what the reporter called "an avalanche of images...the democratization of art made tangible, and threatening."

I suspect the great photographers of the past, both location and studio, would raise their eyebrows in disbelief.
I suspect the great photographers like Weston, Cartier-Bresson,

13oct1931 Loc: Lebanon, Indiana

....uhmmmRichard,,, did you loose your train of thought...???
I would guess you and I went to different schools together, hence I am familiar with the situation. :lol: Alyn

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Alyn, since the topic is "Is this a photograph? If not, why not?", and the NY Tmes article dealt with that very subject, I tried to synopsize it for any reader who might not be a subscriber to that web page. I certainly did not mean to talk down to you or others in the forum, and possibly I am naiive in finding a lot of the projects in the non-photographic photography arena are unworthy of crowding into what the curators call the "capture" approach. Of course, to each his own.

13oct1931 Loc: Lebanon, Indiana

Not a problem.
My question deals with he unfinished last sentence of your note. I "figgered" the telephone rang or some other event interrupted your thought and that's as far as........
Alyn

P.S. I turn 83 later this year. ;-)

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Oh. Actually, that was the start of the previous sentence, but I decided not to list the names of various great photographers so I started the sentence again. Meanwhile that unfinished text sank below the "reply" box border so I didn't see it, or I would have erased it. Until the mid-1980s, my keyboard was either a manual or electric typewriter, even at Bell Labs. I'm still learning how to use this sort of online texting. In the past I drafted any text on a blank page, reviewed it, ran it through a copying machine, and submitted it to the client. This is a lot faster and much easier to edit, but much less forgiving after you hit "send".

amehta Loc: Boston

Hello Richard! Welcome to UHH.

A few tips which may make using the site easier:
* When you want to respond to a specific comment, if you use the "Quote Reply" box, it will include that message in your post. That way everyone knows which message you are responding to.

* The box you are writing your message in can be made bigger, using the bottom right corner of the box.

* For about 30 minutes after you post your message, you can edit it, using the "Edit" link at the bottom of your post.