Friday 5 March 2010

Ill-formed thoughts on terminology

Once upon a time people took photographs, then photographs were made, now they appear to be captured. Taking and capturing both imply the removal of the image from the place it was found. In Sontag's world photography is aggressive and that would fit the act of stealing something's image. But the thing that the image is made from remains - unless it was a moment of action in which case it is gone forever, and even then the captured image is more a memory made manifest than a moment itself.

But are photographic images made? In that they didn't exist before the shutter release was pressed and light fell on film or sensor, then yes. Photographs are made. By cameras, not photographers. Photography is not aggressive. Outside of a studio it is entirely passive. All the photographer does is select where to point the camera. Physics (and, when using film, chemistry) does the rest.

Finding the correct terminology for the creation of a photograph is as difficult as finding the best description of a photograph. To call a photograph an image is ambiguous. 'Image quality' can refer to measurable technical aspects of the data which a photograph consists of, or to aesthetic aspects of it which are subjective. To talk of digitally viewed images as photographs denies the things that are physical prints - objects that have more resonances than screen pixels.

Currently I consider that I find photographs. Where photograph implies, concurrently, picture and image. Far from satisfactory...

No comments: