« Cliché | Main | Maybe Photography Really IS Dead? »

Friday, 07 December 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f883400e54fac7ec98834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Photography and—?:

Comments

"Photography"

I've always just called it photo-manipulation but that modifies photography and manipulation on its own can be read as perjorative.

How about just 'art'. That's what it is after all. :)

'shopping. Let's take the word back. :)

It's a tricky one.

Metagraphy

Meta = Change, derived from ancient Greek

Pixply is the word I use. From pixel and ply, to use diligently. Thus, anytime I use pixels diligently, I'm creating a pixply. In what journalistic purists call photography, you don't use the pixels diligently, you merely pass them along from the camera to the print.

By the by, pixply is also the word I use to describe the results when I paint digitally in Photoshop using no photographic pixels at all.

Art Swalwell

I guess I call work that uses photographic and perhaps other material to create a new thing simply a kind of "graphic art" or maybe if the material is mainly photographic then "photo illustration" or in some cases "photo composite" images.

Most such things today are digital, but I don't see that as necessarily the key factor, since we've had retouching, masking, stripping-in, paste-up, neg sandwiching, duping, multiple exposure, rear projection, half-silvered mirrors, special effects filters, and other methods of manipulation before digital.

Modography (modern, modified-- my fave)
or
Shoptography (photoshopped)
or
Fluxography (all of these end with 'ography')

?

"adjustments to the picture to make it more accurately reflect a scene—dodging and burning, color correction, amelioration of purple fringing, choice of medium (carbro or platinum) etc., down to and including proper exposure—don't count as manipulation"
But what does more accurately mean?
In my opinion this question goes to the roots of photography and may help to understand digital.

Philophoto ?
Love/Friendship for light.

And I know this is not under discussion here but I do find people's regard for the truth very amusing, as if there was such a thing. Photography is art, whatever we want to call it. It's the artist's vision, not printed truth.

They used to do frescos directly on the wall and then easel and oil painting changed everything.
We used to write with light (photo graphy).
Perhaps the new off shoot is Digigraphy, writing with digital code.

Dybridography

light ~= photo
writing ~= grapho -> graphy
playing ~= kitharizo -> kitharizy

Writing with light versus playing with light.

Photography and Photokitharizy.

Hmmm. Bit of a mouthful? How about changing light: Photometathesis?

Imaginography.

Thinking around it a bit, how about:
transphotonomy - liberal use of the tags to mean "changing the arrangement of light"

Mike, the word "slide" instantly popped into my brain for the first category, i.e. it respects the lens image. I know you want something that includes digital, but could we for a moment give acknowlegement to a medium that truly does reflect a scene (unless one is shooting Velvia). I'm sad that we're moving away from transparencies. They involved no post-anything; it was all about the camera work.

How about "photo constructs"? Or "virtual images"? The latter could also include scenes made entirely from scratch on a computer.

Photo-synthesis?

Mutography (from the Latin to alter)
Works for me!

I like "airbrush". It's a noun, it's a verb, it's an adjective. It's antiquated which is cool. It's a figure of speech for anyone who prints digitally. It's already in use, you just have to tweak the definition. I also like Photoshop but if you try to use it in that way the Adobe lawyers will come steal your f-stops.

Having just finished a discussion of the Mel Brook's movies Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, the first name that came to mind was Phart, combining photography and art. This was followed by phainting.

Ultimately for something that might stick and fits, the general art movement would be Photoshopism. Photoshop has become the Kleenex of it's product category. In this age of acronyms we will have photoshop enhanced photographs or PEPs.

I can't get over the fact that manipulation is a second part of the process and the first one remains photography, unless manipulation is somehow hardwired into the camera and hence done at the moment you press the shutter. To me it's always photography and- , because I do photography and then manipulate.
Cameras with real-time Photoshop filters anyone?

imaginography

"Photomimicry" springs to mind, but is too disparaging to stick. Is "Imaginography" more acceptable to its practitioners?

Didn't you answer your own question in the asking? 1. Digital Photograph, 2. Digital Picture. As in painted picture, pencil drawn picture, etc.

GT

Allephoto from the Proto Indo-European root words al- (beyond) + bha- (to shine) to Greek allo- (other of more than two) + phos- [gen. photo-] (light) equaling other+light, otherlight or Allephoto.

Illustration.

I like your phase "respects the lens image" and will be borrowing it frequently! This very issue came up while categorizing the monthly photo competition at our local photography club. At one time, modified pictures were called "Digitally Manipulated" but are now called "Digitally Enhanced". By tossing these terms into the mix, I don't necessarily recommend them; in fact, I'm hoping for something much better. In particular, I did not like the implications of "manipulated" -- however accurate that may be.

As part of the same issue, our club had to come up with a definition of "enhanced". We settled on an honor system based on the guiding principle: "Could this print have been made in a traditional wet darkroom?"

How about the obvious ... Digography ... digital-photography. So instead of a photographer, you'd be a Digographer. And your finished product would be a Digograph.

Photostration... no, that reminds me of "castration" once I type it out. Photolustration? No, that's got "lust" in it.

Photostraction... too long. Depictograph! It's not immediately catchy, but it'll grow on you.

Artography

Artography

Well, it's not especially clever, but without spending too much time on it, my suggestion is "photo art" (or "photo-art"). It has to be pretty general to account for all of the different things you might do to a photograph. Art based on a photograph. Different from art photography (or "fine art photography", the label used to imply that a photograph is worth buying :). I suspect that some might complain that "art" is too presumptious, but every kid in grade school does art, so I'm not too worried about that. Photomanipulation just doesn't work (can be construed as derogatory). Photoxxxxx instead of photo art would be fine if I could think of a more positive (and artsy) and broad word for "manipulation".

This is fun

Art is a word that is readily used to convey a sense that what we are seeing may not perfectly match the real word even though it may at times. So we just need to add adjectives

Fine Art – for those who want to charge high prices. – Hey that me.

Extreme Art – for effects like solarisation of a photograph

Painterly art- for those who use paint filter effects in Photoshop

Bad Art – Probably what I produce.


Niels Henriksen

Digigraphy since it is didgital drawing rather than light drawing. Another attempt might be something like Pontikigraphy (Mouse drawing if my appalling greek memory from 35 years ago serves me). Could shorten that to the rather nice PONTIGRAPHY.

Andrew

Mike,

I read this quickly, and I thought you answered your own question. See the second sentence of the first paragraph. What's wrong with "digital imaging" or "digital imagery"?

Sounds good to me...
Adam

Photoshopography (maybe a little wordy) or how about adobistry. I am sure I will think of more. Once we decide on a word, everyone should use on it on their blog and link it back to here. Sort of a reverse google bomb.

"Truth, PhotoShopped 24 times a second"?
Well, shoot. I think Goddard pretty much (inadvertently) proved that, photographically, "truth" will always be an abstract.
As a 3-D buff, "flattie" is the primary distortion of photographic "truth" that comes to my mind... Though I do realize that that's not exactly what you were asking for :-)
(Ask me about Smell-O-Vision :-)
How about, to steal an old art term, "representational" photography as a descriptive of someone's subjective effort to clearly portray a particular moment in time and space? And then, perhaps, "abstract" photography; both as an attempt to delineate the two, and to describe the artist's broader intent?
Both have well founded, and well imbedded artistic merit.
I vote for, "abstract" vs. "representational" photography.

If you were to clone out the family pet it could be a "dogwhere?otype"

Sorry.

I am sure there is a circle in hell for me somewhere.

pixography.

I propose the term "pixography".

regards


Gijs

[Hard not to argue the premise, especially in light of your second paragraph ...]

Several existing terms come to mind:

photogravure, photodesign, photoillustration, illustration, graphic design

All of tehm work in various grammatical categories, i.e. as verbs and nouns. Since 'graphic design' has been used for some time, even prior to digital imaging, to denote exactly what you describe as lacking a term - why not use that?

Sure, there are other possibilities to graphic design than just changing photos substantially, but there are a lot of different kinds of photography, too [some don't even need a camera, just film, objects and light].

I have yet to see a pressing reason to name 'it', seems everybody gets around pretty well without over-terming. Or could it be that some are still thinking digital photography is inherently different from film photography, like, they have completely different essences?

I always thought digial cameras are just an easier way to get photos into computers to use algorithmical procedures to manipulate/optimise pictures. Almost everything we do with computers, incl. modern cameras, and photos has been and can be done with film, chemistry and physical objects like needles, pens etc. Just easier and better looking.

I have a couple of suggestions:

morphography (though we lose the idea that the original is a photograph)

photomorphography (that's a tongue twister)

and my favourite:

photomorphy (though it might be a bit misleading, more like changing the form of light)

I'm looking forward to seeing other ideas...

Lumalectro Art

Avant-garde-ography

Digital photo-fantasy.

Montage ( as opposed to reportage ) comes to mind. I can't remember what the french for film editor - the person who does montage - is, "montageur" perhaps, but that would be the practitioner of montage.

Part of the problem is that the words Photography and Photographer are used too narrowly. Paint, Painters, and Painting covers everything from Hans Holbein to Dali to Hans Hoffman to the guy that puts the line in the center of the road. "Photography" should cover anything where in part an image is created by recording light.

The idea that "straight unmanipulated photography" can describe the work of Robert Capa, Ansel Adams and William Wegman....

Montage would encompass the work of William Mortensen, Jerry Uelsmann, Man Ray (not the dog), David Hockney, Robert Rauschenberg and so on.

See the "Soviet montage theory" in Wikipedia. "Eisenstein's view that "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots" wherein "each sequential element is perceived not next to the other, but on top of the other" has become most widely accepted."

Of course that's all about adding stuff, and I think a lot of what we are talking about is removing stuff.

In the instances where I have had photos published in a context where there is some expectation of veracity like a newspaper, I ask for a "photo illustration" credit.

I can't help it, I find this topic more annoying than fruitful.

Why is it so abundantly clear to me that it's all "photography"? It's all graphics based in light. Period. End of story.

I also can't help thinking that with the changing of the guard we're stuck with the remnants of old-thinking from old photographers who are so uncomfortable with this brave new world that they cling to their old definitions of what is and what should be.

Also, who was the genius who decided for all of us that photography must represent "reality," as if the only valid form of photography is photojournalism and its ilk? Photography never totally accurately represented reality anyway. No, photography is simply graphics based in light. Whether it comes close to representing reality is irrelevant, and was tacked-onto the true definition of photography.

I think we really need to stop all these word games and just do our photography, whether it's photojournalism, montage, pinhole photography, or pasting pink elephants in the sky.

It's ALL photography people!

capture-transfigurator

If that's yet to appear in an episode of Star Trek, it should have.

Thoughtograph?

I do however like the first commenter's suggestion that it could be called "photography." When spoken, one could make "air quotes" with his/her fingers.

"I also can't help thinking that with the changing of the guard we're stuck with the remnants of old-thinking from old photographers who are so uncomfortable with this brave new world that they cling to their old definitions of what is and what should be."

I think that's something you're imposing on the situation. It hasn't been my observation. Traditional (film, optical/chemical) photographers were no less willing to adopt digital than amateurs or the general public, and generally have been more willing to do so. In general, what reticence there was, historically, simply had to do with concerns over image quality, and little else.

In any event, no one said you were obligated to play this game....

Mike J.

Player,

When reality is spoken of in that context. It's about the reality of the object that's in front of the lens, not the reality of a situation. What separates a great photographer from an ordnary photographer is how they deal with that reality.

That's the very reason why shots like Edward westons pepper no. 30 exists.

He dealt with the reality in front of him, the reality of form.

kunstimago

- etymologically mixed, but it's got
a certian rythm and you could
say it while pretending to cough

When golf club manufacturers replaced wooden headed clubs commonly referred to as "fairway woods" and "drivers" with metal headed drivers and fairway clubs it caused a big problem for golfers and tv commentators on golf tournaments as how to properly describe these new clubs "metal woods" seems to be the one most often used even though to my mind it is a contradiction in terms.Just like photography & cameras woods will always be woods to golfers and photography will always be photography, digital or film

Mike,

I’m sorry, I know you wanted some semantics, but.........but...........

The argument of this distinction tends to the “angel on pinheads” type, and now I’ll get long winded on you.

Maybe it has to do with my coming to “photography” from drawing and painting, then immersing myself fully in photography. I had the great fortune as a young man to work as a darkroom “slave”, photographer/ student for a small college A/V Dept., with a very good boss/teacher. Used a huge range of equipment in a variety of situations; from small airplanes, endless team photos, to dangling 9 stories from a fire department aerial boom for campus photos.

The point being that I saw the tremendous gap between a 3D time, space continuum,and a static, 2D image, regardless of the medium, very early in my life, well before I started using cameras. Hey, sit for 3 hours with pencil and paper and produce on that paper the reality of the model before you. I did quite a bit of that before and after I started using cameras.

Camera work: you choose film, lens, focal length, machine, position, crop, process, print, presentation. Some of that is chosen for you. Every step distorts and alters. What you have produced is an image, very real, but just an image of some moment; not, however reality. Nothing more than camera position can lead to huge distortions.

Art is not some lofty thing produced only by anointed artists, decreed to be such. Art is a very high expression of a process. Be it a pasta dish you threw together, but tasted superb; laboring over a musical passage on the clarinet, and one day you nail it; art is the search for the sublime, be it a one handed, rolling and tumbling catch in football, an Eliot Erwitt dog, an Andrew Wyeth painting that leaves out some windows and the high power lines in the back field.

Whew! I’m writing this mainly for my own clarity, but this distinction that one method is real, others false, is a diversion. Does the image/object reach for and achieve the sublime? Does it affect you? Yes, cherish it regardless. No, move on, keep looking.

Another thought; a lot of you are spending a lot of time thinking about these “semantic distinctions”, probably not to dissimilar to effort expended on images. Well, just start calling yourself an artist, in spite of all of the elitist, limp wristed, beret wearing connotations. Look um in the eye, call yourself an artist, and you’re free; no more semantical distinctions.

Process is just that; the hand, eyes and mind produce the final object, whatever it is, and then the question is, does it reach for and achieve the sublime?

Bron

Wow, when I first looked at this post there were no responses and I thought I'd give it a minute or two to think about - now there are too many to read them all.

Working off the same ideas as Pixel and Dan Leonard, I'd like to contract and elide "digital" + "image."

"Digimage" seems too uneuphonic
"Dimage" is best, but I assume Sony bought the rights to it from Minolta (as in, "I just sold my Diamge A1 and got a Canon G9")

How about "Digigraph," "Digigram" or "Digicon" (from icon)

I generally refer to what you described as photo-based artwork. When the photography becomes secondary to the digital elements in the image I refer to it as digital art. In the early days I referred to anything that was seriously tweaked as digital art (my old website still holds to this convention) but but now I like to give more credit to the original photographs when it can be justified.

I generally refer to what you described as photo-based artwork. When the photography becomes secondary to the digital elements in the image I refer to it as digital art. In the early days I referred to anything that was seriously tweaked as digital art (my old website still holds to this convention) but but now I like to give more credit to the original photographs when it can be justified.

I used to have some of my work printed in the traditional manner
by a great B&W printer by the name of Gene Nocon. When he started doing digital printing along side his darkroom work, he called it " Fauxtography".

Hoover

Photartography, or Photoartography

Thank you "Player" It's the Imaging tools and the final print.
As Minor white would have said, you either like the image or you don't. What's happened to the image from the imaging device to the final print is what separates the men from the boys. If you think a slide is as good as a particular image can get, then thats as far as you can see, some can see farther than others, if you think it can't look any better, then I think your missing a whole new world out there called digital photography.
"Photographic Image" works for me.

"Bollocks".

And that needn't be perjorative. Just think of the phrase "That's the dog's bollocks!"

This'll probably only mean something to UK readers...

Photographic assemblage.

I think this term covers the origins as photographic, and the results as a combination of those photographic elements.

The general category would be "flat-art"
which can be broken down into
"photographs" - little to no manipulation

"paintings" - should be obvious, or not.

And "mixed" - unable to clasify as a painting or photograph.

Photomontage.

...digital imaging in which the pictures are deliberately modified
to make them different from the lens image(s)
they originated with.....

This isn't any different than "film imaging in which........".
Somewhere recently I saw a phrase like 'Art using Photography as the Medium' to describe this.
Not catchy, but accurate.

And different from 'Art Photgraphy'.
Although drawing the line between the two can be
a tricky bizness indeed.

Photography 2.0 sounds good to me.

Maybe something involving the word binary. Binography? Drawing with 1's and 0's!

Oddly enough, I was thinking about this just the other day. The best I can come up with is "Pixel Sculpting". That's essentially what you're doing to these highly modified images that do not "respect the lens image". You're given a block of malleable pixels that you mold into a shape of your liking. (BTW, "respecting the lens image" is a great choice of words.)

>>>I think that's something you're imposing on the situation. It hasn't been my observation. Traditional (film, optical/chemical) photographers were no less willing to adopt digital than amateurs or the general public, and generally have been more willing to do so. In general, what reticence there was, historically, simply had to do with concerns over image quality, and little else.

In any event, no one said you were obligated to play this game....<<<

I understand that Mike, at least old-time photographers were savvy enough to accept the inevitable, even if kicking and screaming in some instances, myself included, but when it comes to DEFINING all this new technology there seems to be this droning demeaning putdown as if digital photography, and its manifestations and manipulations, isn't worthy of being called photography at all, unless, of course, it adheres to all the old definitions of what photography is. I'm not even sure why this offends me, but it does.

No, I'm not obligated to play the game, but it's tough to sit on my hands when I believe that I have something worthwhile to say. Maybe I don't, but I feel that I do.

In the end, I'm grateful to have found this forum despite my occasional unease. It's good to talk things out even if it seems futile sometimes.

Thanks for all your efforts!

softimagery for software applied

Adding a syllable to what several have suggested just to make it easier to say: "Digiography," resulting in a "digiograph."

I agree with "Player" in his earlier comment.

To me photography (drawing with light) means image manipulation, and now we want to come up with a new word to discriminate between older manipulation techniques and newer "digital" ones. This doesn't make sense in view of the plethora of manipulation techniques.

A second word would do photography a disservice in that it would propagate the notion that the older manipulation methods somehow created a more accurate image of reality and this is certainly not the case.

Manipulation is what art is all about.

I don't know if I've ever wanted to create a photographic "image of reality", I've always wanted to create an image of something I had in my mind and the more techniques available to me the easier it is to create the image that I want.

When viewing other peoples photographs I like to appreciate their view point (what they had in mind). If I wanted reality I would go and stand where the picture was taken and even then my reality would be subject to my interpretation.

I say get back to one word an learn how to be comfortable with it.

Whatever this new term is, should it be applied retroactively to all black and white "photography", which is so massively manipulated that no color remains in the image?

Pseudophoto?

"In any event, no one said you were obligated to play this game...."

Mike J.

At time of capture it is all the same....
Photography.
The we do what all/most photographers have always done....see our vision of the capture.

PBurs

"Picturecraft".

Intuitively understood, no new made-up words, not pretentious, avoids "photo" but still lens-based. Implies the process but without any claim or disclaim to "art".

Dear Mike,

I seem to be having a problem with the way you've framed the question.

You seem to be asking us to distinguish approaches, aesthetics, or applications of the medium, and by implication our perceptions and expectations of it. Great! But then you also address technology by singling out digital maniplation (as opposed to other means?), which I feel is a different conversation.

I'm not arguing with your premise, or what I think are your premises--on the contrary I think either topic promises interesting discussion and thought. It's just that I see two of them.

I'm not sure whether my confusion began or ended with the preemptive reservation of the term "photography" strictly for the verité approach. I'm sure you did that to try and focus our attention on the narrower question, but for me the tactic turned out to be a distraction and provocation (I think ultimately a good one).

Or maybe I'm just a poor reader. At any rate, thanks for shaking up my brain a little, once again.

Mike,

A photograph has to meet two criteria for me to call it a true photograph. First, it must be a rendering of a naturally occurring scene (you can stage the scene, but it still has to be a scene in real life). Second, the exposure must be a contiguous, uninterupted exposure interval (no matter how long or how short). When you add or subtract elements from a single image you break the first rule. When you combine images or do double exposures you break the second rule. My definition of a true photograph is obviously process agnostic. Doesn't matter whether film or digital, pinhole or lens, shadowgram, etc. I lump all photorealistic images that break one or both of these rules into the category "photo illustration". Some prints that are widely considered to be photographs don't actually fit my definition. The image of golfer Dennis Shute by Harald Edgerton, for example, comes to mind, but arguably falls into a gray area since the mechanical shutter of the camera was open in an uninterupted time interval but the pulsed strobe created multiple exposures. A beautiful image, but by my definition closer to a photo illustration than a photograph. What do you think?

pseudophotography...maybe photocontography if you want to be nice to the collagists.

This is FUN!
Please Sir, may we have some more?

Ghengis

Gijs, Pixography seems the simplest, most obvious suggestion to me so far, I could get used to that.

Max, "unless manipulation is somehow hardwired into the camera" - well yes it is and thereby hangs one of the anti digicam arguments. Buying a digicam is like having a film camera that will only operate with just one sort of film, even the raw image has been subject to manipulation before download it.

Cheers, Robin

Oops, sorry Mike, I guess I wasn't playing by the rules in the earlier comment I sent you. How's this? - Wizardography!

The two suggestions I like so far are photostration and pixography.

I'd suggest paintography. For me this word captures the idea of painting pictures (figuratively) using photographs. This is the essence of the process, I think. It is also a nice acknowledgement of the influence of both traditions - painting and photography - on this art form.

Fartography?

I would keep the term or prefix "photo", since we are looking for a word appropriate for a photography (i.e. a photo) that has been heavily transformed/edited, so it becomes almost another art media different from conventional (unmanipulated) photography

Therefore I suggest any of these:

- Photochop

- Photohack

What do you think?

"Look, I have some photochops that you may like". "Wow, this is an amazing photohack, do you have it for sale?".

Paul Retzlaff wins with Photo Art: Phart.

Bron ):

Interesting question -- the same thing came up years ago when Xerox machines were invented, and people began making montages of appropriated images and texts. Most dictionaries have the noun "xerography" to cover that.

I sort of like pixography, because it relates to photography, xerography, etc., and involves the manipulation of pixels; and it also relates to the old tabloid use of "pix" to refer to photographs.

A new word would be useful, because I've seen lots of drastically altered images which really no longer relate much to the original photo. I reject the idea that we don't need a new word -- like calling it "photo art" or some such, because the image may no longer relate to a specific or even knowable photograph, and may well not be art; or, as far as that goes, may not even start with a photograph, but come to look like one. What do you call a photograph of a Monet painting that is then manipulated and turned into a Coke ad? A photo? A painting? Art?
You could just call it an "ad" or an "illustration" but those are unsatisfyingly unspecific. Pixograph would fill a need.


JC

fotografy

In my mind this is a way to rename ALL digital photography as some people are seeming to suggest. (I don't think Mike meant it that way either.)

Instead, this is coming up with a name for digital photography that has crossed a somewhat grey line between "real" and "fake". I.e. photos that aren't a reasonable facsimile of what you would see with your eyes. (I know that's a weak definition, but I think people as a group have a fairly good understanding of where the line is.)

To me, this is sort of like naming any other art movement - realism, dadaism, modernism, impressionism, etc. Perhaps the various types of photos need similar names. (PSism? Digism?)

That way, while it is "all photography" there is a distinction of subsets. The only problem there is that digital tools are plenty good enough to reproduce something that appears to be an actual photo, even though it has no photography aspect at all. In these cases, you really have pure digital art, which could make all of this even trickier.

Whatever term is agreed on - which is not likely, given the efforts of the "foundview" group - it should not relate to "digital", even though it's clear that modern technology makes alterations more accessible and easier.

Where applicable, I would like "photo illustrations" to be labeled as such, in some way, whether it's obvious or not.

Where does "spotting" fit into this categorization . . . and how about perspective correction? I've found that those two provoke the biggest arguments.

Now how about labeling "set ups", as opposed to "found". Manipulating the scene is at least as important an issue as manipulating the capture.

How about photo-derived imaging or photo-based imaging? which would include all visual displays created from photographically recorded data. Or maybe Photography 2.0 ?
The type of images trying to emulate the "real" photographic recording we might call Neo-Cartier-Bressonistic or Adamsoid imaging.

In my work I distinguish between the photograph I bring home after a shooting session and the printed image that ends up in the gallery. The difference is a lot of editing. Painters (Vermeer for instance) sometimes make an 'under painting' on the canvas before painting the final painting on top of it. The under painting in muted colors serves to get a sense of dark/light volumes and the overall design. I think of my photographs as "under paintings' on which I paint the final version in Photoshop. For this reason I suggest 'SUBTOGRAPHY' - 'sub' for 'under', but also for 'subjective', substantial' and 'substitute'. The exercise is fun, but I think in the end 'photography' will stay as a word and redefine itself - all other terms sound a bit like "horseless carriage'.

Datart

Proteanography (from protean, not protein although one should eat protein before doing proteanography)

Culinography (from culinary RAW to cooked; not coolinography though manipulated images are very cool)

Evolography (from evolution, not evil though that alternative will please ... some people)

-Julie

We call Platinum prints - Platinum prints
We call Albumen prints - Albumen prints
We call Cyanotypes - Cyanotypes

and the list goes on. So whats the problem with giving digital image making of the type that Mike is referring to, a name as well? I think some people are missing the point and thinking that this is a criticism of digital image making. It's not. It's just a way to let people know what they're looking at.

Aaaah! I can't believe no one said this already (or maybe I just missed it).

Digitography = DIGItal phoTOGRAPHY

Pixelography = PIXEL photOGRAPHY

Digilography/Dixelography = two possible mash-ups of the above

Photography is what it is. In all forms whether manipulated or not. A new name is not required. It just needs less reactionary practitioners. Just get on with the work and let the chips fall where they may.

Eieiography. Because I can't decide between E-graphy and I-graphy.

God what a stupid discussion! Ah well. Clearly nobody has any photographs to touch up anymore.

Digital, Film Photography
Digital Photomontage
Digital Art

or simply,

Photography
Photomontage
Art

Ducography

duco from latin meaning to count, referring to the math and computation photoshop performs and the steps involved. So I guess it would sort of be "counting light" which seems somewhat apropos.

Seems like you could reasonably introduce yourself as a ducographist, if that's what you aimed to do....

You could talk about the awesome ducographs that you just printed out, sold at a show, are working on, etc.

photo-graph and photo-illustration

The comments to this entry are closed.