Postby Maris » 16 Nov 2016, 10:03
I'm certain that photography was, is, and always will be, making pictures out of light-sensitive materials. Crikey, that is what the word was invented to describe. But there are lots of other ways of making pictures.
Pictures not made out of light-sensitive materials have established names like painting, drawing, etching, lithograph, ink-jet print, monitor image, web-offset print and so on. In addition to those old names there seems to be a new naming convention (innocently ignorant?) where any picture that has a lens-based first step is called a photograph irrespective of its final form. I'd suggest the exact opposite is true.
What makes a photograph a photograph is the last step that actually produces the object under inspection. Light-sensitive materials used? Yes, therefore photograph; no, therefore picture.
By way of amusement (forgive me) I often do a mental edit of internet banter on "photography" and insert the word "picture" wherever someone has used "photograph". Amazingly it make scarcely any difference. The discourse conducted on the web doesn't (can't?) distinguish between photographs and pictures. I'm with Alastair in being skeptical of facebook pictures representing photographs. In the interests of honesty it might good to know whether an internet picture depicts a real photograph or merely offers a pleasant visual fiction with lots of bright colours, nice shapes, and clever eye-candy. Both kinds of picture are legitimate within their purposes but it's needful to tell one kind from another.
Embarrassing incident: Years ago I almost took an interstate flight to visit a "photographer's" atelier to see their wonderful portfolio of "photographs". At the last moment I learned there were no physical pictures at all, just electronic files that I may as well view on my computer monitor at home. Been a bit cynical (but not dangerous) ever since.