Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what\na photograph was. You shone light on a negative, developed it, put in\nin an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper, and\ndeveloped that. When you got done you had a photograph. You could\nadd elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make lithos; but in\nthe end it all came down to shining light on a piece of paper and\ngetting a print.\n\nLast week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital) picture\nof the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image -\- one\nmirror image of the other -\- so they were facing each other. I\nprinted the faces in "white" and the space between them in black. I\nthen used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me with\njust the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in the\ncut-line.\n\nI tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it was\nmore of a negative of the original image. The only think I really had\nleft was a representation of what I had NOT photographed, not what I\nhad photographed. The other thing that I pondered was the fact that\nthe image was not represented in "b&w" or in some tonality but the\nimage was represented physically as to whether there was paper there\nor not.\n\nI all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just what\nis a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a digital\nimage any different than a really pretty Excel document. How much can\nyou manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something else -\- and when\nit becomes something else, what does it become?