In a message dated 6/18/2003 10:43:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> frank theriault wrote: > > Well, definitions evolve, especially with changes of technology. > > They don't have to. It's about usurping through confusion in name. I see > no problem with calling an inkjet print an inkjet print. What objective > argument exists for having to call it otherwise. > > cheers, > caveman > > If you are consistent with that logic then a slide or transparency is not a > photograph unless printed on silver halide photographic paper. My *personal* > definition of a photograph is any image made with a media based camera in a > form that allows it to be seen visually. Whether I print it at home on my > ink jet or take it to the local lab for printing, the only > difference is my > choice of media. > > BUTCH Ditto. What you said. It does make me wonder, however, when 1/2 of this list is using the *istD (presuming it materializes, but I think it will), will some insist the list be broken in two -- one for film and one for sensors? Marnie aka Doe :-) The medium isn't always the message.
