>Hmmm.... Can any digital print be called a "Photograph"? Perhaps a "Digital >Image" would be more appropriate!
Oxford Pocket says: Photograph: Picture taken by means of a chemical action of light on sensitive film. With this as a baseline, it would be ultimately wrong to call an inkjet print from a digital camera image a 'photograph' because the original was not 'taken by means of a chemical action of light on sensitive film'. UNLESS we are describing the light-sensitive digital sensor as a 'film' (EG '... there was a thin film of oil covering her golden writhing body...') viz: '...the camera had an electronic device inside it that had a film of material on it capable of retaining an image captured through the lens...' HOWEVER if we ignore this as spiltting hairs and stick with the Oxford definition, and a digital image on an inkjet print therefore cannot be called a 'photograph', then what of an inkjet print made from a scan of a 35mm negative - still inkjet but now called a photograph? IF THIS argument is followed to the letter, then 'photograph' clearly is the wrong name. I suggest something like 'digigraph' to demark the origination of the image - (..I took this photograph on my MX, and this digigraph on my D60, nyuk nyuk nyuk...) THIS HABIT of capitalising the first two words of each sentence is now tiresome and I will stop. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
