I agree, it is too long - so fall back on Cotty's original definition (you out there Cavy) of photographs and digigraphs.
Bob Rapp ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Apilado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:56 AM Subject: Re: digigraphers > Photodigigraphs is too long of a word. How about photographs. > > Jim A. > > > From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 06:29:19 -0400 > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: digigraphers > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:12:41 -0400 > > > > photodigigraphs? > > > > Bill > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:41 AM > > Subject: Re: digigraphers > > > > > >> But what about the images captured by silicon chips but are printed on > > photographic paper? > >> > >> I know a lab that provides such prints. > >> > >> DagT > >> > >> > >>> Fra: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> I like that Cotty!!! You have widened the gap that was preniously only > >>> nanometer apart (according to some)! > >>> > >>> Well done, Cotty, well done! > >>> > >>> Bob Rapp > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:16 PM > >>> Subject: Re: Agfa Competition > >>> > >>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > >
