At 09:42 PM 6/18/03 -0400, you wrote:
Well, definitions evolve, especially with changes of technology.
All you have to do is take out the word "chemical". That's it...
Now you have an imaged produced by the action of light on a surface. Be it a
chemical process or digital capture, what difference does it make? Essentially,
it's the visual "freezing" of a brief moment in time. It's all photography to
me - and I'm not going to be buying a digital camera for some time (if ever).
Back to the Lukasz' original whine (just kidding, Lukasz <g>), as someone
correctly pointed out, it's Agfa's contest, and they can make the rules. If
anyone wants to send in a digital inkjet print, they can, and as long as they're
up front and tell Agfa that's what they're doing, it's up to those running the
contest to decide whether to accept the entry or not.
Or am I missing something here? <g>
cheers, frank
Caveman wrote:
> Before the "digital revolution", the definition of photography was > > pho-tog-ra-phy (fuh tog'ruh fee) n. > 1. the process or art of producing images of > objects on sensitized surfaces by the > chemical action of light or of other > forms of radiant energy. > > and a inkjet print was called an "inkjet print". > > While those sticking with old style photography have never pretended > that a photograph could also be called an inkjet print, the digitalians > wants to impose to everyone that an inkjet print should also be called > a photograph. What about keeping it simple and calling a photograph a > photograph, and an inkjet print an inkjet print. Is there some p***s > envy in the digital camp ? Wanting to pass their inkjet prints as > something else ? > > cheers, > caveman
-- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.
