RE: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
The possums in my area are all ringtails, however one of my friends is looking after an orphaned brushtail. They're very cute when young, but like most Australian wildlife will make good use of their claws when older. He also has a juvenile wombat, and the family resemblance between possums, wombats and kangaroos is quite noticeable when they are young. As they mature the head changes shape, but when young they are quite similar. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 23 June 2003 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, species. For Virginia opossum: Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, (sub-phylum: Vertebrata), Class: Mamalia, Order: Marsupalia, Family: Didelphidae, Genus: Didelphis, species: virginiana. For Brushtail possum: Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, (sub-phylum: Vertebrata), Class: Mamalia, Order: Marsupalia, Family: Phalangeridae, Genus: Trichosurus, species: vulpecula. The opossums in your yard in California are Virginia opossums that were introduced there. They are not native, but quite happy to terrorize the countryside. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:36 PM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) Are the 'possums I see in my backyard, here in So. Calif., also Virginia 'possums? No, seriously! Christian wrote: [. . .] To be clear: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana - N. America) is a different species from Brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula - Australia). They are in the same order of mammals: marsupalia, but different families. Incidentally, there are several species of possums in Australia, and at least three species of opossum in North and South America (only one in North America). How's it parse out? My book says Mammalia are classes of Vertebrates, which is one of the sub-phyla of Chordata, which in turn belongs to the sub-kingdom of Metazoa, kingdom of animals. Where does species fit? That's what I was trying to say before, but didn't know how to split up the classification. Interesting to know opposums are not just one species. Never knew that. keith It's true that in North America, i.e.: the United States, some people, in a regional dialect, call it a 'possum, but they are refering to the Virginia opossum which is its correct common name. Just like some people call raccoons, 'coons, etc, etc. Christian --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 5/06/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 5/06/2003
Re: That AGFA competition
try www.agfa.com under Pro Photo Labs Feroze - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:06 AM Subject: That AGFA competition Would someone send me the link or info? I've been barely able to even skim pdml for about a month .. sorry if you guys were expecting more witty reparte on language usuage! annsan
Re: Agfa Competition
Actually it'S the chemical action that's still there but not the light, (or other radiation?) on the paper 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.
That AGFA competition
Would someone send me the link or info? I've been barely able to even skim pdml for about a month .. sorry if you guys were expecting more witty reparte on language usuage! annsan
Re: That AGFA competition
Only witless reparte is appropriate for this subject here. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would someone send me the link or info? I've been barely able to even skim pdml for about a month .. sorry if you guys were expecting more witty reparte on language usuage! annsan
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
I'm with him too. Best OT post so far. A shutter speed of 1/2000 or greater should be sufficient. Jostein wrote: Hey, Dan! I'm with you. We should make some buttons and T-shirts. Jostein - Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) STOP PLATE TECTONICS! Back in 1970, I had a geology professor who, at that time, was not convinced of plate tectonics.
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
All I know about opossums is that they're ugly son of a bitches and they're good to eat. The correct plural is sons of bitches. I team teach a course with a colleague of mine, and I always remind students of this before they fill out the course evaluations. 8^) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Agfa competition
Such a brilliant scholar should then have heard of an institution named The Library Of Congress, which, amongst other things, is in the business of organizing and maintaining a huge collection of graphic materials. They have to classify even such arcane things as kallitypes, megalethoscope prints, crystoleum photographs and bromoil prints. They obviously must have some method in their classification, which I suspect is far more complete in scope than Joe Blow's one. But this is PDML, where a word means whatever the poster wanted it to mean. And more recently they started to do that to numbers too. cheers, caveman Bob Walkden wrote: I've been there, done that. I studied linguistics at college, along with French, Spanish and the history of Art, after spending the previous 7 years studying French, German and Latin. Subsequently I worked for the British Library, who sponsored me to learn Russian so I could work in their Russian technical section. Later I qualified to teach English, although I never actually taught. All this leads me to believe that I know a bit about language in my own right. Probably rather more than most of the people who've engaged in this thread. I have a couple of post-grad qualifications as well, including one in discrete mathematics. This is essentially symbolic logic, so I can tell the difference between shit and shinola when it comes to arguments; especially arguments about words.
Re: Agfa Competition
Why not call it caveman? Caveman wrote: An inkjet print is as much a photograph as it is a piece of junk. If you accept you can call it anything, why not call it junk or c**p or toilet paper.
(o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
- Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW are American opossums marsupials? The possums of Oceania definitely are. regards, Anthony Farr Yep. Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum). note that it is opossum with an o unlike the Aussie possum (no o). The Virginia opossum is a true marsupial with a well developed pouch. It is the only North American marsupial. There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. When this happened, S. American mammals (mostly marsupials) headed north and N. American mammals (mostly placentals) headed south. In the end, the placental mammals faired much better in both regions so there are fewer marsupial in the Americas. (If you believe in that sort of thing, what with plate tectonics, evolution, etc) Christian
RE: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
The Virginia opossum is a true marsupial with a well developed pouch. It is the only North American marsupial. There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. I find it amazing that both raccoons and opossums (neither of which are native to north america) have done so will on this continent. As many of these critters as you say, it's hard to believe that they're not from 'round these parts. But the further north you go, the more evident it becomes when you study these animals that they are not made for north american winters. You can see very ugly signs of frostbite and remnants of harsh winters all over them (ears, tails, and extremities in particular)... or maybe I'm just getting too damn close g. Armadillos are a distant third in the successful migration to N.A. category... but it seems like more and more of them are making their way thru the south east. I was totally amazed at how many of these I saw on the highway while driving from GA to LA about a month ago.
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
Yep. Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum). note that it is opossum with an o unlike the Aussie possum (no o). The Virginia opossum is a true marsupial with a well developed pouch. It is the only North American marsupial. There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. When this happened, S. American mammals (mostly marsupials) headed north and N. American mammals (mostly placentals) headed south. In the end, the placental mammals faired much better in both regions so there are fewer marsupial in the Americas. (If you believe in that sort of thing, what with plate tectonics, evolution, etc) Christian I met only one person who did not believe in plate tectonics. I don't think it is a question of believing. It is simply the best theory available, as with Bering Straight migration as the main source of migrants. As an inside, there was an Argentinian paleontologist who said he could prove that man appeared first in Argentina but could never show his bony proofs. In that case it was a question of believing... Andre --
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. IIRC that woud have been Gondwanaland (sp). I knew studying geology would be helpful sometime Bill
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
I met only one person who did not believe in plate tectonics. I don't think it is a question of believing. It is simply the best theory available, as with Bering Straight migration as the main source of migrants. As an inside, there was an Argentinian paleontologist who said he could prove that man appeared first in Argentina but could never show his bony proofs. In that case it was a question of believing... Andre Back in 1970, I had a geology professor who, at that time, was not convinced of plate tectonics. Bill
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
Actually, the theory I like is: The earth was once a moon of Jupiter that got hit by a giant nickel iron meteor which smashed into the core of that moon raising the temperature to the point where meteor melted. The collision knocked the earth out of its orbit around Jupiter and it finally stabilized in its present orbit. Since the planet is now much larger than it was before the collision the surface broke up and the land masses are spread out farther apart than before. Also since the mass of the planet is more than twice what it was prior to collision the gravity is also more than it was back then. The increased gravity broke the backs of all the dinosaurs causing them to become extinct. The lower gravity was the reason the dinosaurs could be large. Then about 50-100 thousand years ago, a giant spaceship parked in orbit around the earth. There was a mutiny and all the crew was stranded down here and are out ancestors. Strangely, I find the above no more unbelievable than I do plate tectonics or genesis. Points to anyone who can name the books these theories came from. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:22 AM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) Yep. Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum). note that it is opossum with an o unlike the Aussie possum (no o). The Virginia opossum is a true marsupial with a well developed pouch. It is the only North American marsupial. There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. When this happened, S. American mammals (mostly marsupials) headed north and N. American mammals (mostly placentals) headed south. In the end, the placental mammals faired much better in both regions so there are fewer marsupial in the Americas. (If you believe in that sort of thing, what with plate tectonics, evolution, etc) Christian I met only one person who did not believe in plate tectonics. I don't think it is a question of believing. It is simply the best theory available, as with Bering Straight migration as the main source of migrants. As an inside, there was an Argentinian paleontologist who said he could prove that man appeared first in Argentina but could never show his bony proofs. In that case it was a question of believing... Andre --
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
Oh for goodness sake! There is good solid evidence in support of plate tectonics. The edges of the plates we can get at have the same rock formation, minerals and fossils as the matching ones now very far away. Do you believe that mountain ranges were pushed up? Look at the folded ones. You can see irrefutable evidence that they were. Why is the surface of the earth rising in places and falling in others? Mountains still growing upwards? Land still sinking? Because the crust of the earth is floating about on a molten sea. This makes the inhabitants of San Francisco very nervous. In other words, Plate Tectonics is science. Genesis is a chapter in a very silly story-book. I'm not going to go on with this. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:01 PM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) Actually, the theory I like is: The earth was once a moon of Jupiter that got hit by a giant nickel iron meteor which smashed into the core of that moon raising the temperature to the point where meteor melted. The collision knocked the earth out of its orbit around Jupiter and it finally stabilized in its present orbit. Since the planet is now much larger than it was before the collision the surface broke up and the land masses are spread out farther apart than before. Also since the mass of the planet is more than twice what it was prior to collision the gravity is also more than it was back then. The increased gravity broke the backs of all the dinosaurs causing them to become extinct. The lower gravity was the reason the dinosaurs could be large. Then about 50-100 thousand years ago, a giant spaceship parked in orbit around the earth. There was a mutiny and all the crew was stranded down here and are out ancestors. Strangely, I find the above no more unbelievable than I do plate tectonics or genesis. Points to anyone who can name the books these theories came from. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:22 AM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) Yep. Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum). note that it is opossum with an o unlike the Aussie possum (no o). The Virginia opossum is a true marsupial with a well developed pouch. It is the only North American marsupial. There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. When this happened, S. American mammals (mostly marsupials) headed north and N. American mammals (mostly placentals) headed south. In the end, the placental mammals faired much better in both regions so there are fewer marsupial in the Americas. (If you believe in that sort of thing, what with plate tectonics, evolution, etc) Christian I met only one person who did not believe in plate tectonics. I don't think it is a question of believing. It is simply the best theory available, as with Bering Straight migration as the main source of migrants. As an inside, there was an Argentinian paleontologist who said he could prove that man appeared first in Argentina but could never show his bony proofs. In that case it was a question of believing... Andre --
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition)
Guys, Using dictionaries from times preceding inkjet technology are not going to help us out trying to relate to the new thing. Graywolf and DagT have been closest to the point here. There are other technologies about that produce essentially the same thing as a traditional photographic print, and a few processes have been around for quite a while that doesn't fit the dictionaries. A magazine's reproduction of a photography has had no obstacles to pass as a photograph in people's minds, so why bother with a inkjet printout? IMHO, the only criterium that matters is the technique used to _capture_ the image; to induce an electric or chemical response on a sensitive medium. That's how it all began, too. Graphic artists looking for methods to etch images onto slabs of whatever. Jostein - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:14 AM Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition) I will see you your two cents, and raise you a penny. Actually, when you get right down to it an inkjet print is in no way photographic. The image you are printing is possibly a photograph, but there is nothing involving light sensitivity in producing the inkjet print anymore than in a lithographic print in a magazine. Both should more properly be called reproductions of photographs. Now a laser print on the other hand How's that for flipping onto my head without using my hands? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:47 PM Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition) From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. My Oxford American Dictionary says, a picture formed by means of the chemical action of light or other radiation on a light-sensitive surface. That is a verbatim quote. It says nothing about film, nor about the need for chemical processing. And the conversion of light to electrons is indeed a chemical action in the sensor material. BTW, my dictionary is copyright 1980, so it pre-dates this argument by a bit. Ciao, Graywolf I just checked my Oxford Pocket Dictionary - residing on my shelf for years and companion to many a query regarding meaning or spelling, and it is the 5th edition, dated 1969. LOL. Okay, upstairs to rifle through one of the 2 huge volumes of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (got them for Her Indoors when she was doing her dissertation at University back in 1987). Photograph: [Used for the first time, together with 'photographic', 'photography', by Sir John Herschel (1839)...] A picture, likeness or facsimile obtained by photography ...and: Photography: The process or art of producing pictures by means of the chemical action of light on a sensitive film on a basis of paper, glass, metal, etc; the business of producing and printing such pictures... First printed 1973, this edition 1986. My own personal view is that a photograph should relate to the overall means and not specifically the method. However, there were different methods of acquiring images way back in the good old days - photoglyphy for instance - so maybe the correct trend is to invent new ways of describing new methods. I do believe that the world changes though and definitions can be adjusted to take account of these changes. It must be remembered that it is the use of a word by us, the people speaking it and writing it, that results in such words eventually finding their way into dictionaries, or indeed resulting in adjusted definitions in said dictionaries. I think that most people seeing an inkjet print will refer to it as a photograph, and hence in time that definition will prevail. .02 Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
Not to mention that South America and Africa, and Africa and Madagascar fit together like a jigsaw. IIRC, the theory is that eventually Los Angeles will be a neighboring city of Anchorage. Bill - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:02 PM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) Oh for goodness sake! There is good solid evidence in support of plate tectonics. The edges of the plates we can get at have the same rock formation, minerals and fossils as the matching ones now very far away. Do you believe that mountain ranges were pushed up? Look at the folded ones. You can see irrefutable evidence that they were. Why is the surface of the earth rising in places and falling in others? Mountains still growing upwards? Land still sinking? Because the crust of the earth is floating about on a molten sea. This makes the inhabitants of San Francisco very nervous. In other words, Plate Tectonics is science. Genesis is a chapter in a very silly story-book. I'm not going to go on with this. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:01 PM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) Actually, the theory I like is: The earth was once a moon of Jupiter that got hit by a giant nickel iron meteor which smashed into the core of that moon raising the temperature to the point where meteor melted. The collision knocked the earth out of its orbit around Jupiter and it finally stabilized in its present orbit. Since the planet is now much larger than it was before the collision the surface broke up and the land masses are spread out farther apart than before. Also since the mass of the planet is more than twice what it was prior to collision the gravity is also more than it was back then. The increased gravity broke the backs of all the dinosaurs causing them to become extinct. The lower gravity was the reason the dinosaurs could be large. Then about 50-100 thousand years ago, a giant spaceship parked in orbit around the earth. There was a mutiny and all the crew was stranded down here and are out ancestors. Strangely, I find the above no more unbelievable than I do plate tectonics or genesis. Points to anyone who can name the books these theories came from. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:22 AM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) Yep. Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum). note that it is opossum with an o unlike the Aussie possum (no o). The Virginia opossum is a true marsupial with a well developed pouch. It is the only North American marsupial. There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. When this happened, S. American mammals (mostly marsupials) headed north and N. American mammals (mostly placentals) headed south. In the end, the placental mammals faired much better in both regions so there are fewer marsupial in the Americas. (If you believe in that sort of thing, what with plate tectonics, evolution, etc) Christian I met only one person who did not believe in plate tectonics. I don't think it is a question of believing. It is simply the best theory available, as with Bering Straight migration as the main source of migrants. As an inside, there was an Argentinian paleontologist who said he could prove that man appeared first in Argentina but could never show his bony proofs. In that case it was a question of believing... Andre --
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
In other words, Plate Tectonics is science. Genesis is a chapter in a very silly story-book. I'm not going to go on with this. Don Genesis, I'd rather say, is myth of origin in a very popular moralistic book. Science has its own myth of origin, the Big Bang, constantly evolving though... which make it more interesting. Other myths of origin (in some amazonian cultures at least) are also evolving. Andre --
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
STOP PLATE TECTONICS! Back in 1970, I had a geology professor who, at that time, was not convinced of plate tectonics.
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
Don't hold to that belief too strongly, Christian. Most of the time, back when writers respected English language roots, they spelled opossum like 'possum, because the o was dropped in speech. That's called an 'aphesis.' Look it up. Both are the same creature. Some folks spell him differently, depending on where they came from! smile keith whaley Christian Skofteland wrote: - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW are American opossums marsupials? The possums of Oceania definitely are. regards, Anthony Farr Yep. Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum). note that it is opossum with an o unlike the Aussie possum (no o). The Virginia opossum is a true marsupial with a well developed pouch. It is the only North American marsupial. There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. When this happened, S. American mammals (mostly marsupials) headed north and N. American mammals (mostly placentals) headed south. In the end, the placental mammals faired much better in both regions so there are fewer marsupial in the Americas. (If you believe in that sort of thing, what with plate tectonics, evolution, etc) Christian
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
I've seen pictures of opossums, and they look different enough to Aussie possums to have prompted my original question regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't hold to that belief too strongly, Christian. Most of the time, back when writers respected English language roots, they spelled opossum like 'possum, because the o was dropped in speech. That's called an 'aphesis.' Look it up. Both are the same creature. Some folks spell him differently, depending on where they came from! smile keith whaley
Re: Agfa Competition
Hi, Friday, June 20, 2003, 9:47:07 AM, you wrote: Image. is root. includes 3D things. Print. instance of image. includes photographs and all categories of images printed on a surface through various methods as typography etc. Photograph. instance of print. a print obtained through opto-chemically blah blah Inkjet print. instance of print. a print obtained with an inkjet printer. It's easy. It's all there in the dictionary. Unfortunately 'print' doesn't distinguish between prints from, for example, water colours, and prints from images made directly by the action of light. You've have left a gap. recognising that 'print' is not strictly the correct word in this example, but it will do for the moment, where other people might have e.g.: ...print.painting.watercolour... ...print.painting.acrylic... ...print.photograph.daguerreotype... ...print.photograph.silver halide... ...print.photograph.inkjet... ...print.photograph.slide... you seem to have something like: ...print.painting.watercolour... ...print.painting.acrylic... ...print.photograph... ...print.daguerreotype... ...print.inkjet... ...print.slide... which leaves no way of classifying together all the 'prints' that are not paintings. Anyway, I'm sick to death of this, I don't really care what you call them, and the sun's shining. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition)
Hi, Friday, June 20, 2003, 10:16:42 PM, you wrote: Maybe it's time to get our heads out of the sand. I don't think that's where his head is... -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition)
HEY! It's dark up here! What the hell's that smell?! Oh...warm and cozy... Regards, Bob... --- Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Friday, June 20, 2003, 10:16:42 PM, you wrote: Maybe it's time to get our heads out of the sand. I don't think that's where his head is...
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
All I know about opossums is that they're ugly son of a bitches and they're good to eat. Paul Keith Whaley wrote: Are the 'possums I see in my backyard, here in So. Calif., also Virginia 'possums? No, seriously! Christian wrote: [. . .] To be clear: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana - N. America) is a different species from Brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula - Australia). They are in the same order of mammals: marsupalia, but different families. Incidentally, there are several species of possums in Australia, and at least three species of opossum in North and South America (only one in North America). How's it parse out? My book says Mammalia are classes of Vertebrates, which is one of the sub-phyla of Chordata, which in turn belongs to the sub-kingdom of Metazoa, kingdom of animals. Where does species fit? That's what I was trying to say before, but didn't know how to split up the classification. Interesting to know opposums are not just one species. Never knew that. keith It's true that in North America, i.e.: the United States, some people, in a regional dialect, call it a 'possum, but they are refering to the Virginia opossum which is its correct common name. Just like some people call raccoons, 'coons, etc, etc. Christian
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition)
Try telling that to a photography collector. Maybe he will give you thousands of dollars for a tear sheet from an old life magazine. Ciao, Graywolf No. But in 50 years some photography collector may give a thousand dollars for an archival ink jet print from a collectable photographer BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
Hey Bill, That Gondwanaland thing always stumped me (doesn`t take much). If all the continents were on one side of the Earth, they`re trying to tell me that on the other side it was only water? There had to be other continents that subducted on the other side, no? Just trying to figure it out. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:36 AM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) There are several in South America, which at one point, was attached to Australia and floating free in the Pacific ocean until they separated and S. America joined N. America via Central America. IIRC that woud have been Gondwanaland (sp). I knew studying geology would be helpful sometime Bill
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
I had a geology professor in 1976 that said we would be able to predict earthquakes in about 10 years. Hehe. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:02 AM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) STOP PLATE TECTONICS! Back in 1970, I had a geology professor who, at that time, was not convinced of plate tectonics.
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
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.
Re: Agfa Competition
My original question was if any one on this list is entering, not what format they entering The rules of this contest states: Enteries accepted as B/W photo prints from 13 X 18 to 20 X 25cm of an image photographed by analogue means (series and transparencies cannot be accepted) It dosn't say that you have to print it out on any particular brand of paper, just that you have to have used a film camera to do it. Its not the final output, its the original medium they intrested in. Its to be used on the new multicontrast packs and in a calendar. All you have to do is provided a print of your image for judging purposes. I'm making the assumption that they would ask for the neg if you came in the top 12. All I have is HP5 and will hope its contrasty enoughFortunately this competition is open to Pros as well as hobbist so I wont feel to left out using my lowly but trusty MZS to enter as the later...:) Competitions are to supposed to be fun children, not a long drawn out where the thin blue line ends argument. Oh the theme is Action, Emotion Memories-any suggestions? Feroze
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
Re: Agfa Competition
Hi, Thursday, June 19, 2003, 4:27:00 AM, you wrote: And while we are at it what about this digital darkroom stuff. Why do those guys have their computer in the darkroom? Or, if they don't, why should we listen to liars anyway. grin not a big grin, because there is a little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said. perhaps, to get consistent viewing conditions, they blackout the windows and switch off the lights so that the on-screen images are illuminated only by the screen. Besides, 'darkrooms' are only dark for the brief moment while you load the film in the tank. Otherwise they are lit normally or by a safelight and the light of the enlarger. Doesn't seem very different to me. On cave 'logic', if a slide is a slide and therefore not a photograph, and an inkjet print is an inkjet print and therefore not a photograph, presumably a silver halide print is a silver halide print, and therefore not a photograph, a daguerrotype is a daguerrotype and therefore not a photograph, and so on. This subterranean logic seems to suggest there is no such thing as a photograph, unless we count the platonic shadows of reality dancing on the cave walls, and the language of the cave has no concept of the general, only the specific. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Agfa Competition
They're nothing but despicable pretenders. ? Why use so harsh words? They print a file from their digicam and they call that photography. It's file printing. I didn't say pity I can't submit a print from my digital ps, I said pity I can't submit an inkjet print (which, it occurs, I can). I was talking about an image shot on film then scanned and then printed on an inkjet printer. Yeah, from a distance you may mistake it for photographs. Obviously, you've never seen a good inkjet print. Regards, Lukasz
Re: Agfa Competition
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? And that's what I was hoping to submit for the contest. THIS HABIT of capitalising the first two words of each sentence is now tiresome and I will stop. No, not at all g Regards, Lukasz
Re: Agfa Competition
Or, if they don't, why should we listen to liars anyway. grin not a big grin, because there is a little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said. Why liars? ukasz
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
And it's not. The process is photography, but the result is properly called a slide and not a photograph. If you look at the Agfa contest rules, you'll see they don't take slides either. And I didn't complain, I'm not into the business of trying to pass slides as photographs. For me it's splitting hairs. E.g. the British magazine Practical Photography has a big contest with great prizes. They call for readers to send photographs, yet they accept slides, traditional prints, and inkjet prints. How come? Maybe for them it's the image that matters? And, as I understand, the rules of the Agfa competition talk about the basic medium being analogue (i.e. film). The output they're being sent doesn't matter, as long as the original can be printed on their multicontrast paper. So i guess they also would accept an inkjet print as a photograph. On the other hand, however, they don't live in caves (I presume)... ;-) Regards, Lukasz
Re: Agfa Competition
Hi, Bob Walkden wrote: there is no such thing as a photograph Isn't that what Barthes says? unless we count the platonic shadows of reality dancing on the cave walls, and the language of the cave has no concept of the general, only the specific. Oh. Yes. 8-) m
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
If there had been enough people on the list, to create viable sub lists, it would have split long ago over: MF/35mm, SM/KM, AF/MF. I mean, how many little pubs do you think this rag tag group can sustain? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there had been enough people on the list, to create viable sub lists, it would have split long ago over: MF/35mm, SM/KM, AF/MF. I mean, how many little pubs do you think this rag tag group can sustain? I dunno, but let's all repair to the local pub and find out! keith BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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?
Re: Agfa Competition
Oxford (or any other dictionary) defines a word based on it's common usage(s) at the time the dictionary was published. Definitions change over time. Whenever a new Oxford edition comes out, there are news stories of new words that are added. Any bets that in upcoming editions (and it may take a few years), the definition of photography is amended to include digital techniques? cheers, frank Cotty wrote: Oxford Pocket says: Photograph: Picture taken by means of a chemical action of light on sensitive film.snip -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:09:12 -0400, Caveman wrote: Per Merriam-Webster - Photography : the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light. It would appear that Webster believes a slide is a photograph. Butch Black wrote: If you are consistent with that logic then a slide or transparency is not a photograph unless printed on silver halide photographic paper. And it's not. The process is photography, but the result is properly called a slide and not a photograph. If you look at the Agfa contest rules, you'll see they don't take slides either. And I didn't complain, I'm not into the business of trying to pass slides as photographs. cheers, caveman PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart. http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Agfa Competition
frank theriault wrote: Oxford (or any other dictionary) defines a word based on it's common usage(s) at the time the dictionary was published. Definitions change over time. Whenever a new Oxford edition comes out, there are news stories of new words that are added. Yes, and time for my new edition, it seems. Any bets that in upcoming editions (and it may take a few years), the definition of photography is amended to include digital techniques? No question in my mind, Frank. Probably sooner than later, in fact. keith cheers, frank Cotty wrote: Oxford Pocket says: Photograph: Picture taken by means of a chemical action of light on sensitive film.snip
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
AND, that definition would include digital photography as well. The words sensitized surface (as a film) clearly mean sensitized surface including but not limited to film. I think a digital sensor would fall into that category. -frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Per Merriam-Webster - Photography : the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light. It would appear that Webster believes a slide is a photograph. -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
On June 19, 2003 07:39 am, frank theriault wrote: AND, that definition would include digital photography as well. The words sensitized surface (as a film) clearly mean sensitized surface including but not limited to film. I think a digital sensor would fall into that category. One of those lights that turn themselves on when it's dark would count to then? Nick
Re: Agfa Competition
On June 19, 2003 05:24 am, Bob Walkden wrote: Besides, 'darkrooms' are only dark for the brief moment while you load the film in the tank. Otherwise they are lit normally or by a safelight and the light of the enlarger. Only if you're using a daylight tank for film and doing BW prints. Nick
Re: Agfa Competition
Bob W wrote: On cave 'logic', if a slide is a slide and therefore not a photograph, and an inkjet print is an inkjet print and therefore not a photograph, presumably a silver halide print is a silver halide print, and therefore not a photograph, a daguerrotype is a daguerrotype and therefore not a photograph, and so on. This subterranean logic seems to suggest there is no such thing as a photograph, unless we count the platonic shadows of reality dancing on the cave walls, and the language of the cave has no concept of the general, only the specific. Jees Bob, will you teach me how to write like that? You da man! Suck on that cave dude ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Agfa Competition
Oxford (or any other dictionary) defines a word based on it's common usage(s) at the time the dictionary was published. Definitions change over time. Whenever a new Oxford edition comes out, there are news stories of new words that are added. Any bets that in upcoming editions (and it may take a few years), the definition of photography is amended to include digital techniques? Good point Frank. It supports the argument that these things we desire are called photographs, and that there are many ways of displaying them, no? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Agfa Competition
Hi, Thursday, June 19, 2003, 2:16:52 PM, you wrote: Bob W wrote: On cave 'logic', if a slide is a slide and therefore not a photograph, and an inkjet print is an inkjet print and therefore not a photograph, presumably a silver halide print is a silver halide print, and therefore not a photograph, a daguerrotype is a daguerrotype and therefore not a photograph, and so on. This subterranean logic seems to suggest there is no such thing as a photograph, unless we count the platonic shadows of reality dancing on the cave walls, and the language of the cave has no concept of the general, only the specific. Jees Bob, will you teach me how to write like that? You da man! Suck on that cave dude ;-) I can do you a nice price on a 12-week correspondence course from the Bart Sontag Academy of Deconstructionist Post-Modern Dialectic Art Crit., If you accept this offer I'll throw in a free seminar on the Pre-Hegelian Hermeneutics of Structuralist Reification Theory. And you can't say fairer than that, guv. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Agfa Competition
A photograph is an image produced by reflected light off of some object focused through a lens onto a light sensitive material. As such a digital image produced in such a manner is indeed a photograph. There have been many different media used to make photographs over the years, digital is just another in a long list. Every time there is a change there is also an argument over whether the new media is really a photograph. If we keep the above definition in mind there really is no question whether or not the new media is photographic or not. Now a digital image may or may not be a photograph. I would say that a digital photograph is a subset of digital imaging. In other words it is only a photograph if it is produced from light reflected off of a real object through a lens (a pin-hole has to be considered a type of lens for this discussion, otherwise I know some smart-ass will bring it up). Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmmm Can any digital print be called a Photograph? Perhaps a Digital Image would be more appropriate!
Re: Agfa Competition
My Oxford American Dictionary says, a picture formed by means of the chemical action of light or other radiation on a light-sensitive surface. That is a verbatim quote. It says nothing about film, nor about the need for chemical processing. And the conversion of light to electrons is indeed a chemical action in the sensor material. BTW, my dictionary is copyright 1980, so it pre-dates this argument by a bit. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Agfa Competition
VanTil rocks! :) Collin ** Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:52:01 +0100 From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can do you a nice price on a 12-week correspondence course from the Bart Sontag Academy of Deconstructionist Post-Modern Dialectic Art Crit., If you accept this offer I'll throw in a free seminar on the Pre-Hegelian Hermeneutics of Structuralist Reification Theory. And you can't say fairer than that, guv. -- Cheers, Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Agfa Competition
A? Jokes are a little hard to explain. Especially so when you delete the first part. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: £ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:49 AM Subject: Re: Agfa Competition Or, if they don't, why should we listen to liars anyway. grin not a big grin, because there is a little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said. Why liars? £ukasz
Re: Agfa Competition
Hi, Thursday, June 19, 2003, 4:53:03 PM, you wrote: A photograph is an image produced by reflected light off of some object focused through a lens onto a light sensitive material. the important aspect to stress is that it is the action of light that directly causes the medium itself to capture the latent image. Otherwise we would need to treat paintings as photographs when the painter, such as Vermeer, used a device like a camera obscura to project an image onto the canvas, but then used his paint to capture and fix the (non-latent) image. In photography it is a pinhead full of angels (how many?) who capture the image. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Agfa Competition
A? Jokes are a little hard to explain. Especially so when you delete the first part. You think? ;-) Sorry - rough day today. Regards, ukasz
Re: Agfa Competition
Hi, Hmm. Must be one of those English vs. American language things. I'll bet if you both look you'll find that the English one says 'tomato' and the American one says 'tomato'. The English 'potato', the Yankee 'potato'. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, June 19, 2003, 5:08:31 PM, you wrote: My Oxford American Dictionary says, a picture formed by means of the chemical action of light or other radiation on a light-sensitive surface. That is a verbatim quote. It says nothing about film, nor about the need for chemical processing. And the conversion of light to electrons is indeed a chemical action in the sensor material. BTW, my dictionary is copyright 1980, so it pre-dates this argument by a bit. 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.
Re: Agfa Competition
Bob Walkden wrote: Not so. You bandy the word photograph about just as much as the rest of us, without specifying which type of photograph you mean. When people want to use photograph for inkjet prints. Then you have to invent a new term for photograph as to differentiate it from inkjet print. We start to use abominations like silver halide opto-chemicaly produced photographs. This rather reminds me of the 11+ exam that British children had to take to decide whether we went to a school that taught Latin or one that taught metalwork: Huh ? I thought it was all about having fun with the coeds. cheers, caveman
Re: Agfa Competition
When people want to use photograph for inkjet prints. So for you a photograph is a wet print and nothing else? That's pretty limiting. A photograph is (and always was) a general term 0 that's why you have a wet print or inkjet print that further explain the technique used to produce a particular photograph. Regards, Lukasz
Re: Agfa Competition
Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote: When people want to use photograph for inkjet prints. So for you a photograph is a wet print and nothing else? For me a photograph is what the dictionary says it is. That's the only sane way to decide what a word means. That's pretty limiting. A photograph is (and always was) a general term 0 that's why you have a wet print or inkjet print that further explain the technique used to produce a particular photograph. Unless you want to get again in the toilet paper discussion, you can use photograph and inkjet print according to their dictionary sense. I promise I won't confuse them. And, if I do, you can always refer me to the dictionary. It's much simpler than a long winded philosophical discussion each time someone misuses or abuse a word. cheers, caveman
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
It certainly seems to be able to sustain you!! Feroze - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:00 PM Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition) If there had been enough people on the list, to create viable sub lists, it would have split long ago over: MF/35mm, SM/KM, AF/MF. I mean, how many little pubs do you think this rag tag group can sustain? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
Of course not! Simple photo-electric cells don't record images, do they? I was replying to a post of Ken's, in which the definition of photography that he proferred, was: Photography : the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light. It would appear that Webster believes a slide is a photograph. I believe that you (possibly unwittingly) took me out of context. regards, frank Nick Zentena wrote: One of those lights that turn themselves on when it's dark would count to then? Nick -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Agfa Competition
Hi, Thursday, June 19, 2003, 8:40:23 PM, you wrote: Bob Walkden wrote: Not so. You bandy the word photograph about just as much as the rest of us, without specifying which type of photograph you mean. When people want to use photograph for inkjet prints. Then you have to invent a new term for photograph as to differentiate it from inkjet print. We start to use abominations like silver halide opto-chemicaly produced photographs. I think you're quite wrong. People use 'photograph' for pictures taken with a camera of some sort. I have a daguerreotype here at home, and people sometimes ask 'what kind of photograph is that?', in which case I explain that it's a daguerreotype. In years to come perhaps people will look at some of my silver halide prints, which are also perfectly good photographs, and ask 'what kind of photograph is that?'. And I will explain how it differs from the 'normal' photographs of the future. When I look at photographs in galleries the labels now frequently tell me, because we are in a time of transition, what the medium is. For instance, I was at a Salgado exhibition and the labels told me whether the photographs - for that's what they all were - were silver halide, Iris, or some other process. Similarly when I look at paintings - for that's what they all are - the labels tell me whether I'm looking at water colours, ink wash, acrylic, oil, elephant dung or whatever. It's you who is mangling the language, by trying to co-opt the generic term so that it can only be used for one specific type. Claiming that slides are not photographs, for example, is simply ludicrous. It's like saying you can only use the word 'mammal' for kangaroos, and you can't use it to describe possums, horses and bats, because if you did you'd have to start using abominations like Large bouncy jerbil with pouch. Occasionally boxes. This rather reminds me of the 11+ exam that British children had to take to decide whether we went to a school that taught Latin or one that taught metalwork: Huh ? I thought it was all about having fun with the coeds. well, that too, of course. I've got the photographs to prove it g. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Agfa Competition
Bob Walkden wrote: Bob Walkden wrote: what do you do when different dictionaries give mutually-incompatible definitions of the same word? You take the one from the dictionary that's accepted as *the* reference. But could you please give some examples. In this very thread you have cited one that specifies 'chemical' as part of the definition, and somebody else has cited another that doesn't require a photograph to be chemical. Were they muttually-incompatible or was one definition longer and more complete than the other. A sane approach is to look for the most complete definition. There are pocket dictionaries and huge ones in several volumes. Obviously the pocket ones have shorter definitions, fewer words explained, and some senses of a word missing completely. Which would you pick as the reference. What is *the* reference, and who has made that decision? There is no such thing in English. There is no English equivalent of the French Academy. Go to some University that has an Arts and Letters Faculty and is giving British Language Culture and Civilisation courses. Ask the professors there, they should be able to give you the proper answer. cheers, caveman
Re: Agfa Competition
Hi, Cotty, Kripes, I don't know! I just read Bob's posts about Pre-Hegelian Post-Modernist Deconstructionalist Marxist Thesis/Synthesis Dialectic Platonic Cave Shadow Wave-Particle Dualism in Light Theory. My head's swimming. Did I make a good point or something? -knarf/frank Cotty wrote: Good point Frank. It supports the argument that these things we desire are called photographs, and that there are many ways of displaying them, no? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition)
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. My Oxford American Dictionary says, a picture formed by means of the chemical action of light or other radiation on a light-sensitive surface. That is a verbatim quote. It says nothing about film, nor about the need for chemical processing. And the conversion of light to electrons is indeed a chemical action in the sensor material. BTW, my dictionary is copyright 1980, so it pre-dates this argument by a bit. Ciao, Graywolf I just checked my Oxford Pocket Dictionary - residing on my shelf for years and companion to many a query regarding meaning or spelling, and it is the 5th edition, dated 1969. LOL. Okay, upstairs to rifle through one of the 2 huge volumes of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (got them for Her Indoors when she was doing her dissertation at University back in 1987). Photograph: [Used for the first time, together with 'photographic', 'photography', by Sir John Herschel (1839)...] A picture, likeness or facsimile obtained by photography ...and: Photography: The process or art of producing pictures by means of the chemical action of light on a sensitive film on a basis of paper, glass, metal, etc; the business of producing and printing such pictures... First printed 1973, this edition 1986. My own personal view is that a photograph should relate to the overall means and not specifically the method. However, there were different methods of acquiring images way back in the good old days - photoglyphy for instance - so maybe the correct trend is to invent new ways of describing new methods. I do believe that the world changes though and definitions can be adjusted to take account of these changes. It must be remembered that it is the use of a word by us, the people speaking it and writing it, that results in such words eventually finding their way into dictionaries, or indeed resulting in adjusted definitions in said dictionaries. I think that most people seeing an inkjet print will refer to it as a photograph, and hence in time that definition will prevail. .02 Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Agfa Competition
But kangaroos and opossums are not mammals, but marsupials :-) Bill It's you who is mangling the language, by trying to co-opt the generic term so that it can only be used for one specific type. Claiming that slides are not photographs, for example, is simply ludicrous. It's like saying you can only use the word 'mammal' for kangaroos, and you can't use it to describe possums, horses and bats, because if you did you'd have to start using abominations like Large bouncy jerbil with pouch. Occasionally boxes.
Re: Agfa Competition
marsupials are an order of mammals: marsupalia christian Hey! I got to use my biology degree! On Thursday 19 June 2003 17:49, Bill Owens wrote: But kangaroos and opossums are not mammals, but marsupials :-) Bill It's you who is mangling the language, by trying to co-opt the generic term so that it can only be used for one specific type. Claiming that slides are not photographs, for example, is simply ludicrous. It's like saying you can only use the word 'mammal' for kangaroos, and you can't use it to describe possums, horses and bats, because if you did you'd have to start using abominations like Large bouncy jerbil with pouch. Occasionally boxes.
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
I see no problem with calling an inkjet print an inkjet print. What objective argument exists for having to call it otherwise. caveman It still is a photograph, presented in the form of an inkjet print. Andre --
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
On June 19, 2003 05:12 pm, frank theriault wrote: Of course not! Simple photo-electric cells don't record images, do they? But it's about producing an image not recording one. It's not a very realistic image but it's an image. Now replace the single bulb and sensor with a bunch of little ones. Would that be a photograph? Nick
Re: Agfa Competition
Unless you want to get again in the toilet paper discussion, you can use photograph and inkjet print according to their dictionary sense. I promise I won't confuse them. And, if I do, you can always refer me to the dictionary. It's much simpler than a long winded philosophical discussion each time someone misuses or abuse a word. Ahh, but over time o dweller of the rocky apertures, as common useage increases and spreads, the definition *will* change. That's how new words come about and find themselves in dictionaries. There isn't a nice man behind a big desk at Websters making up new words and scribbling them down - they take years to form, become part of a common useage, and eventually get included after teams of researchers do their thing. Similarly, definitions do get ammended. the key is common useage. There is a crossover period - quite lengthy - when both (or even several) definitions are correct. We are in effect all right about the word photograph :-) Kindest regards, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
A light bulb, whether on or off, is in no way an image. Not even a really poor image. It just ain't. It's just a light bulb. To say otherwise is reduction to the point of absurdity. As for the rest of your post, are you trying to make a point? If so, make it, and I'll respond to it. But this Socratic Method of question and answer is adding to an already lengthy thread. Sorry to sound so cross, but it's been a long day, and I'm tired and cranky. -frank Nick Zentena wrote: But it's about producing an image not recording one. It's not a very realistic image but it's an image. Now replace the single bulb and sensor with a bunch of little ones. Would that be a photograph? Nick -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Agfa Competition
Kripes, I don't know! I just read Bob's posts about Pre-Hegelian Post- Modernist Deconstructionalist Marxist Thesis/Synthesis Dialectic Platonic Cave Shadow Wave-Particle Dualism in Light Theory. My head's swimming. Did I make a good point or something? ROTFL I'm still recovering from: Large bouncy jerbil with pouch. Occasionally boxes. Bob has had the pleasure of meeting me and so has the advantage of describing me to the letter :-D I swear, if we were in a bar listening to this, now's as good a time as any to break out the bunny ears. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: digital printout (was: RE: Agfa Competition)
On 19 Jun 2003 at 20:58, mishka wrote: i just photocopied a few digital images from a cd -- they look nothing like series of 1 and 0. all i got was one big black disk with a hole inside. weird... Try sticking it to your ear, it was probably a music cd :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Agfa Competition
-Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As always. It's as much photography as is putting your a** on a scanner and printing the resulting file. Ok, so let me get this straight, - Inkjet prints are no better than toilet paper. - Photographers who use digital cameras are liars and pretenders. - Photographers who use digital cameras are cheap and have no balls. Is that about it? Anything to add? tv
RE: Agfa Competition
On 19 Jun 2003 at 22:48, tom wrote: Ok, so let me get this straight, - Inkjet prints are no better than toilet paper. - Photographers who use digital cameras are liars and pretenders. - Photographers who use digital cameras are cheap and have no balls. Is that about it? Anything to add? They're unlikely to be using Pentax equipment :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Agfa Competition
tom wrote: As always. Ok, so let me get this straight, Sure. I said as always. This means half serious, half kidding. I even put a smiley somewhere in the message. - Inkjet prints are no better than toilet paper. Said inkjet prints are as much photographs as toilet paper. If you accept to call them photographs because they could be instead of, you should also accept they could be called toilet paper. - Photographers who use digital cameras are liars and pretenders. Said that those trying to pass inkjet prints as photographs could be called like that. - Photographers who use digital cameras are cheap and have no balls. Didn't you go digital because of the reduced costs and the possibility to check results on location, so you can avoid nasty surprises later, like when you notice your camera underexposed all films. Is that about it? Anything to add? Yep. Sticking a webcam in my USB port doesn't make me a photographer. Why would a digicam make me one. cheers, caveman
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
AFAIK museums and art galleries gave up trying to nail down a definition of a photograph. To photographic images they append the captions Type C print, Dye Transfer print, Gelatin Silver Print (or Silver Bromide print), Bromoil print, Palladium print, Platinum print, Screen print, and on and on ad nauseum. Even Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) prints get a description along the lines of Azo Colour print or something to that effect. IOW they are all prints. regards, Anthony Farr
Re: Agfa Competition
They ARE mammals because they give birth to live offspring which are suckled on their mothers' milk. Marsupials is an order of Mammalia just the same as ungulates is an order that includes horses and giraffes, and primates is an order that includes chimpanzees and humans. Don't ask me about monotremes (platypus echidna) which lay eggs and therefore don't strictly qualify as mammals under the live birth rule. I've seen them called 'proto-mammals' among other things, their definition is constantly evolving. BTW are American opossums marsupials? The possums of Oceania definitely are. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] But kangaroos and opossums are not mammals, but marsupials :-) Bill
Re: Agfa Competition
To get back to photography, there's a shot I took of a marsupial on this page: http://www.amonline.net.au/thylacine/09.htm regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] They ARE mammals because (snip)
Re: Agfa Competition
- Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW are American opossums marsupials? The possums of Oceania definitely are. If you think marsupials are animals that have pouches and live in Australia, you're wrong. Some species do not have pouches, and some live in South America, with the Virginia opossum ranging far north into North America. Bob
Re: Agfa Competition
No, I mentioned neither pouches nor Australia. I linked possums to Oceania (a region of the world that includes Australia), but not marsupials in their entirety. Yes. I'm well aware that marsupials are found elsewhere but Australia, but that wasn't the essence of my question. If you look at the link I gave in another post, you'll see where I worked in past years. Some of the knowledge shared with me by the research scientists would occasionally migrate into my thick skull ;-) To save you from finding the other post, the link is: http://www.amonline.net.au/thylacine/09.htm regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 20 June 2003 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Agfa Competition - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW are American opossums marsupials? The possums of Oceania definitely are. If you think marsupials are animals that have pouches and live in Australia, you're wrong. Some species do not have pouches, and some live in South America, with the Virginia opossum ranging far north into North America. Bob
Re: Agfa Competition
http://www.agfa.com/photo/multicontrast-competition/ Anybody here entering. prizes 1-3 a Leica M7, 4-6 a R9 and 7-12 a C1 I thought about it, but I don't make traditional prints, and any digital output is excluded :-( regards, Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: Agfa Competition
Yep, I saw that, but I think they trying to promote their multicontrast paper, but that R9 looks like a very nice camera :) Feroze - Original Message - From: Lukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:18 PM Subject: Re: Agfa Competition http://www.agfa.com/photo/multicontrast-competition/ Anybody here entering. prizes 1-3 a Leica M7, 4-6 a R9 and 7-12 a C1 I thought about it, but I don't make traditional prints, and any digital output is excluded :-( regards, Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: Agfa Competition
Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote: http://www.agfa.com/photo/multicontrast-competition/ I thought about it, but I don't make traditional prints, and any digital output is excluded :-( It is a B/W photo competition, not an Adobe Photoshop skills one. cheers, caveman
Re: Agfa Competition
OOH a R9, tho I maybe closer to getting a c1. The joys of having both digital and a darkroom. --- Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.agfa.com/photo/multicontrast-competition/ Anybody here entering. prizes 1-3 a Leica M7, 4-6 a R9 and 7-12 a C1 Feroze __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Agfa Competition
It is a B/W photo competition, not an Adobe Photoshop skills one. So? Since when can't a digital bw print be called bw photograph? Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: Agfa Competition
No thanks, I already have a practically brand new C1 I'm looking to sell. But thanks! keith whaley Feroze Kistan wrote: http://www.agfa.com/photo/multicontrast-competition/ Anybody here entering. prizes 1-3 a Leica M7, 4-6 a R9 and 7-12 a C1 Feroze
Re: Agfa Competition
- Original Message - From: Lukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? Since when can't a digital bw print be called bw photograph? Lukasz Hmmm Can any digital print be called a Photograph? Perhaps a Digital Image would be more appropriate! Bob
Re: Agfa Competition
Hmmm Can any digital print be called a Photograph? Perhaps a Digital Image would be more appropriate! Maybe. But for me, if it looks like a photograph and feels like a photograph it is a photograph for me. ukasz
Re: Agfa Competition
But for me, if it looks like a photograph and feels like a photograph it is a photograph for me. Sorry for my convoluted syntax - that's what you get for not reading before hitting the send button :-) ukasz
Re: Agfa Competition
On June 18, 2003 06:52 pm, Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote: It is a B/W photo competition, not an Adobe Photoshop skills one. So? Since when can't a digital bw print be called bw photograph? I suggest looking at the secondary prizes. Nick
Re: Agfa Competition
Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote: It is a B/W photo competition, not an Adobe Photoshop skills one. So? Since when can't a digital bw print be called bw photograph? Since the organizers decided so. And for the purpose of that contest, that's how it is, whether you like it or not. cheers, caveman
Re: Agfa Competition
So? Since when can't a digital bw print be called bw photograph? Since the organizers decided so. And for the purpose of that contest, that's how it is, whether you like it or not. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not negating the organizers' right to make their rules. Never crossed my mind. I just wish they allowed inkjet prints. Is all. I only objected to your statement that implied that one can not call an inkjet print a bw photograph, which I think isn't true. I don't intend to persuade you (or anyone for that matter) to accept my opinion. Just expressing it. Regards, Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: Agfa Competition
It's the M7 you should be drooling over. The R9 is a weak sister. Paul Brendan wrote: OOH a R9, tho I maybe closer to getting a c1. The joys of having both digital and a darkroom. --- Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.agfa.com/photo/multicontrast-competition/ Anybody here entering. prizes 1-3 a Leica M7, 4-6 a R9 and 7-12 a C1 Feroze __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
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 Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: Agfa Competition
They're nothing but despicable pretenders. They print a file from their digicam and they call that photography. It's file printing. Yeah, from a distance you may mistake it for photographs. It's like with the transvestites. From a distance, they look like women. Or even better than most of them. They behave like women. They pretend to be women. They call themselves so. But when you get any closer, you'll see that it's a completely different job waiting for you there. T Rittenhouse wrote: And while we are at it what about this digital darkroom stuff. Why do those guys have their computer in the darkroom? Or, if they don't, why should we listen to liars anyway. grin not a big grin, because there is a little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said.
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
Butch Black wrote: If you are consistent with that logic then a slide or transparency is not a photograph unless printed on silver halide photographic paper. And it's not. The process is photography, but the result is properly called a slide and not a photograph. If you look at the Agfa contest rules, you'll see they don't take slides either. And I didn't complain, I'm not into the business of trying to pass slides as photographs. cheers, caveman
Re: Agfa Competition
I for one don't have my computer or 2200 near my dark room. Photography at it's core is image capture, digiral or film BUT many old skills of the darkroom are being lost, and if Agfa wants to show off their paper and also the darkroom skills of photographers they can. just like Fuji insists that you use fuji film ( or fuji digi cam ) for theirs. __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
