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: 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: 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: 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)
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: 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)
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: 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 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: 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: 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)
> 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: 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: 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
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)
