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 ima
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 prin
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-c
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.
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 PROTECT
- 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 S
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)
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 monot
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",
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
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
> -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 dig
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
Te
>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: "
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
>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
>discussi
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 lit
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
--
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
>
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 y
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:
>
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
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
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
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
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 a
> 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 pa
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 p
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]
Thursda
> A? Jokes are a little hard to explain. Especially so when you delete
the
> first part.
You think? ;-) Sorry - rough day today.
Regards,
Łukasz
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 captu
03 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Agfa Competition
> > Or, if they don't, why
> > should we listen to liars anyway. a
> > little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said>.
>
> Why "liars"?
>
> £ukasz
>
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 Deconstruc
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 ch
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 an
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
>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
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
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 B&W
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.
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 - Photog
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
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 wro
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 tak
[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
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 u
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
> 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 s
> Or, if they don't, why
> should we listen to liars anyway. little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said>.
Why "liars"?
Łukasz
> 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
> 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 p&s", I said "pity
I can't submit an inkjet print" (which, it occurs, I
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. little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said>.
pe
>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 fr
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
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
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 y
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
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 th
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,
cavem
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/
> > So? Since when can't a digital b&w print be called b&w 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 c
Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote:
It is a B/W photo competition, not an Adobe Photoshop skills one.
So? Since when can't a digital b&w print be called b&w 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
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 b&w print be called b&w photograph?
I suggest looking at the secondary prizes.
Nick
> 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 :-)
Łukasz
> 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.
Łukasz
- Original Message -
From: "Lukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So? Since when can't a digital b&w print be called b&w photograph?
>
> Lukasz
Hmmm Can any digital print be called a "Photograph"? Perhaps a "Digital
Image" would be more appropriate!
Bob
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
> It is a B/W photo competition, not an Adobe Photoshop skills one.
So? Since when can't a digital b&w print be called b&w photograph?
Lukasz
===
www.fotopolis.pl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
internetowy magazyn o fotogr
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
>
__
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
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,
> 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.fo
72 matches
Mail list logo
