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",
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
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
--
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
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
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
[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
> 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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
