[HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09]
- From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:39:34 +0100
Patrick St.Cin wrote:
Photography by definition is the use of light to create and image. I
don't believe the dictionary
discriminates between the media used...look at the camera obscura...it is
an early form of
photography by means of recording an image by hand but using basic
pricples of optics to
create the image on the paper.
And there's where the very valid point lies that Jim is making.
If you hold a print that was produced projecting light through a negative,
through a lens, on paper in which it is captured by chemical's reaction to
that light, that truly is a photograph.
If the print is produced by squirting blobs of ink onto a bit of paper that
absorbs it enough to fix it in place, but not enough to make the ink
disappear entirely into the fibers (which would work too, but need muc more
ink), where is the "photo" in that "graph" you are then left holding?
The medium itself is a true photograph in the first, a print in the second
process.
The same holds for negatives (or positives) produced in camera (a direct
result of the action of light upon the medium itself), and the CF-card and
HD the digital images exist on.
While both may hold virtually the same information, the former is the true
photographic medium, the latter is not (a text file on your hard disk is
fundamentally the same as that image file: would then not both be
photographs?)
But the all important bit is, of course, in how things start, what it is
that is recorded (light).
So i have no problem at all recognizing digital photography as true
photography (in fact, it would never cross my mind that it might possibly
not be).
Still, the print from your inkjet is not a photograph in the true sense.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
- » [HUG ] Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Tom Just Olsen
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Richard Schiff
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Mark Rabiner
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - DaveHodge
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Bob Adler
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Evan J Dong
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Mark Rabiner
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - jmswllms
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Patrick St.Cin
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Franc Flipsen
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Mark Rabiner
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Patrick St.Cin
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Jim Brick
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Bob Adler
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Mark Rabiner
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Q.G. de Bakker
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Evan J Dong
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Patrick St.Cin
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Patrick St.Cin
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - DaveHodge
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Stein
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - LOTL
- » [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09] - Stein