Richard Knoppow wrote:

recordings.
Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the
original premise that electonic images are not photography.
They obviously are despite any argument about longevity.


They obviously are not, Richard, since

1. the process are different and produce different results.

2. Digital silicon sensors do not and cannot produce a
photograph. What they do produce is a voltage based on the
photoelectric effect. This is then regenerated into digital
signals that are then used to output reproductions of those
signals. At no time during this process is there an optical
image nor any photograph. A photograph is an image produce by
the direct action of light. Digital does not do this nor can
it. The physics don't allow it.

3. The ISO standard states definitively digital still cameras
produce a signal that _represents_ still pictures, not actual
pictures.

As I've pointed out in my posts in rec.photo.darkroom (now
being cross posted and the discussion deliberately taken out
of context...), people need to look at the processes to
determine what digital is vs. what photography is. Looking
at the end result is misleading, since in our society the
words photo and photographic have come to idiomatically mean
any image we see. But as we all well know calendars, though
we call them photos/photographs, are not. They are offset
reproductions. Simialrly paintings are pictures, but they are
not photographs. Digital produces pictures and reproductions,
but there is no original photograph created by digital imaging.