Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument

Matt Clara wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


sally wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Matt Clara wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus:

Richard Knoppow wrote:

If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not
digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If
you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that
_is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the
_result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a
picture.

The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's
what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of
that data. This is what digital does. It is not what
photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is
digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output
that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's.

Oh, come on, give it up; admit that all you're doing is engaging
in semantic hair-splitting.

Yeah, and all you're doing is trolling.

Maybe you and scarpitti are related...

Your argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or
dead.
And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major".
;-)

And you ignore that what you say is meaningless if you can't
offer a valid argument...

..So, take your thumbs out of your armpits and make a case
or disprove mine -- if you can. BTW, I hang with LOTS
of degreed people. Some are stupider than a troll. A degree
means nothing more than the effort required to obtain it,
and some the most brilliant human beings in history had no
"degrees." It doesn't mean intelligence or clarity of
understanding.

So you know where you can put your degree argument.

All I'm saying is, to people who are out there seriously making images
with cameras such as myself, you can call it anything you'd like, we've
got a "mission" to accomplish. And you're the one who brought up your
degree--I was just giving you a hard time about it.

I did not mention anything about degrees. yours, mine, or anyone
else's.

As for your argument that David N. is a troll because he responded to
your post here in a new thread, I must disagree. A troll makes

It was crossposted minus the original thread/posts. Deliberately.
As in deliberately out of context.

That's Trolling with a capital T. Your grasp of what it means to
troll seems as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is
not. A photograph is not merely anything you hang on the wall (a
very shallow and superficial defintion.) If that were true, my
Sierra Club calendar of images would also be equal to a collection
of photographs. They're not. They're offset reproductions.

The _process_ determines what a photograph is and isn't, not
the resulting "picture." Digital is not a photographic process.
It's an electronic data imaging process that in scienitific reality
produces no optical image. Ever.

Only the photochemical process actually writes an image with light.
Digital does not write with light, it transmits a photoelectric
signal and no image is produced. Period. Digital images are
rather reproduced output (like the calendar) from digital signals,
not from light.

I just don't know why this is seems such an abstract a concept
to people. One produces an image; the other creates a file. Not
really complicated or abstract.

As regards the terminology (i.e., use of the terms photograph/
photographic) we are talking about a scientific application of
a scientific term for a scientific process, which photographgy
is -- not the evolving common English vernacular. As an professed
English MA, you should well know the difference. Examine the
process, not the idiomatic usage.

comments/questions with the intent of disrupting a newsgroup. This is
an attempt at a serious discussion--albeit, serious about something trivial.
The fact that he moved it here tells me he wants to see the people
frequenting this group respond. As a citizen of usenet, he's free to do
that, nor is it in violation of any usenet charter that I'm aware of,
provided the thread is ontopic for the group(s) in question.


Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls...

It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own.
At any rate, I made no claims one way or the other as to what constitutes a
photograph, ergo your claim that my "grasp of what it means to troll seems
as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is not" is little more
than an ad hominem insult. You're good at those, too bad your ability to
put your emotions aside and _really_ look at what a person is saying is less
developed.

As for my comment on degrees, you said, and I quote, " English was my major
(along with photography) in college" (as though that proves something
concerning your ability to discern semantic nuance--it does not, and is a
very poor argument on your part). So, yeah, I guess you're right, you could
have an English major without a degree. But then that's playing at
semantics again--story of your life, apparently.

Finally, you're the only one I see disrupting the group with your angry
arguments, so I guess that makes you the troll, yes? Yes.

For an English MA you don't read a thread very well, do you?
_I_ didn't post this thread. But the thread has _my_ name in
the subject. Now, wonder why that is? ANSWER: a troll took
it from another nsg and posted it here. IT'S CALLED FLAMING.
GET IT??? Know what trolling and flaming are?

If not you need to go back to USENET school. 101.

BTW, you said, and I quote: "Your [my] argument is absolutely
meaningless to any photographer living or dead. And I have a
masters in English, so that trumps your "major"."

Well, now, I was merely stating I had a background in English,
i.e., I understand both semantics and photography. Gee, shoot me.

But like the troll you merely make unfounded assertions and ad
hominems (appeals to personal considerations rather than sound
argument.) In others words _you_ began this exchange, and attack.
I have at least made posts based on logical argumentation for
the most part. Of course most of those posts relating to this
misappropriated thead are in _another_ nsg (get it?), where
the referenced subject actually is.

Your argument is (1) a fallacy, since you cannot possibly speak
for "any photographer living or dead." (2) An appeal to your own
superiority (also a fallacy) which was in fact an intended as
an insult. (3) I am a photographer (sorry, but that means a
schooled photographer who knows more than just what _your_
point and shoot digital camera manual tells you...) and I
know many other photographers (probably more than you do) and
none consider this issue "meaningless."

I won't waste my time with your tantrums any longer.


Uh oh. What will I do now?

Matt Clara wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


sally wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Matt Clara wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus:

Richard Knoppow wrote:

If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not
digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If
you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that
_is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the
_result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a
picture.

The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's
what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of
that data. This is what digital does. It is not what
photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is
digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output
that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's.

Oh, come on, give it up; admit that all you're doing is engaging
in semantic hair-splitting.

Yeah, and all you're doing is trolling.

Maybe you and scarpitti are related...

Your argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or
dead.
And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major".
;-)

And you ignore that what you say is meaningless if you can't
offer a valid argument...

..So, take your thumbs out of your armpits and make a case
or disprove mine -- if you can. BTW, I hang with LOTS
of degreed people. Some are stupider than a troll. A degree
means nothing more than the effort required to obtain it,
and some the most brilliant human beings in history had no
"degrees." It doesn't mean intelligence or clarity of
understanding.

So you know where you can put your degree argument.

All I'm saying is, to people who are out there seriously making images
with cameras such as myself, you can call it anything you'd like, we've
got a "mission" to accomplish. And you're the one who brought up your
degree--I was just giving you a hard time about it.

I did not mention anything about degrees. yours, mine, or anyone
else's.

As for your argument that David N. is a troll because he responded to
your post here in a new thread, I must disagree. A troll makes

It was crossposted minus the original thread/posts. Deliberately.
As in deliberately out of context.

That's Trolling with a capital T. Your grasp of what it means to
troll seems as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is
not. A photograph is not merely anything you hang on the wall (a
very shallow and superficial defintion.) If that were true, my
Sierra Club calendar of images would also be equal to a collection
of photographs. They're not. They're offset reproductions.

The _process_ determines what a photograph is and isn't, not
the resulting "picture." Digital is not a photographic process.
It's an electronic data imaging process that in scienitific reality
produces no optical image. Ever.

Only the photochemical process actually writes an image with light.
Digital does not write with light, it transmits a photoelectric
signal and no image is produced. Period. Digital images are
rather reproduced output (like the calendar) from digital signals,
not from light.

I just don't know why this is seems such an abstract a concept
to people. One produces an image; the other creates a file. Not
really complicated or abstract.

As regards the terminology (i.e., use of the terms photograph/
photographic) we are talking about a scientific application of
a scientific term for a scientific process, which photographgy
is -- not the evolving common English vernacular. As an professed
English MA, you should well know the difference. Examine the
process, not the idiomatic usage.

comments/questions with the intent of disrupting a newsgroup. This is
an attempt at a serious discussion--albeit, serious about something trivial.
The fact that he moved it here tells me he wants to see the people
frequenting this group respond. As a citizen of usenet, he's free to do
that, nor is it in violation of any usenet charter that I'm aware of,
provided the thread is ontopic for the group(s) in question.


Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls...

It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own.
At any rate, I made no claims one way or the other as to what constitutes a
photograph, ergo your claim that my "grasp of what it means to troll seems
as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is not" is little more
than an ad hominem insult. You're good at those, too bad your ability to
put your emotions aside and _really_ look at what a person is saying is less
developed.

As for my comment on degrees, you said, and I quote, " English was my major
(along with photography) in college" (as though that proves something
concerning your ability to discern semantic nuance--it does not, and is a
very poor argument on your part). So, yeah, I guess you're right, you could
have an English major without a degree. But then that's playing at
semantics again--story of your life, apparently.

Finally, you're the only one I see disrupting the group with your angry
arguments, so I guess that makes you the troll, yes? Yes.

For an English MA you don't read a thread very well, do you?
_I_ didn't post this thread. But the thread has _my_ name in
the subject. Now, wonder why that is? ANSWER: a troll took
it from another nsg and posted it here. IT'S CALLED FLAMING.
GET IT??? Know what trolling and flaming are?

If not you need to go back to USENET school. 101.

BTW, you said, and I quote: "Your [my] argument is absolutely
meaningless to any photographer living or dead. And I have a
masters in English, so that trumps your "major"."

Well, now, I was merely stating I had a background in English,
i.e., I understand both semantics and photography. Gee, shoot me.

But like the troll you merely make unfounded assertions and ad
hominems (appeals to personal considerations rather than sound
argument.) In others words _you_ began this exchange, and attack.
I have at least made posts based on logical argumentation for
the most part. Of course most of those posts relating to this
misappropriated thead are in _another_ nsg (get it?), where
the referenced subject actually is.

Your argument is (1) a fallacy, since you cannot possibly speak
for "any photographer living or dead." (2) An appeal to your own
superiority (also a fallacy) which was in fact an intended as
an insult. (3) I am a photographer (sorry, but that means a
schooled photographer who knows more than just what _your_
point and shoot digital camera manual tells you...) and I
know many other photographers (probably more than you do) and
none consider this issue "meaningless."

I won't waste my time with your tantrums any longer.


Uh oh. What will I do now?

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...
[...]
The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently)
in order to market digital as "digital film."

Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy!

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...
[...]
The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently)
in order to market digital as "digital film."

Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy!

jjs wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...
[...]
The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently)
in order to market digital as "digital film."

Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy!

I don't know why these things are so difficult for
people to understand.

P.T. Barnum must have been reincarnated as a semiconductor
CEO...

jjs wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...
[...]
The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently)
in order to market digital as "digital film."

Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy!

I don't know why these things are so difficult for
people to understand.

P.T. Barnum must have been reincarnated as a semiconductor
CEO...

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls...

It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own.

HE-HE ,....Its rather Trollish behavior of him, wouldn't you say there Sal ;-)

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls...

It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own.

HE-HE ,....Its rather Trollish behavior of him, wouldn't you say there Sal ;-)