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

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.

OK, you assert that a CCD doesn't produce a picture, but only a
signal--voltage levels corresponding to illumination values at each pixel.
Fine. Then I say that photographic film doesn't produce a picture either, just
altered electrical charges in silver halide atoms.

You can't see a picture on a CCD, true. Neither can you see a picture on an
exposed piece of film (or paper). Just as the CCD signal requires processing
in order to render it into a photograph, the film requires processing.

You have no case. Next!


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

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.

OK, you assert that a CCD doesn't produce a picture, but only a
signal--voltage levels corresponding to illumination values at each pixel.
Fine. Then I say that photographic film doesn't produce a picture either, just
altered electrical charges in silver halide atoms.

You can't see a picture on a CCD, true. Neither can you see a picture on an
exposed piece of film (or paper). Just as the CCD signal requires processing
in order to render it into a photograph, the film requires processing.

You have no case. Next!


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

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...

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...

On 10/18/2004 9:04 AM Tom Phillips spake thus:

The idiomatic use of the words "photo" and "photography"
in our society do not negate this intentional, original
application. Television cameramen are called "photographers"
rather than videographers. Movie makers are called photographers
rather than the more proper cinematographers. The term
photography and photographer is so diluted as to have
become meaninless in our society.

So are you one of those people who insist on calling tomatoes and peppers
"fruit"? Because technically they are. (The seeds of a plant and that which
contains them.) It's just that 99.95% of people misuse the term and insist on
calling them vegetables.

This is just as relevant as your insistence on the narrowest usage of
"photography". You may even be technically correct--who knows? (Or cares?)

If you really want to pursue this, I'd suggest going on over to
alt.usage.english and seeing what folks there have to say about it. Might be
interesting.


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

On 10/18/2004 9:04 AM Tom Phillips spake thus:

The idiomatic use of the words "photo" and "photography"
in our society do not negate this intentional, original
application. Television cameramen are called "photographers"
rather than videographers. Movie makers are called photographers
rather than the more proper cinematographers. The term
photography and photographer is so diluted as to have
become meaninless in our society.

So are you one of those people who insist on calling tomatoes and peppers
"fruit"? Because technically they are. (The seeds of a plant and that which
contains them.) It's just that 99.95% of people misuse the term and insist on
calling them vegetables.

This is just as relevant as your insistence on the narrowest usage of
"photography". You may even be technically correct--who knows? (Or cares?)

If you really want to pursue this, I'd suggest going on over to
alt.usage.english and seeing what folks there have to say about it. Might be
interesting.


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

"Bob Monaghan" wrote

DEC minicomputer ... spent
years searching online and with our campus archivists and librarians for a
service that could convert her original dissertation notes and resources
off the 8" diskettes in some odd freeware word processor format to
MS-WORD. Nobody could do it. Not even the heath user group

The Heath UG may not have been the place to look.

IIRC the Heath was based on the PDP-11 single-chip CPU.

Did she try the various PDP-11 groups? There will (should) be
a great deal more expertise there than in the Heath group.

http://www.hampage.hu/pdp-11/

It seems the '11 is still made and used in Ireland and Hungary.

* * *

However, the magnetic coating on those 8" disks may have turned to goo.

Polyurethane - the stuff used for camera light seals - is the binder
used in magnetic tape and floppy discs. And we all know long-lasting
polyurethane is, right?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"Bob Monaghan" wrote

DEC minicomputer ... spent
years searching online and with our campus archivists and librarians for a
service that could convert her original dissertation notes and resources
off the 8" diskettes in some odd freeware word processor format to
MS-WORD. Nobody could do it. Not even the heath user group

The Heath UG may not have been the place to look.

IIRC the Heath was based on the PDP-11 single-chip CPU.

Did she try the various PDP-11 groups? There will (should) be
a great deal more expertise there than in the Heath group.

http://www.hampage.hu/pdp-11/

It seems the '11 is still made and used in Ireland and Hungary.

* * *

However, the magnetic coating on those 8" disks may have turned to goo.

Polyurethane - the stuff used for camera light seals - is the binder
used in magnetic tape and floppy discs. And we all know long-lasting
polyurethane is, right?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"Bob Monaghan" wrote

DEC minicomputer ... spent
years searching online and with our campus archivists and librarians for a
service that could convert her original dissertation notes and resources
off the 8" diskettes in some odd freeware word processor format to
MS-WORD. Nobody could do it. Not even the heath user group

"Odd freeware" and PDP/11 don't go together. But the real question is
How much is the person willing to pay for a conversion, and will plain text
do? The VAX 11/780 and a few others still had the option to boot from 8"
discs, and there is a fellow in Wisconsin with a few DEC VAXen and PDP's
under RSTS/E, RT-11 and RSX. So, how much? A couple grand okay?

"Bob Monaghan" wrote

DEC minicomputer ... spent
years searching online and with our campus archivists and librarians for a
service that could convert her original dissertation notes and resources
off the 8" diskettes in some odd freeware word processor format to
MS-WORD. Nobody could do it. Not even the heath user group

"Odd freeware" and PDP/11 don't go together. But the real question is
How much is the person willing to pay for a conversion, and will plain text
do? The VAX 11/780 and a few others still had the option to boot from 8"
discs, and there is a fellow in Wisconsin with a few DEC VAXen and PDP's
under RSTS/E, RT-11 and RSX. So, how much? A couple grand okay?