Why digital is not photographic

"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...
"Uranium Committee" schreef in bericht
om...
| Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message
...
| Jan T wrote:
| snip
|
| One of his statements is this: photography distinguishes from e.g.
painting
| in that it witnesses something 'that was there'.
| Photography, in this sense, is recording reality, in many creative
ways, but
| still: recording something that has been there.
|
| snip
|
| Ignoring that the above statements involve a very controversial realist
| metaphysics, why can't a painting record "what was there" as well?
|
| Because there's no causal link, no mechanism to do that.
|
| Consider portrait paintings. Couldn't someone respond on first seeing a
| painting, "you've captured my daughter very well! Better in fact than
| any photograph of her!"
|
| Certainly there is a different causal chain involved. With photography
| the direct causal chain of image capture is purely mechanical, as the
| chain does not go through a person's mind. A person is involved
| (choosing the scene, making the technical calculations...), but this is
| not the same thing. With painting, a human mind is directly in the
| causal chain of image capture.
|
| This distinction has been used in two ways. First, advocates of painting
| denied that photography is an art.
|
| It isn't.
|
| Second, advocates of photography
| denied that inkjet printing is an art.
|
| It isn't. So what?
Photography is not an art. But Kertesz was an artist, and so were
Cartier-Bresson, Weston, and many others.

No, they were people who made photographs. They did NOT make 'art'.

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" schreef in bericht

|
| This distinction has been used in two ways. First, advocates of painting
| denied that photography is an art.
|
| It isn't.
|

Normally I don't read Uriness's comments, as he's in my killfile, but
someone else quoted the above text, alas, and so I read it. It reminds
me of what a friend of mine once said, namely, "A good sign that you're
right is that morons disagree with you."

But many people argue that photography isn't art. I'm certainly not alone.


-Peter De Smidt

On 10/12/2004 4:20 AM Michael A. Covington spake thus:

"jjs" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

My $.02 worth are just that...my opinion. But lets look at the full
definition of photography:

[...]

Let's not. The dictionary is the last resort of the short-sighted. Think
for yourself and very deep and you will understand.

Elaborating on that a little... Dictionaries follow; good dictionaries do
not try to lead, nor solve philosophical problems. They just report the
ways words are already being used.

Good way of putting it, that dictionaries are description, not prescription.

HOWEVER, why are we having this argument? When the word "photography" was
coined, nothing like digital imaging had been thought of. People are free
to apply that word to it, or not, and they will eventually establish a
widespread consensus as to whether to do so. That does not tell us
*anything* about photography, only something about words.

'Zactly. So my recent postings on the subject are not, as jjs would have it,
philosophical at all: they merely point out what you did, that this is a
semantic argument (on the part of T. Phillips), meaning it's "about words".

By the way, I would defend the use of dictionaries as something more than a
"last resort of the short-sighted". Unless you're one of those who think that
the meaning of words doesn't matter.


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

- Noam Chomsky

Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

As I see it, Daguerreotypes, and film, and digital, are all
photographic processes with the same goal: to reproduce what
the eye sees. And each generation has done a better job of it.


Digital is not a photographic process. It is an imaging process,
but not photographic. For starters, it would not and _cannot_ be
a different medium, which it is, and still be "photographic." If
it is a different medium, which it is, it must be something else.

Repetitive rant. Thread ignored.

try harder. You're not doing a very good job....

Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

As I see it, Daguerreotypes, and film, and digital, are all
photographic processes with the same goal: to reproduce what
the eye sees. And each generation has done a better job of it.


Digital is not a photographic process. It is an imaging process,
but not photographic. For starters, it would not and _cannot_ be
a different medium, which it is, and still be "photographic." If
it is a different medium, which it is, it must be something else.

Repetitive rant. Thread ignored.

try harder. You're not doing a very good job....

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/10/2004 11:10 PM Tom Phillips spake thus:

As I see it, Daguerreotypes, and film, and digital, are all
photographic processes with the same goal: to reproduce what
the eye sees. And each generation has done a better job of it.

Digital is not a photographic process. It is an imaging process,
but not photographic. For starters, it would not and _cannot_ be
a different medium, which it is, and still be "photographic." If
it is a different medium, which it is, it must be something else.

Photography was a very precise term selected by the eminent
scientists and photographic researchers of the day to mean
exactly what it is: a photochemical phenomenon that literally
transforms the light reflected from objects onto sensitized
substrates into a physical form. The terms light writing,
photogenic drawing, etc., were deliberately selected to describe
a phenomenon which was similar to drawing with pen or pencil on
paper: a permanent, tangible image remained when light was used
to chemically "draw" an original object projected as an optical
image. Photography literally means Phos Graphos or light writing.

Digital does not do this. Digital is a technological process of
_transferring_ regenerated data through an electronic medium.
Even the term "digital image" is misleading. Digital is based on
photoelectric phenomenon, so essentially there is no image in the
process, not even an optical one (beyond the original analog
image projected by the lens during the scan.)

Well, OK; since yours is essentially a semantic argument, let's see what the
dictionary has to say about this, shall we?

Dictionaries (most dictionaries) largely reflect the vernacular,
rather than technically accurate definitions. Although the New
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary states correctly:

"Photograph: a picture or other image obtained by the chemical
action of light or other radiation on specially sensitized material
such as film or glass."

My copy of the American Heritage dictionary (New College edition) is a little
out of date: 1980. However, this is arguably a good thing, since your argument
is based on what you perceive to be a long-standing standard definiton of
"photography",

No, I'm not relying at all on any long standing vernacular or social
defintion. Photography was specifically and technically defined by the
scientists who helped invent it. My post clearly states this. It's
not semantics. I also state clearly "photography has become to be
(inaccrurately) defined many ways due to the unbiquitous nature of
images in our society. This has created a rather loose definition of
phototgraphy but is not technically accurate. The difference is in
the processes. Digital does something very different than actually
making a photograph.

at least if I read you correctly. Of course, this was published
before there really was any such thing as "digital photography" (or "digital
picture-making" if you prefer).

Anyhow, here are the definitions: first, "photograph":

An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and
reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

At first, I was going to concede this definition to you; now, I don't think
so. Seems to me that a CCD qualifies pretty well as a "photosensitive
surface", dontcha think?

A CCD is photoelectric. It's electronically conductive. It cannot and
does not record images nor does it reproduce anything. It transmits
a voltage. That's all.

Second, here's their definition of "photography":

1. The process of rendering optical images on photosensitive surfaces.
2. The art, practice or occupation of taking and printing photographs.
3. A ody of photographs.

Again, nothing here that would seem to exclude digital picture-taking from the
definition. Nothing special pertaining to silver halides, dye clouds,
photochemical reactions, etc.

Digital does not make phototgraphs. Nor is there any image in digital
data processing. It's representational, not real, imagery. The ISO says
so. The ISO definition (a technical "official" industry definition)
states a digital still cameras produces a "representational" image.

Your arguments seem pretty evangelistic to me, from one who obviously is a
partisan of traditional (wet) photography and not much of a fan of digital.

Digital claims to be a photographic process. It's not. It's
a photoelectric process that produces data, not photographs.
It's just that simple.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/10/2004 11:10 PM Tom Phillips spake thus:

As I see it, Daguerreotypes, and film, and digital, are all
photographic processes with the same goal: to reproduce what
the eye sees. And each generation has done a better job of it.

Digital is not a photographic process. It is an imaging process,
but not photographic. For starters, it would not and _cannot_ be
a different medium, which it is, and still be "photographic." If
it is a different medium, which it is, it must be something else.

Photography was a very precise term selected by the eminent
scientists and photographic researchers of the day to mean
exactly what it is: a photochemical phenomenon that literally
transforms the light reflected from objects onto sensitized
substrates into a physical form. The terms light writing,
photogenic drawing, etc., were deliberately selected to describe
a phenomenon which was similar to drawing with pen or pencil on
paper: a permanent, tangible image remained when light was used
to chemically "draw" an original object projected as an optical
image. Photography literally means Phos Graphos or light writing.

Digital does not do this. Digital is a technological process of
_transferring_ regenerated data through an electronic medium.
Even the term "digital image" is misleading. Digital is based on
photoelectric phenomenon, so essentially there is no image in the
process, not even an optical one (beyond the original analog
image projected by the lens during the scan.)

Well, OK; since yours is essentially a semantic argument, let's see what the
dictionary has to say about this, shall we?

Dictionaries (most dictionaries) largely reflect the vernacular,
rather than technically accurate definitions. Although the New
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary states correctly:

"Photograph: a picture or other image obtained by the chemical
action of light or other radiation on specially sensitized material
such as film or glass."

My copy of the American Heritage dictionary (New College edition) is a little
out of date: 1980. However, this is arguably a good thing, since your argument
is based on what you perceive to be a long-standing standard definiton of
"photography",

No, I'm not relying at all on any long standing vernacular or social
defintion. Photography was specifically and technically defined by the
scientists who helped invent it. My post clearly states this. It's
not semantics. I also state clearly "photography has become to be
(inaccrurately) defined many ways due to the unbiquitous nature of
images in our society. This has created a rather loose definition of
phototgraphy but is not technically accurate. The difference is in
the processes. Digital does something very different than actually
making a photograph.

at least if I read you correctly. Of course, this was published
before there really was any such thing as "digital photography" (or "digital
picture-making" if you prefer).

Anyhow, here are the definitions: first, "photograph":

An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and
reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

At first, I was going to concede this definition to you; now, I don't think
so. Seems to me that a CCD qualifies pretty well as a "photosensitive
surface", dontcha think?

A CCD is photoelectric. It's electronically conductive. It cannot and
does not record images nor does it reproduce anything. It transmits
a voltage. That's all.

Second, here's their definition of "photography":

1. The process of rendering optical images on photosensitive surfaces.
2. The art, practice or occupation of taking and printing photographs.
3. A ody of photographs.

Again, nothing here that would seem to exclude digital picture-taking from the
definition. Nothing special pertaining to silver halides, dye clouds,
photochemical reactions, etc.

Digital does not make phototgraphs. Nor is there any image in digital
data processing. It's representational, not real, imagery. The ISO says
so. The ISO definition (a technical "official" industry definition)
states a digital still cameras produces a "representational" image.

Your arguments seem pretty evangelistic to me, from one who obviously is a
partisan of traditional (wet) photography and not much of a fan of digital.

Digital claims to be a photographic process. It's not. It's
a photoelectric process that produces data, not photographs.
It's just that simple.

"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

My $.02 worth are just that...my opinion. But lets look at the full
definition of photography:
[...]

Let's not. The dictionary is the last resort of the short-sighted. Think
for yourself and very deep and you will understand.

Elaborating on that a little... Dictionaries follow; good dictionaries do
not try to lead, nor solve philosophical problems. They just report the
ways words are already being used.

HOWEVER, why are we having this argument? When the word "photography" was
coined, nothing like digital imaging had been thought of. People are free
to apply that word to it, or not, and they will eventually establish a
widespread consensus as to whether to do so. That does not tell us
*anything* about photography, only something about words.

Then I say we should apply the word "astrology" to the
scientific study of the universe. Why should we call it
astronomy and make that distinction? Originally (in ancient
times) astrology meant the study of the stars. Let's use the
same historical terms for everything that have historical-modern
similarities and connections and not make technical
distinctions, as silly scientists are prone to do...

So, even though digital produces a completely different result
than photochemical photography, and even though these two
sciences and processes are radically different, let's call
them the same thing...

"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

You can say you want the word "photography" to be reserved for photochemical
imaging, which was its original meaning...

...but other people have already taken it and shifted it out from under you.

Words change meaning. The time to object to this particular change was
about 15 years ago.

Something that inexplicably escapes your Ph.D: I'm talking about
the differences in how the _porcesses_ are being defined. Not
semantical word play. The processes are radically different,
both in science and result.

"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

You can say you want the word "photography" to be reserved for photochemical
imaging, which was its original meaning...

...but other people have already taken it and shifted it out from under you.

Words change meaning. The time to object to this particular change was
about 15 years ago.

Something that inexplicably escapes your Ph.D: I'm talking about
the differences in how the _porcesses_ are being defined. Not
semantical word play. The processes are radically different,
both in science and result.