I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum

'In the strict sense'?

Can't you read?

'In the strict sense'?

Can't you read?

Of course it's photography, and a film image is a sample just as is a
digital image. It's a random sample, and a chemical record, but it's
definitely a sample.

wrote:


snip...

wrote:


snip...

Fitpix wrote:

Another "all that really counts is the picture on the wall"
excuse. If that were true, there'd be no distinction between
_any_ image. I.e., we (and every gallery owner everywhere)
wouldn't make distinctions between different mediums of
image making and the resulting type of prints. You have it
completely backwards -- or clearly haven't exhibited in too
many galleries, since what is _always_ noted is the _type_ of
image/print being displayed. People (curators and especially
buyers who plunk down their money for artwork) want to know
what type of image and process they're getting. It's sort of
the whole point.

Paintings are "images," as are X-rays (Man Ray), Carbon prints,
Cyanotypes, and even television. But they're different images
and different processes. Digital "images" are not photographs.
They're electronic data imaging produced photoelectrically.
There is no image, just data representing an image, until one
outputs that data in a print form. It may be an inkjet, a "giclee,"
or a Lightjet. But it's not a photograph same as a classic silver
image. Apples and oranges...

Tom, are you saying I am no longer a photographer because I switched to
digital? I am not looking for a fight mind you, I am trying to understand
why a digital shooter wouldn't be considered a photographer.

Please note I am modifying the headers, as this is a
crossposted troll thread. I am not in your nsg and will
not see replies posted to alt.photo

I'm saying it doesn't produce a photograph. Digital imaging
produces data, not optical images. The ISO states a digital
camera produces signals (data) which represent still pictures.
This is a technically correct definition. The technically
correct defintition of a photograph is an optical image
created by the direct action of light on a light sensitive
substrate (i.e., photochemical.) The words "photo" and
"photographer" are so idiomatically diluted in our society
(due to the overwhelming number of images and reproductions
we see) everything that represents an image (calendars,
newsprint, inkjets, and anyone that produces any type of
image, are so mislabeled. Par for the course. Any tissue
you buy we call a "kleenex," whether it's an actual kleenex
or not.

Are you a photographer? You decide. Is a television cameraman
a photographer? Technically they're videographers. Is someone
who shoots movies on film or other a photographer? Technically
they're cinematographers. Is a photojournalist a photojournalist
whether digital or photochemical? Technically I suppose so since
it's not based on the process but what they do. An artists is
an artist is an artist regardless of the medium. A photographer
has idiomatically come to mean someone who views the world
through a alens. But that doesn't mean they also produce
photographs.

As far as the
"image is what counts" argument..... I believe in this line of thinking. I
can go out and shoot a stream in my film slr and my digital slr and get the
same quality 11x14 print to hang in a gallery. You can argue all you want
about the numbers etc, I know because I have seen the prints side by side. I
have always said that film or digital,a great photo is a great photo.

"Photo" being an idiomatic "photo." Visually an image is an
image; the perspective and vision of the artist remains that
of the individual. I'm talking about the differences in the
art work itself. The Mona Lisa is just as great an "image"
when scanned and reproduced in a magazine. But such a
reproduction is not a "painting."

Ansel Adams "Moonrise" is just as great an image when in a
calendar, since it still shows Adams artistic intent. But
it issn't the same as an actual photograph Adams himself
printed. As an artist digital images show someone's vision,
but they are digital images, not photographs.

Now I
do not count an image where someone has added in other elements, I count
them in a separate (but not necessarily lower class) of image, but dodging
and burning and exposure compensation aredone in both the wet darkroom and
the digital darkroom.

I'd probably agree adjusting a histogram is not image
manipulation. But the very essence of digital is in fact
image manipulation. I.e., the essense of the medium is
one of no limitations.

Burning and doding in a darkroom is a natural extension of
exposure controls. It's sensitometric. It's not image
manipulation (i.e., you're not altering the image, merely
controlling exposure within the limitations of the medium.)
The definition of a work of art is one that is within the
limitation of it's medium: A painting is something painted,
a sculpture is something sculpted, a photograph is something
photochemical, a digital image is something photoelectric.

of the Digital montages are in a class by themselves.

I agree but a digital image is a digital image is a
digital image, altered or not. It's not a photograph.
When I view or particiapte in shows, digital images are
identified as digital images' photographs as photographs.
Digital is a different imaging medium and a different
process. Show sponsers, gallery owners, museums, buyers,
etc., all recognize this. Just as they recognize and label
different photochemical processes.

As far
as large format is concerned, I am not saying my 20D can come even close to
comparing to 4x5 or larger photos, or medium format for that matter. It does
however rival the image quality of 35mm.

For certain reproduction options. Not by the enlargement
possibilites. All you need to visually "rival" 35mm film
for a typical 4x6 or 8x10 is 6MP.

Typical 400 speed color negative film has greater exposure
latitude, wider color gamut, and higher resolution (in
comparable pixels) plus can be enlarged many times it's
"resolution" image size. Photoscientists consider 400 ISO
35mm film equivalent to 24 million pixels. I've seen 30x40
enlargements from 35mm (ISO 100 ) that rival medium/LF
images.


My wife just made a good point....is a wireless or cellphone still a phone?
Doesn't have the curling umblical yet works the same way.....

Actually, it doesn't work the exact same way, and is
why we call them "cell phones" instead of "telephones."

Fitpix wrote:

Another "all that really counts is the picture on the wall"
excuse. If that were true, there'd be no distinction between
_any_ image. I.e., we (and every gallery owner everywhere)
wouldn't make distinctions between different mediums of
image making and the resulting type of prints. You have it
completely backwards -- or clearly haven't exhibited in too
many galleries, since what is _always_ noted is the _type_ of
image/print being displayed. People (curators and especially
buyers who plunk down their money for artwork) want to know
what type of image and process they're getting. It's sort of
the whole point.

Paintings are "images," as are X-rays (Man Ray), Carbon prints,
Cyanotypes, and even television. But they're different images
and different processes. Digital "images" are not photographs.
They're electronic data imaging produced photoelectrically.
There is no image, just data representing an image, until one
outputs that data in a print form. It may be an inkjet, a "giclee,"
or a Lightjet. But it's not a photograph same as a classic silver
image. Apples and oranges...

Tom, are you saying I am no longer a photographer because I switched to
digital? I am not looking for a fight mind you, I am trying to understand
why a digital shooter wouldn't be considered a photographer.

Please note I am modifying the headers, as this is a
crossposted troll thread. I am not in your nsg and will
not see replies posted to alt.photo

I'm saying it doesn't produce a photograph. Digital imaging
produces data, not optical images. The ISO states a digital
camera produces signals (data) which represent still pictures.
This is a technically correct definition. The technically
correct defintition of a photograph is an optical image
created by the direct action of light on a light sensitive
substrate (i.e., photochemical.) The words "photo" and
"photographer" are so idiomatically diluted in our society
(due to the overwhelming number of images and reproductions
we see) everything that represents an image (calendars,
newsprint, inkjets, and anyone that produces any type of
image, are so mislabeled. Par for the course. Any tissue
you buy we call a "kleenex," whether it's an actual kleenex
or not.

Are you a photographer? You decide. Is a television cameraman
a photographer? Technically they're videographers. Is someone
who shoots movies on film or other a photographer? Technically
they're cinematographers. Is a photojournalist a photojournalist
whether digital or photochemical? Technically I suppose so since
it's not based on the process but what they do. An artists is
an artist is an artist regardless of the medium. A photographer
has idiomatically come to mean someone who views the world
through a alens. But that doesn't mean they also produce
photographs.

As far as the
"image is what counts" argument..... I believe in this line of thinking. I
can go out and shoot a stream in my film slr and my digital slr and get the
same quality 11x14 print to hang in a gallery. You can argue all you want
about the numbers etc, I know because I have seen the prints side by side. I
have always said that film or digital,a great photo is a great photo.

"Photo" being an idiomatic "photo." Visually an image is an
image; the perspective and vision of the artist remains that
of the individual. I'm talking about the differences in the
art work itself. The Mona Lisa is just as great an "image"
when scanned and reproduced in a magazine. But such a
reproduction is not a "painting."

Ansel Adams "Moonrise" is just as great an image when in a
calendar, since it still shows Adams artistic intent. But
it issn't the same as an actual photograph Adams himself
printed. As an artist digital images show someone's vision,
but they are digital images, not photographs.

Now I
do not count an image where someone has added in other elements, I count
them in a separate (but not necessarily lower class) of image, but dodging
and burning and exposure compensation aredone in both the wet darkroom and
the digital darkroom.

I'd probably agree adjusting a histogram is not image
manipulation. But the very essence of digital is in fact
image manipulation. I.e., the essense of the medium is
one of no limitations.

Burning and doding in a darkroom is a natural extension of
exposure controls. It's sensitometric. It's not image
manipulation (i.e., you're not altering the image, merely
controlling exposure within the limitations of the medium.)
The definition of a work of art is one that is within the
limitation of it's medium: A painting is something painted,
a sculpture is something sculpted, a photograph is something
photochemical, a digital image is something photoelectric.

of the Digital montages are in a class by themselves.

I agree but a digital image is a digital image is a
digital image, altered or not. It's not a photograph.
When I view or particiapte in shows, digital images are
identified as digital images' photographs as photographs.
Digital is a different imaging medium and a different
process. Show sponsers, gallery owners, museums, buyers,
etc., all recognize this. Just as they recognize and label
different photochemical processes.

As far
as large format is concerned, I am not saying my 20D can come even close to
comparing to 4x5 or larger photos, or medium format for that matter. It does
however rival the image quality of 35mm.

For certain reproduction options. Not by the enlargement
possibilites. All you need to visually "rival" 35mm film
for a typical 4x6 or 8x10 is 6MP.

Typical 400 speed color negative film has greater exposure
latitude, wider color gamut, and higher resolution (in
comparable pixels) plus can be enlarged many times it's
"resolution" image size. Photoscientists consider 400 ISO
35mm film equivalent to 24 million pixels. I've seen 30x40
enlargements from 35mm (ISO 100 ) that rival medium/LF
images.


My wife just made a good point....is a wireless or cellphone still a phone?
Doesn't have the curling umblical yet works the same way.....

Actually, it doesn't work the exact same way, and is
why we call them "cell phones" instead of "telephones."

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


He's best ignored.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


He's best ignored.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

I think scarpitti (alias uranium, alias me, alias...)
should change his troll handle to "ignoramus."

I think ignor anus is better and more appropriate :-D

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918