I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

wrote:

Sorry, piantings are not 'images'. Only lenses acn form images in the
strict sense of the term.

Camera obscura and painting. read a book

And then there are also pin hole cameras.

Which was used to produce dioramas, i.e.,
paintings traced from pinhole images.

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

Paintings made from a projected image are still not 'images'. 'Image'
in the strict sense refers to what is produced by optics.

Virtual images can be seen only. A 'virtual image' is what you see in a
telescope, for instance.

A 'real image' is what is produced by a lens (or pinhole, for the
obsessives).

Sample? Yes, of course. The silver particles record a random sample,
but it is still a sample.


There are no 'continuous tones'. I defy you to place a negative under
a microscope and see anything but black specks of various sizes. The
illusion of 'grey' is produced by various sizes and concentrations of
black specks against a white or clear background. In the eye they merge
into one tone.

Nope. If it's made 'by hand' (a sketch, painting) it's not an 'image'.

wrote:

snip...

wrote:

snip...

made 'by hand' (a sketch, painting) it's not an 'image'.


image, noun
1. A reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing;
2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate

image, tr.verb
1. To make or produce a likeness of.


picture, noun
1. A visual representation or image painted, drawn, photographed,
or otherwise rendered on a flat surface.

made 'by hand' (a sketch, painting) it's not an 'image'.


image, noun
1. A reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing;
2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate

image, tr.verb
1. To make or produce a likeness of.


picture, noun
1. A visual representation or image painted, drawn, photographed,
or otherwise rendered on a flat surface.

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. 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. 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. Digital montages are in a class by themselves. 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.

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.....

be safe,
D

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. 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. 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. Digital montages are in a class by themselves. 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.

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.....

be safe,
D