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

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...

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...

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:50:24 -0600, Tom Phillips
wrote:


Facts are facts. Digital does not produce a photograph. It is
impossible for silicon to record a permanent image.


By and large, we no longer communicate via
chiseling symbols into stone.

In our age, the permanance of a photo will
be determined by its universal appeal --
this will determine whether adequate efforts
will be made to preserve the image over the
ages.

Ie. permanence is an attribute of the
"post processing" and not necessarily
an attribute of the message or image
at the instant of its creation.

Permanence is of course relative.

Unprocessed film images can remain latent
for years, even decades -- but I'd still
not refer to them as permanent.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:50:24 -0600, Tom Phillips
wrote:


Facts are facts. Digital does not produce a photograph. It is
impossible for silicon to record a permanent image.


By and large, we no longer communicate via
chiseling symbols into stone.

In our age, the permanance of a photo will
be determined by its universal appeal --
this will determine whether adequate efforts
will be made to preserve the image over the
ages.

Ie. permanence is an attribute of the
"post processing" and not necessarily
an attribute of the message or image
at the instant of its creation.

Permanence is of course relative.

Unprocessed film images can remain latent
for years, even decades -- but I'd still
not refer to them as permanent.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

We need new terms:

"Physical imaging" (film) Vs "Ephemeral imaging" (digital)?
- I know, awful choices -

But they are both 'photography' in my book. Outside of fetishists,
the person hanging the image on the wall couldn't give a rat's ass about
which it is.


With this I disagree. Anyone buying images as art most
definitely gives a rat's ass. This is why no gallery would
sell an inkjet as a "photograph," but as a digital image.
Similarly, photographs are labeled according to what they
are (i.e., the _process_): silver gelatin, cyanotype,
chromogemic, etc.

These are not semantical differences, as David the troller
insists. They are legitimate distinctions of the various
processes employed. Digital imaging is digital imaging.
The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently)
in order to market digital as "digital film." Of course
it is not film in any sense or function nor does it
produce a photograph.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

We need new terms:

"Physical imaging" (film) Vs "Ephemeral imaging" (digital)?
- I know, awful choices -

But they are both 'photography' in my book. Outside of fetishists,
the person hanging the image on the wall couldn't give a rat's ass about
which it is.


With this I disagree. Anyone buying images as art most
definitely gives a rat's ass. This is why no gallery would
sell an inkjet as a "photograph," but as a digital image.
Similarly, photographs are labeled according to what they
are (i.e., the _process_): silver gelatin, cyanotype,
chromogemic, etc.

These are not semantical differences, as David the troller
insists. They are legitimate distinctions of the various
processes employed. Digital imaging is digital imaging.
The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently)
in order to market digital as "digital film." Of course
it is not film in any sense or function nor does it
produce a photograph.

"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.

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

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"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.

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

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

jjs wrote:

It seems to me that this thread has become muddied.

The thread is "muddied" because it was deliberately crossposted
out of context. Otherwise known as trolling...

I hope you don't mind if
I try to clarify some points. Let us begin with one clear statement.

It seems that Tom. Phillips is trying to make a distinction between 1) the
making of source images made by 2) conventional film and 3) images made by
light-sensitive digital sensors. Is that correct?

There is a distinction. Which any gallery selling such
images also makes...

1-3:

1) making of source image - the capturing of the first version of an image,
and NOT the copying or creation of an image from another image, regardless
of its kind. In other words, even making a copy of a conventional film
photograph of an original film photograph is not "photography" per se.

If a scanned copy, it is digital imaging. If a photochemical copy,
it is a copy negative. Even photochemical terms makes specific
distinction depending on the processes employed and always have.

What
we are trying to distinguish here is the nature of the creation: light
falling upon a three-dimentional surface and not a derrivation from such.

2) conventional film - the silver-based emulsion that we know to be derrived
from that used since classic glass plates, flexible films today, or painted
onto any surface and NOT a film yet to be invented or not yet in popular use

3) light-sensitive digital sensors of any kind

IS THIS CORRECT SO FAR?

We can explore the nuances that distinguish Tom's definition/view after we
settle the above.

jjs wrote:

It seems to me that this thread has become muddied.

The thread is "muddied" because it was deliberately crossposted
out of context. Otherwise known as trolling...

I hope you don't mind if
I try to clarify some points. Let us begin with one clear statement.

It seems that Tom. Phillips is trying to make a distinction between 1) the
making of source images made by 2) conventional film and 3) images made by
light-sensitive digital sensors. Is that correct?

There is a distinction. Which any gallery selling such
images also makes...

1-3:

1) making of source image - the capturing of the first version of an image,
and NOT the copying or creation of an image from another image, regardless
of its kind. In other words, even making a copy of a conventional film
photograph of an original film photograph is not "photography" per se.

If a scanned copy, it is digital imaging. If a photochemical copy,
it is a copy negative. Even photochemical terms makes specific
distinction depending on the processes employed and always have.

What
we are trying to distinguish here is the nature of the creation: light
falling upon a three-dimentional surface and not a derrivation from such.

2) conventional film - the silver-based emulsion that we know to be derrived
from that used since classic glass plates, flexible films today, or painted
onto any surface and NOT a film yet to be invented or not yet in popular use

3) light-sensitive digital sensors of any kind

IS THIS CORRECT SO FAR?

We can explore the nuances that distinguish Tom's definition/view after we
settle the above.