I like that Cotty!!! You have widened the gap that was preniously only nanometer apart (according to some)!
Well done, Cotty, well done! Bob Rapp ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Agfa Competition > >Hmmm.... Can any digital print be called a "Photograph"? Perhaps a "Digital > >Image" would be more appropriate! > > Oxford Pocket says: > > Photograph: > Picture taken by means of a chemical action of light on sensitive film. > > With this as a baseline, it would be ultimately wrong to call an inkjet > print from a digital camera image a 'photograph' because the original was > not 'taken by means of a chemical action of light on sensitive film'. > > UNLESS we are describing the light-sensitive digital sensor as a 'film' > (EG '... there was a thin film of oil covering her golden writhing > body...') viz: '...the camera had an electronic device inside it that > had a film of material on it capable of retaining an image captured > through the lens...' > > HOWEVER if we ignore this as spiltting hairs and stick with the Oxford > definition, and a digital image on an inkjet print therefore cannot be > called a 'photograph', then what of an inkjet print made from a scan of a > 35mm negative - still inkjet but now called a photograph? > > IF THIS argument is followed to the letter, then 'photograph' clearly is > the wrong name. I suggest something like 'digigraph' to demark the > origination of the image - (..I took this photograph on my MX, and this > digigraph on my D60, nyuk nyuk nyuk...) > > THIS HABIT of capitalising the first two words of each sentence is now > tiresome and I will stop. > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _____________________________ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk >
