Photodigigraphs is too long of a word. How about photographs. Jim A.
> From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 06:29:19 -0400 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: digigraphers > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:12:41 -0400 > > photodigigraphs? > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:41 AM > Subject: Re: digigraphers > > >> But what about the images captured by silicon chips but are printed on > photographic paper? >> >> I know a lab that provides such prints. >> >> DagT >> >> >>> Fra: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
