Guys, Using dictionaries from times preceding inkjet technology are not going to help us out trying to relate to the new thing.
Graywolf and DagT have been closest to the point here. There are other technologies about that produce essentially the same thing as a traditional photographic print, and a few processes have been around for quite a while that doesn't fit the dictionaries. A magazine's reproduction of a photography has had no obstacles to pass as a photograph in people's minds, so why bother with a inkjet printout? IMHO, the only criterium that matters is the technique used to _capture_ the image; to induce an electric or chemical response on a sensitive medium. That's how it all began, too. Graphic artists looking for methods to etch images onto slabs of whatever. Jostein ----- Original Message ----- From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:14 AM Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition) > I will see you your two cents, and raise you a penny. > > Actually, when you get right down to it an inkjet print is in no way > photographic. The image you are printing is possibly a photograph, but there > is nothing involving light sensitivity in producing the inkjet print anymore > than in a lithographic print in a magazine. Both should more properly be > called reproductions of photographs. Now a laser print on the other hand.... > > How's that for flipping onto my head without using my hands? > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:47 PM > Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition) > > > > >From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >> >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. > > > > >My Oxford American Dictionary says, "a picture formed by means of the > > >chemical action of light or other radiation on a light-sensitive > surface". > > >That is a verbatim quote. > > > > > >It says nothing about film, nor about the need for chemical processing. > And > > >the conversion of light to electrons is indeed a chemical action in the > > >sensor material. BTW, my dictionary is copyright 1980, so it pre-dates > this > > >argument by a bit. > > > > > > > > >Ciao, > > >Graywolf > > > > I just checked my Oxford Pocket Dictionary - residing on my shelf for > > years and companion to many a query regarding meaning or spelling, and it > > is the 5th edition, dated 1969. LOL. > > > > Okay, upstairs to rifle through one of the 2 huge volumes of the Shorter > > Oxford English Dictionary (got them for Her Indoors when she was doing > > her dissertation at University back in 1987). > > > > Photograph: "[Used for the first time, together with 'photographic', > > 'photography', by Sir John Herschel (1839)...] A picture, likeness or > > facsimile obtained by photography" > > > > ...and: > > > > Photography: "The process or art of producing pictures by means of the > > chemical action of light on a sensitive film on a basis of paper, glass, > > metal, etc; the business of producing and printing such pictures..." > > > > First printed 1973, this edition 1986. > > > > My own personal view is that a photograph should relate to the overall > > means and not specifically the method. However, there were different > > methods of acquiring images way back in the good old days - photoglyphy > > for instance - so maybe the correct trend is to invent new ways of > > describing new methods. I do believe that the world changes though and > > definitions can be adjusted to take account of these changes. > > > > It must be remembered that it is the use of a word by us, the people > > speaking it and writing it, that results in such words eventually finding > > their way into dictionaries, or indeed resulting in adjusted definitions > > in said dictionaries. I think that most people seeing an inkjet print > > will refer to it as a photograph, and hence in time that definition will > > prevail. > > > > .02 > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > > > > > ___/\__ > > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > > _____________________________ > > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > > > > >
