Oh, come on, Frank. People misuse the language all the time. Unfortunately that tends to make precise communication difficult. As an attorney, I imagine you are very good at it, convincing juries that their left hand is really their right hand and all that.
However, you will never convince me that a newspaper reproduction is the same thing as an original photograph by an important photographer. Nor do I think a knowledgeable collector is going to pay big bucks for an inkjet print like he would for a photographic print. As a matter of fact, I don't believe you would either. Or if I am wrong, could I interest you in an inkjet print of Moon Over Halfdome? Come on, only a thousand bucks, I will download it off the internet tonight, and print it up just for you. I think the above contains the gist of it, would you call an inkjet print a photographic print? No, I didn't think so. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition) > Every day, I stop on my home from work, and grab an espresso at the Jet Fuel > Cafe. Whilst consuming my coffee, I read the newspaper. On the front page of > the sports section of the Toronto Star was a photo of two football players, > taken from last night's Toronto Argonauts football game (we start football early > up here). > > What's that, you say? A photograph? I think it was, anyway. And, if I talked > to 25 people (not from this list), and asked them if they saw the photograph > from the front page of the sports section, they'd know ~exactly~ what I meant. > Not one would say, "that's not a photo, it's a typographically printed form of a > photo." > > And, it was almost certainly a "digital capture", as well. > > Maybe it's time to get our heads out of the sand. OTOH, the rest of the world > could be wrong. I guess it's our job to educate them, eh? <vbg> > > cheers, > frank > > T Rittenhouse wrote: > > > Try telling that to a photography collector. Maybe he will give you > > thousands of dollars for a tear sheet from an old life magazine. > > > > Ciao, > > Graywolf > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:27 PM > > Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition) > > > > > 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? > > -- > "What a senseless waste of human life" > -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch > >
