Caveman wrote: > > It seems to me that a large number of people is not happy with the > current dictionary definition of the word "photography". It appears that > they would like it to include more than the traditional prints obtained > "on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light". > > So, here is a serious question. If *you* had to write a contemporary > dictionary definition for "photography", what would it be ? There's only > one rule to it (as for any definition): it has to be at the same time > inclusive (i.e. include everything that should be called photograph) and > exclusive (i.e. exclude everything that should not be called so). > > Any takes ?
I would not try to define "photography". I would suggest defining "still imaging". Why? Although I mostly use film, every slide I sell is digitally scanned for reproduction. Very little of my work is ever printed using traditional methods, which is what I think the definition of "photography" still gets hung up on. Whether it is "photography" or "still imaging", the important part of the definition must include recognition that the "photographer" or "still imager" must make careful use of light (whether ambient or artificial) to create the result. John
