The word photograph suggests to me a picture (image!) made via a
light-sensitive process. Film is light sensitive. CCDs are light
sensitive, but are the phosphors on a monitor? They glow because of
non-visible radiation, right? Printer paper certainly isn't light-sensitive
(ignoring the yellowing caused by UV exposure). Anyways, I consider
photographs, and probably pictures, to be subsets of images, just one
particular type of image.
-Rich
William Robb wrote:
>
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > Hey, what's all this talk about images? For more than a
> century the
> > pictures we've taken with our cameras have been called
> photographs, or
> > photos. Of late, images have been used to describe or define
> our
> > pictures. When did this happen, and why? Is this some
> "newspeak"
> > resulting from digital technology, from the posting of scanned
> photos
> > on the 'net, or from the electronic transfer of pictures,
> which are
> > not really photographs but reproductions of photographs.
> >
> > When should I call pictures photographs and when is it
> appropriate to
> > call them images?
>
> For myself, if the picture is created by silver imaging, it is a
> photograph, if it is created by electronic capture, it is an
> image. This is just how I keep things straight in my mind.
> William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
