Richard Klein wrote:
>
> 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?
Oh, please, asking if the phosphors on the monitor are lights sensitive
is like asking if the finished silver-based print is light sensitive or
if the light that came from the enlarger to make the print is light
sensitive. The screen is a finished display medium, and it is created
with light--if there was no light, how would you see the image?
A scan is made by shining light through a neg, just like a print, except
that instead of sensitized paper as a storage medium, you use magnetic
or electronic media. Instead of the manipulation occuring while light
is shining through the neg, the manipulation is moved to later in the
stage (where toning or bleaching are the only options left in
conventional printing).
If you want to limit photography to light sensitive media, I'd offer
that virtually no photographic books contain photography; rather, they
are filled with high-end ink printing (just like the inkjet I do now).
So, when did the photograph stop being a photograph?
Does this mean that Ansel Adams' work is no longer photography? They've
moved over to Iris printing for reproduction of his work now.
I think that splitting hairs over what is and isn't photography is just
way beyond useless. I mean, I understand the difference between
painting and photography, and why one is separate from the other by
definition, though both can use tools and interpretation to capture a
scene. I don't see that kind of gulf between digital and chemical photography.
-Aaron
p.s. 'imaging' is a corporate brand to entice those people who are
interested in technology but uninterested in photography into buying
cameras. ;)
-
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 .
