are photographs still photographs...

[Marko]

The first problem, which you identified yourself, is that it is an image on the screen, not a photograph. Please see my other posts for more on that.

Your other posts all insist on the exclusivity of using light to create an image.

Now, what is, in your opinion and according to your sources the source of an image on the screen?

[goamules]

A rose by any other name...

[Flea77]

You definitely need to get your definitions (and sources) in a row...

1.
a) Visible light IS a part of the electromagnetic spectrum
b) So are radio "waves" - energy, really
c) Sound is NOT.

Never said sound was part of the electromagnetic spectrum, I did say it travels in waves. If you read carefully I stated that radiant energy was energy that travels in waves (as per the definition) and that energy that travels in waves includes electromagnetic, light, and sound among others. Are you saying that sound is not energy that travels in waves? If that is true, I apologize, for I thought it was.

2. Electromagnetic radiation (including light in general and visible light in particular) has dual nature - wave or particle. Therefore, "wave motion":

a) IS NOT a condition for "writing with light".
b) IS a condition for transferring sound

You mean that light has a particle too? What is it called? It would not be PHOTOn would it? I mean if it was, that might have something to do with PHOTOgraphy, would you not think?

3. It is NOT safe to conclude that "Sensitive surfaces" you mention are sensitive to light only. The are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation (or a segment thereof), not necessarily just visible light.

Hold on there, where did I specify VISIBLE light? Even invisible (to the human eye) light has PHOTOns right? So any surface sensitive to PHOTOns would be light sensitive. Since the name is PHOTOgraphy, and they specifically mention film and CCDs as examples to being sensitive, what exactly would it be sensitive to other than PHOTOns?

Finally, this is pure nonsense - radiography is using what used to be known as "radio-active energy", or high energy portion of the electromagnetic spectrum - X-Rays, gamma-rays and such - for creating images.

Actually, 'Radiographers now often do fluoroscopy, computed tomography, mammography, ultrasound, nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance imaging as well' and an MRI, among other tests as I am sure you know, use RF fields to align the magnetization to make the scanner work. Although I will admit I threw that bone in there to see what you would pick out I have to admit I am surprised how easy that was.

So much for reason...

Indeed.

You missed the dual nature part of light. The fact that light can be both a wave AND a particle.

Ink is also comprised of particles...

Actually I did not miss it. You did. PHOTOns? PHOTOgraphy? All this time I have been pointing at the word and saying it meant light, and just now you think of the particles?

Ink is indeed comprised of particles. I agree. Although you still have not answered my question of how you think the ink being sprayed on the page is radiant energy, because if it is not, then the definition you quoted just proved my point. I thank you for that!

Allan

[Flea77]

Your other posts all insist on the exclusivity of using light to create an image.

Now, what is, in your opinion and according to your sources the source of an image on the screen?

If you read the definitions, and of course my posts, you would note that they/I state that a photograph is created when you use a light sensitive surface to record light. A monitor is not light sensitive, and it is not recording anything. Therefor the monitor is no more a photograph than a light bulb is.

You are obviously an intelligent person. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that even if you vehemently disagree with my position, that you do not understand exactly what I am saying.

Allan

[Flea77]

Rather than bat this around fifty more times I will make a clear statement here.

My personal opinion is based on what I was taught many years ago, which also happens to be almost exactly the dictionary definition of the word photograph....

If you use a light sensitive surface (film, CCD, CMOS, photosensitive paper) then the image you produce is a photo (meaning light, from the particle of light called a photon) graph (recording).

If you do not use a light sensitive surface to capture light (for example, but not limited to, inkjet printer, dot matrix printer, paint, charcoal, clay, etc) it is not a photo (meaning light, from the particle of light called a photon) graph (recording).

That is it, there is no ambiguity. It does not matter if the end result looks real or fake, it does not matter who did what to whom when or where. It does not matter how it started or how it ended. It either is, or is not.

Lastly, being a photograph or not a photograph does not make either one superior to the other. Both can be awe inspiring, or repulsive, both can take extreme talent to create, or be jammed together by a five year old. It is merely a descriptive term and nothing else.

Allan

[rdenney]

That is it, there is no ambiguity. It does not matter if the end result looks real or fake, it does not matter who did what to whom when or where. It does not matter how it started or how it ended. It either is, or is not.

So, what do YOU call YOUR inkjet prints?

Rick "just curious" Denney

[Marko]

If you read the definitions, and of course my posts, you would note that they/I state that a photograph is created when you use a light sensitive surface to record light. A monitor is not light sensitive, and it is not recording anything. Therefor the monitor is no more a photograph than a light bulb is.

Yes, a photograph is indeed created when a light sensitive surface is used TO RECORD/CAPTURE LIGHT.

PRESENTATION of that photograph is another matter altogether. A distinction you seem unable (I doubt, you seem intelligent enough) or unwilling to recognize for whatever reason. Which is fine with me, you should be free to have whatever opinion you want. Everybody has one, after all...

In the end, you are right - it does not matter at all. That's it from me, I've fed the trolls enough in this thread to last me a long time.

[vinuva]

I like to take photographs. All my photos are my favorite.
_______________________
http://www.arcurs.com/microstock photography

[pablo batt]

so i think we can all agree that inkjets are not photographs buy definition and quality.

although a digital file displayed on a monitor/screen is a photo lol

not sure how you would fit a monitor and a small power station into your wallet

what a backwards step digital is ,it has no special abilities and is never going to create a genuine photo

[Flea77]

So, what do YOU call YOUR inkjet prints?

Rick "just curious" Denney

Ummmm, prints?

Allan