Well for me is the analog way the right way. I don't like digital's that's why im closed in darkroom for that long. But my client's can wait if they want real deal of work's for them. If they can't wait that's there lost not mine. I'm only advanced amateur in photography. Working for 11 years is not so long time. Some of my friend's using cammera's for 4-5 year's and they are better than me.
just call them inkjets, dont use the wrod photograph, thats just deceptive.
Inkjet photograph, Inkjet photograph, inkjet photograph!
fake dishonest poster, fake dishonest poster, fake dishonest poster
Haven't read the whole thread but I do agree with this bit of what Pablo says. If photography is drawing with light then an inkjet photo is not really a photo because it was not created using light that shone through a negative onto photographic paper...............however the ink is merely e means in displaying a photograph. Light was used to create it and some sort of technic is used to let people be able to see it. Same is with film if you don't use chemicals you can't see the latent picture in the emulsion.
To me it all starts the same. Light goes through a lens ....some time later...... on paper you see a picture, the photograph. What kind of technique is used is irrelevant.
As to honesty see my post in: Re: If you are printing digitally, then you are cheating...
But the true photgraph in the literal sense of the word is this:
It is a solargraph. Light has written the black lines on photographic paper. No chemicals where needed. Out of the camere you have a pic. More honest than is nearly impossible...but it is still not reality as we know it though or as we see it anyways. (Of course this is not the real photograph. It is a scan from the real photograph :-)
Last edited by Degroto; 13-Aug-2009 at 14:24. Reason: extra info
Bookmarks