wet darkroom vs. inkjet

[jim kitchen]

book is a book, photographer is a photographer.

only a inkjetter can get this simple concept all mixed up, if i spent many hours and loads of money on being a inkjetter i would be loud and proud

Dear Ret,

If you have a moment, I am curious to know why are you so aggressively upset about such a simple term, and why would you make such a comment about anyone that might consider themselves to be "inkjetter?"

Again, just curious...

jim k

[paulr]

no photographic output comes out of a inkjet machine, for obvious reasons (no photons used in the production of print)

Ret, you might be surprised if checked out what the curators of all the major photography collections are collecting; what the editors at all the major photo publications are publishing; what the art historians at all the universities and universiy presses are writing about ... I think you'd find that your definition of photography is one that you've made up for rhetorical purposes, and not one that's in current use.

You might consider that your definition, in addition to excluding many of the most important contemporary photographers, also excludes the work of historical photographers who worked with gravure, carbon printing, bromoil, gumoil, woodburytypes ... all of these processes use dyes or pigments as opposed photo-sensitive metal salts. None of the resulting prints are on light-sensitive paper.

At any rate, if you were having this discussion with Plato (or anyone versed in rhetoric or the history of philosophy), you'd find your argument dismissed on grounds of etymological falacy—the mistaken notion that a word's origin determines its current definition.

If I were unaware of this falacy, I could argue that you're not reading this right now on a computer, because "computer" was coined in the first half of the last century to describe a worker who operated an adding machine all day long.

[paulr]

wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

as far as my opinion is concerned the term photograph is reserved for a traditional optical and chemical print.

As the wise man once said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Definitions and usage, while not matters of hard fact (like the density of copper, or the boiling point of water) are not actually matters of individual opinion. They're determined by consensus, and generally with the usage of "experts" (like, in this case, curators and historians) getting privileged over the useage of lay people (like folks with axes to grind on internet forums).

inkjets are just that inkjets, pls refrain from hijacking another craft/arts descriptive name ...

Too late. It's already been done, and not by us, and not in this decade, either.

[Mike Anderson]

...
At any rate, if you were having this discussion with Plato (or anyone versed in rhetoric or the history of philosophy), you'd find your argument dismissed on grounds of etymological falacy—the mistaken notion that a word's origin determines its current definition.

If I were unaware of this falacy, I could argue that you're not reading this right now on a computer, because "computer" was coined in the first half of the last century to describe a worker who operated an adding machine all day long.

Nice example. I was thinking about a definition of "print":

produce (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.), esp. in large quantities, by a mechanical process involving the transfer of text, images, or designs to paper.

implying light/chemical image transfer is not "printing". But your "computer" example is better.

...Mike

[ret wisner]

the thread we are responding to is about inkjetting vs darkroom and i am adding my opinion.

if you want to do inkjetting then do it, if your prefer photography get in the darkroom.i dont care if inkjetting looks as good/different to photography, thats not the point.

but you must understand that you cant be a inkjetter and a photographer , this is just a misuse of a inappropriate/misleading term for you non photographic prints

they fail to be a photographic prints if they are squirted out of a inkjet machine

please resist the need to disguise your prints by using photographic terms which are not applicable

be proud of your inkjets and just call them inkjets, not pigment prints or any other lame attempt to cover up the fact that they are just computer controlled inkjets

[Maris Rusis]

[QUOTE]

As the wise man once said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Definitions and usage, while not matters of hard fact (like the density of copper, or the boiling point of water) are not actually matters of individual opinion. They're determined by consensus, and generally with the usage of "experts" (like, in this case, curators and historians) getting privileged over the useage of lay people (like folks with axes to grind on internet forums).

This is both a description of what is happening and an illustration of another fallacy: argumentum ad populum, usually referred to as the "democratic fallacy". No concensus of experts, no cabal of historians, no popular usage, can vote the truth.

Inkjets are the mechanical equivalent of traditional painting and remain securely distinguishable from photographs.

[Jim collum]

but that's where you're wrong.. they *are* photographs.. . photographic prints output via an inkjet printer (or photographic print output to dye transfer, or photographic print output to carbon transfer.. etc etc). *your* definition is an archaic one (similar to paul's computer example). bring this up to someone buying a print in a gallery, and they'll look at you and say .. "huh?"

I'm a photographer. i ouput my work on platinum, silver, inkjet. (and i label them appropriately when selling). They are *all* sold as photographs

the thread we are responding to is about inkjetting vs darkroom and i am adding my opinion.

if you want to do inkjetting then do it, if your prefer photography get in the darkroom.i dont care if inkjetting looks as good/different to photography, thats not the point.

but you must understand that you cant be a inkjetter and a photographer , this is just a misuse of a inappropriate/misleading term for you non photographic prints

they fail to be a photographic prints if they are squirted out of a inkjet machine

please resist the need to disguise your prints by using photographic terms which are not applicable

be proud of your inkjets and just call them inkjets, not pigment prints or any other lame attempt to cover up the fact that they are just computer controlled inkjets

[ret wisner]

why cant you just let me have my opinion??

im not qouting people im just expressing my opinion

it may be right it may be wrong, some may agree and others wont.
cant we just leave it there and stop this endless lets prove his opinion to be incorrect, blah blah

i listen to other opinions and dont feel the need to knock people for thinking differently

maybe the author appreciates the different opinions and welcomes alternative views of the world of photography.

live and let live

[Steve M Hostetter]

I have an old epson 2000p that maybe made 20 inkjet prints that looked right.. The heads clogged and made prints that looked like the jokers face.
One day I'm gonna open the backdoor and see how far I can throw this piece of sht

wet prints are kind to me

[ret wisner]

all technology seems to provoke a new kind of rage, inkjetting machines are just another variety of anger provoking techie lets sit in our chairs and not actually do anything vibe thats consuming this world.

i had a printer once , it broke down as they all do so i hacked all the plastic of the casing and now use the plastic as homemade lens boards, + the grey plastic matches my calumet perfectly.