are photographs still photographs...

[jb7]

as singer Joe Elliott often stated before playing the song live onstage. ...

He fell off the stage only the other day,
was cracking jokes as he was being helicoptered to hospital-

He might have been on drugs...

[pablo batt]

haha bury your head in the sand, enjoy your dishonest inkjets, dont let the ink run lol

[Jim collum]

Many thanks Donald for the tip. I was able to knock out the comments from the riffraff in a jiffy. Had I known about these functions earlier, this site would have been quite enjoyable. Thanks again.

Dann

just did as well.. wonder if it will filter out when someone on the ignore list is quoted by someone else

[cowanw]

I too wished that digital had developed it's own language instead of misappropriating that of the traditional photographic arts. Nevertheless
Back in the 1850's a urinator was a person who would take a dip in the lake or river or ocean or pond and (to use the synonym) swim around.
Urinator of course is a very specific word originating fron Latin/ greek /indo european

the Medieval Latin word urinare (dive, plunge into water)
derived from the Latin word urina (urine)
derived from the Greek word ouron, οὖρον (urine)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *we-r-

Alas, no matter how intransigent I am, nobody is going to win the gold medal at the next olympics for urinating the 100 metre breaststoke.
I am going to have to muster as much dignity as I can and accept that the meaning of the word has changed
Without being pissed off
Regards
Bill

[Flea77]

I too wished that digital had developed it's own language instead of misappropriating that of the traditional photographic arts. Nevertheless
Back in the 1850's a urinator was a person who would take a dip in the lake or river or ocean or pond and (to use the synonym) swim around.
Urinator of course is a very specific word originating fron Latin/ greek /indo european

the Medieval Latin word urinare (dive, plunge into water)
derived from the Latin word urina (urine)
derived from the Greek word ouron, οὖρον (urine)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *we-r-

Interesting point. I am having trouble finding that word referenced in 1850, however I can find references back as you say in Medieval Latin. It really does not surprise me that a word this diverse would change meaning since it was used differently in different languages from the start (as far as I can tell). Photon however, the originating word for photography, is in every language I can find, referenced to light.

Even skipping all the above, it is much more likely in my opinion that the meaning of such a literal word would change over the course of a thousand years (which would put it square in the middle of the middle ages, what is commonly thought of as medieval times) much easier than it could change in the last twenty years. Especially since in those times with little education and no dictionaries to speak of, a word literally meant whatever the inhabitants of that region thought it meant, and was used that way.

Allan

[paulr]

I think the only thing left in this thread that seems to me worth discussing (I didn't say anyone else) is the distinction between the image and the representation.

What's interesting to me is how photography is the first medium that created such a strong distinction between the two. In painting, it's an abstract exercise to discuss the image and the object separately. In photography you can't help doing so.

but I think we would all agree that cutting it out of the magazine and framing it to hang on the wall would be a reproduction of a photograph, not the photograph itself.

I think we'd have to look closely at this. If the magazine image were made from a photographic print, then we can certainly say that it's a 2nd (or 3rd) generation print of that image. But what if it's made directly from a scan of the negative or digital file? How is it fundamentally different from a Lambda, or ink jet, or gravure, or carbro print?

It's different in that it's mass produced, rather than fussed with and produced in small numbers, but that's not a fundamental difference. Ever since the first salted paper print, photography has made the distinction between "original" and "reproduction" murky at best.

[paulr]

I too wished that digital had developed it's own language instead of misappropriating that of the traditional photographic arts.

It's interesting that painters and illustrators made the same complaint about photography in the 19th century. For them it wasn't just a philosophical squabble ... they were fighting for their jobs!

As we know now, photography won. But painting didn't lose. It was simply forced to reconsider its strengths. Painters discovered that realistic depiction could be done better by a lens that by a human hand, so they had to figure out what painting actually did better. The result was the barbizon school, impressionism, and eventually modernism. Most of the painters and illustrators that tried to keep doing the same old thing found themselves swept under the rug of history.

The rise of digital processes seems like a much more minor revolution, but it's parallel in some important ways. If it turns out that we can handle most of the tradtional tasks of photography better with pixels than with silver salts--and I'm betting this will happen eventually, if it hasn't happened already--then the burden to change will be on the old media.

Just like the painters from 150 years ago, i think people who love silver-based materials could turn this into a renaissance. I think of my friend Anne's work, linked in an earlier thread. Those pictures could not be made with a DSLR or a scanner or photoshop. They're uniquely the product of the weird and wonderful properties of light sensitive chemicals.

I'm sure there are many other examples, and an infinity of ones waiting to be discovered.

[Jim collum]

whole heartedly agree here... As a result of the digital technology, there has been a recent resurgence in Alt printing.. platinum, gum, etc.. and with some incredible images being produced. This is a result of both digital negatives and the control it offers, as well as the desire of photographers to speak in something that isn't so accessible to everyone. So far, i've yet to see anything close to a platinum print from an inkjet (so far.. one of these days they'll figure out how to get the ink into the paper, instead of just on

It's interesting that painters and illustrators made the same complaint about photography in the 19th century. For them it wasn't just a philosophical squabble ... they were fighting for their jobs!

As we know now, photography won. But painting didn't lose. It was simply forced to reconsider its strengths. Painters discovered that realistic depiction could be done better by a lens that by a human hand, so they had to figure out what painting actually did better. The result was the barbizon school, impressionism, and eventually modernism. Most of the painters and illustrators that tried to keep doing the same old thing found themselves swept under the rug of history.

The rise of digital processes seems like a much more minor revolution, but it's parallel in some important ways. If it turns out that we can handle most of the tradtional tasks of photography better with pixels than with silver salts--and I'm betting this will happen eventually, if it hasn't happened already--then the burden to change will be on the old media.

Just like the painters from 150 years ago, i think people who love silver-based materials could turn this into a renaissance. I think of my friend Anne's work, linked in an earlier thread. Those pictures could not be made with a DSLR or a scanner or photoshop. They're uniquely the product of the weird and wonderful properties of light sensitive chemicals.

I'm sure there are many other examples, and an infinity of ones waiting to be discovered.

[Marko]

I think we'd have to look closely at this. If the magazine image were made from a photographic print, then we can certainly say that it's a 2nd (or 3rd) generation print of that image. But what if it's made directly from a scan of the negative or digital file? How is it fundamentally different from a Lambda, or ink jet, or gravure, or carbro print?

Not just that, but photojournalism stands large in the history of photography - its primary purpose was to be printed in a newspaper or a magazine.

Printed and framed on the wall, the portrait of the Afgan Girl or the picture of Kim Phúc (famous photo of napalm-burned Vietnamese girl) would no doubt still be good images, but they would never become powerful photographs that they are without being printed in the press.

The quality of reproduction clearly takes the backseat to content in the entire genre and thus makes it very clear in my mind the line that separates the photograph from its presentation.

[cowanw]

It is defined as such in Webster's dictionary 1913, the alteration in meaning occurring over many fewer years than we might expect. 20th Century words have changed meaning with stunning speed: many associated with the computer. How fast did twitter cease to be a bird call?
Regards
Bill

Interesting point. I am having trouble finding that word referenced in 1850, however I can find references back as you say in Medieval Latin. It really does not surprise me that a word this diverse would change meaning since it was used differently in different languages from the start (as far as I can tell). Photon however, the originating word for photography, is in every language I can find, referenced to light.

Even skipping all the above, it is much more likely in my opinion that the meaning of such a literal word would change over the course of a thousand years (which would put it square in the middle of the middle ages, what is commonly thought of as medieval times) much easier than it could change in the last twenty years. Especially since in those times with little education and no dictionaries to speak of, a word literally meant whatever the inhabitants of that region thought it meant, and was used that way.

Allan