wet darkroom vs. inkjet

[Jim collum]

photography doesn't equal printing

choices are printing in darkroom, or printing via inkjet (lot of other choices as well... too many to list)... but source for both of those in this case (since we're talking in a photography forum ) is photographic (i think this has been said many many times before). he may not be sure of his direction.. but your map doesn't make sense.

never liked just calling myself a silver printer.. i'm a photographer (regardless of output method)

i thought i was supposed to be responding to the original poster on this thread.

he is not sure on his direction

one route is a photographic route (darkroom)
another route is a inkjet (non photographic)

so putting it simply inkjetter or photography

theirs your choices

ive never liked the idea of calling myself a inkjetter

[ret wisner]

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

but if you do use light for production of negs and prints then it is a purely photographic process

so as i said before, photographer or digital inkjetter

these titles mean something

digital output has little to do with photography

[Jim collum]

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

but if you do use light for production of negs and prints then it is a purely photographic process

so as i said before, photographer or digital inkjetter

these titles mean something

digital output has little to do with photography

sigh.. i'll never learn

[Paul Kierstead]

photographer:
–noun
a person who takes photographs, esp. one who practices photography professionally.

----
You'll note that output is not considered.

By your definition, those who print via offset (i.e. magazines, books, etc) are not photographers. Is this your contention?

[Darin Boville]

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

but if you do use light for production of negs and prints then it is a purely photographic process

so as i said before, photographer or digital inkjetter

these titles mean something

digital output has little to do with photography

Interesting conception. So you need at least two sets of photons to be a photographer--the photons that record the initial image and the photons that are projected onto the paper.

Perhaps we can generalize this to say, the closer the viewer to the photons the better?

If that is so then I proclaim that you are not a photographer at all but a "silver printer"--a real photographer, maximizing those photons, would simply project the recorded (graphed) image--the projection itself would be the final work.

Very cool. Thanks for sharing.

--Darin

[ret wisner]

welcome

[jim kitchen]

Gentlemen,

There are many, many archival conservation papers that are available through good research, and within these papers there is a conservation terminology question regarding whether a new definition should be required for a digital print, a photomechanical print, or even a Xerox copy that could compete with the known definition of a photograph. It seems that the current contemporary definition of a photograph, at least one that is accepted in the conservation field, is to classify an object or a material that was sensitive to light during the photographic process. The photomechanical print, for lack of better words, is a contemporary term too, where it is described as an object which was not sensitive to light during the photographic process.

A film's negative, whether it happens to be made of glass, mylar, or a paper based material, is classified as an archival object too, since it is an object that was sensitive to light, and although many digital image makers today insist that a digital camera was sensitized to light too, they therefore insist that the digitally captured image should be included within the photographic terminology, whereas film image makers periodically and vehemently resist that argument. There in lies the basis of their discussion, or disagreement…

These definition classifications continue to propagate many boisterous and sometimes incoherent discussions among film practitioners and digital image makers, and although conservation practitioners, and their scientific practices look at each individual output as a simple object, they never discuss whether the object was introduced by a photographer and, or another profession. If you are capable of finding a terminology that expresses your meaning, and with great effect among your peers and associates, then you should use the term properly, and you should not use the term to degrade another object's creation method, compared to any other creation method that exists today, and possibly tomorrow. They are different entities, created by different methods as identified within the conservation environment, and they are treated as such, respected as such, and analyzed for the objects that they represent.

A photographer can employ each method to create a photographic object, and will continue to employ these methods going forward to create objects that are considered to be either light sensitive, or mechanically produced, as defined within the conservator's practice.

Just my two pennies…

jim k

[ret wisner]

why over complicate, your either a wannabee photographer or a wannabee inkjetter

[Paul Kierstead]

why over complicate, your either a wannabee photographer or a wannabee inkjetter

Again, is it your contention that those whose images end up in books or magazines, where the image was not formed optically, are not photographers? Are they just wannabee offsetters?

[ret wisner]

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