tg, your ideas are lyrical, beautiful, elegant, and wrong.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand sneering at algorithmic and mechanical thought, and on the other trying to use what superficially resembles a scientific description to advance your argument. If you want to base your photographic practice on your own poetic vision of what happens when light waves meet a sheet of film that's fine, but if you want to use the language and authority of science to persuade others that your ideas are correct, you are open to scientific refutation.
Wikipedia has come in for some stick in this thread, but the article on the latent image is pretty good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_image
It gives some references to textbooks, but if you have access to a library the original papers are worth reading:
R.W.Gurney and N.F. Mott. Proc.Roy.Soc.A 164, 151-167 (1938)
J.W. Mitchell and N.F. Mott. Phil. Mag. 2 1149-1170 (1957)
If you read those papers, even if you skim them, ignore the maths and just look at the pictures, you will quickly see that light does indeed get 'captured' when it is absorbed, and that your vague handwaving notion of light waves 'drawing' something on the emulsion is just vague and speculative hogwash.
Bookmarks