From: Scott Wainer (smwbmp@starpower.net)
Date: 12/21/02-12:48:12 AM Z
<snip>
>
> But to agree with using the term 'anti-photographic' I would choose to
> argue that subject matter does not take an image into this realm. I would
> consider this to only occur if there are specific things that take the
> photograph away from the photographic process. Such as making hand coated
> emulsions makes the process more painterly. Or to collage a photograph, or
> a print on watercolor paper, etc....
>
<snip>
Please define what makes an image "photographic".
It is my understanding that hand-coated emulsions, being the fore-runner to
conventional machine-coated emulsions, were considered as photographic. Does
the fact that emulsions (cyan, p.t., ect...) are hand-coated make them other
than photographic? Does the fact that I combine multiple photographic images
(made from film-based negatives or positives) in photoshop to make a
negative used for printing on conventional machine-made or hand-coated
papers make the resulting print any less "photographic"? Does the base
(paper, ceramic, glass, ect...) on which I print an image effect whether it
is considered as a photograph? If I capture an image on film or digital
media and print it via an inkjet printer - is it any less a photograph?
Also, if I use a soft-focus lens to create a pictorialist quality image,
does that make the image less photographic; whatever the image is printed
on?
I am still trying to figure just where I stand in regards to the genre of
photography I lean towards. If hand-coated emulsions, inkjet prints, and
lens type effect the determination of whether an image is photographic, then
it throws another wrench into the equation.
Scott Wainer
smwbmp@starpower.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST