From: Joe Smigiel <jsmigiel@kvcc.edu>
Subject: Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:22:21 -0500
> OTOH, I can take any number of salts of silver, chromium, iron, etc.,
> coat them on a substrate, and subject them to exposure of light and they
> will directly be affected by the action of that light upon them and
> darken. They form photographs.
Although some may think I may be one of those who take this viewpoint,
I am not quite so at this time.
According to your definition of photography, the final image must form
without any extraneous aid. That definition may include print-out
materials such as dichromated colloids, cyanotype, silver halide POP,
etc. but not daguerreotype, calotype, wet collodion, and silver
gelatin process other than POP. This is because what you see as the
negative or print is a result of electrochemical amplification of what
is originally recorded. Even today, there is no easy way to see the
image recorded on film without chemically amplifying it. (Note: so
called "physical development" is actually a form of electrochemical
reaction and it is highly misleading. Also, rinse solutions in
dichromate processes and iron processes are technically not
developers.)
That is, the definition of "photography" given by Joe Smigiel is the
same as the conventional definition of "printing out process" and is
narrower than the conventional definition of "photography." However,
this problem can be solved by adding a phrase to Joe's definition. It
is also easy to write a definition that includes all photography
except electronic imaging means.
> The original 55s and the latter alternative prints are. The
> digitally printed images are not.
In my view, the image of Polaroid type 55 is not made solely by direct
action of light.
I wanted to say more about what I think about this issue but I'll have
to wait because all examples I can think of are related to whiskey and
wine right now.
-- Ryuji Suzuki "Well, believing is all right, just don't let the wrong people know what it's all about." (Bob Dylan, Need a Woman, 1982)Received on Wed Mar 16 00:14:39 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:01 AM Z CST