Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders

From: Joe Smigiel <jsmigiel@kvcc.edu>
Subject: Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:02:12 -0500

> As far as the other emulsion types you mention (Polaroid, calotype,
> etc.) are they not sufficiently sensitive to form a direct image given
> enough (extreme) exposure without having to develop them? I know
> factory and handmade silver-gelatin papers are. Obviously the addition
> of chemical development makes the latent image appear, but wouldn't a
> direct image appear with these materials given sufficient exposure?

They are most likely to form some visible negative images by exposing
some billion times more light exposure (which is the amplification
gain when you develop fast films) but whether the resulting image will
be the same is highly questionable.

Silver gelatin POP is formulated with a very different chemical
balance to facilitate the photolytic silver formation though they
are probably incompatible with developer solutions.

> What is the commonality that we find between POP, cyanotype,
> silver-gelatin, Pt/Pd, gum bichromate, Polaroid, collodion,
> daguerreotypy, etc., that allows us all to agree these processes are
> all "photographic"?

A single device serves as the photosensor, the memory, and the output
device, possibly with aids of chemical reactions at various stages.

> In contrast, why do many people (and I'm in the minority but far
> from a lone voice on this) take exception to the term photograph
> when applied to digitally produced imagery and inkjet prints?

I don't object keeping a fuzzy status for digicam-inkjet process, but
I don't object calling them photography either. Why people don't like
them? Maybe because they are flippant?

--
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)