Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders

Ryuji,

    If you already had an answer, why did you ask the question?
    It seems to me that this is a debate about semantics and details. We
could go on forever with hundreds of opinions and I'm not sure I care to be
involved in such a discussion since nothing, inmy opinion, is to be gained
from it.
     Anyway, I have my own opinion with which I am satisfied and it is
again, photography means writing with light. You have an object which is
emitting or reflecting light, you have a lens or a pinhole which forms an
image on some kind of a photosensitive surface and a means of fixing the
image. Everything else is just details.
     Photographs--- I just make them. I leave it to others to philosophize
about them. And, thats all I have to say about that.

Sincere best wishes to all,

Bob Schramm
Check out my web page at:

  http://www.SchrammStudio.com

>From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@AgX.st>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders
>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:14:19 -0500 (EST)
>
>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 21:24:06 2005