Re: Actual photograph ---> IMAGES

It's all ego perception. I wrote an article for a British journal "Image
Versus Picture" and detailed how an image could be the reproduction of a
photograph, but the picture is the photograph as made by the photographer.
Something like that.

Maybe the article was "Image vs Photograph."

It's like that grade we got in grammer school english class. The two grades
separated by a line, with the above the ling content and below the line
technique. The image is the content and the . . . well, technique showing
on an original says it all.

Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baird, Darryl" <dbaird@umflint.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Actual photograph ---> IMAGES

>I don't disagree, but there are long histories of the word picture.
> Perhaps photography's invention, use, and acceptance has altered the
> current meaning for us...?
>
> -Darryl
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marie Wohadlo [mailto:mwohadlo@press.uchicago.edu]
> Sent: Thu 3/17/2005 11:38 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Actual photograph ---> IMAGES
>
> I use the word "IMAGE".
> It doesn't make any claim to the origin, process, medium or substrate.
> "PICTURE", to me, is too suggestive of SNAPSHOT or PAINTING or
> ILLUSTRATION.
>
>
> At 11:22 AM 3/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>>While studying and researching the origins of picture-making, I've
>>come to realize we photographers have gotten this concept all wrong.
>>We don't make photographs, we make pictures. The photograph is a
>>medium, the camera a tool, and the print a representation or
>>reproduction.
>
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 17 11:58:02 2005