Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Paul Chefurka wrote: > Why not? As far as I'm concerned it's as much "the real thing" as Tri-X, XTOL, and Brovira 111 in Dektol. Different tools don't make it a different medium. Were daguerrotypes "photographs"? Excluding digital imaging from the honourable designation of "photography" is far too narrow a definition for me. It smacks of elitist semantics (not that you're an elitist, but I think your apparent definition is). > > Paul It's not elitist, Paul, it's just plain silly. To say that digitally produced photographs or prints don't meet the definition of photography makes about as much sense as saying that those produced on film and paper don't meet the definition because they're not daguerrotypes. Or to say that impressionism or abstract painting isn't art because.... B. D.