Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 3:50 PM -0500 8/4/03, George Lottermoser wrote:
>Not the definition of photography - however the definitions:
>Photographic print, photographic negative, photographic slide,
>photographic transparency, photographic positive - as meaning light
>sensitive emulsions on substrates which have been exposed to light
>and therefore hold an image - seems very different in fact,
>substance and aesthetics than - image data residing as code, in
>various magnetic, cd or other memory systems which require powered
>hardware and software to read, print and display as an ³image.²
Definition of photography? I believe the definition you quote was
developed before digital came on the scene. I wonder what Niepce's or
Daguerre's definitions would have been. Would they have included
multilayer colour emulsions with chromogenic dyes on mylar or
polyester bases, with sprocket holes on each side?
Photography comes from 'drawing with light', and that should be our
basis of understanding and acceptance.
>This is very up for me as Iıve just mounted and installed a dozen
>prints in an exhibition which I call EDGE: 3 photographic prints
>from large format negatives (2 - 12x20 contact prints, 1 enlargement
>from 4x5), 1 photographic enlargement from xPan neg, 4 inkjet prints
>from digital captures, 4 inkjet prints from scans of 35mm film.
I too work with large, medium format, and 35mm in many variations as
well as some digital. Digital has a different workflow than 35mm B&W,
but so does 4x5 colour or 6x12 negative. So what.
>To my eye, mind and heart - in fact, substance and aesthetics: I
>feel a clear movement from photographic printing (print making) into
>the world of digital print making. Both methods create an object
>which relate to photography - most folks wonıt even know what
>theyıre looking at - however - as I worked on and finished the
>prints - I experienced such huge differences in fact, substance and
>aesthetics - that I simply must clarify my use of the language - for
>me:
> a photographic image = recorded on light sensitive film or other
>substrate
> a digital image capture = recorded on ccd, scanning back, et al
> a photographic print = printed on light sensitive emulsion
>coated substrate
> an inkjet print = an inkjet print
>
>With those definitions, I can discuss the prints and their
>properties: aesthetically, historically, technically, etc..
>
>
>bdcolen@earthlink.net (bdcolen)8/4/03
>
>>definition of photography
>
>Fond regards,
>
>G e o r g e L o t t e r m o s e r, imagist
Henning Wulff
4x5 tranparist. 8x10 silver gelatinist. 13x19 gicleeist. 6x12
panoramist, flatist and cylindrist. 6x12 superultrawideanglist. 6x9
notquitesowideanglist. 3k x 2k photoreceptorist. 6x6 mamiyaist and
swcist. Xpanist. Leicaist. CVist. M4 IRist. Nikonist. DitalElphist.
Definitely imagist.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html