[Leica] Is that so wrong?

[paul at paulhardycarter.com (Paul)]

I think it's a question of definition. Photography, for me, has always 
meant the action of light on chemicals to create an image. I wish 
someone would come up with a word to describe the production of digital 
images and then we could all know what we're talking about.

Producing an image on a computer and calling it a photograph is as 
preposterous as producing an image in a camera and calling it a 
drawing.

P.

*******
Paul Hardy Carter
www.paulhardycarter.com
*******

On 26 Feb 2005, at 21:41, Philippe Orlent wrote:

> Using a photographic technique to obtain what one envisions in his 
> mind, is
> that so wrong?
> Does everybody see reality the same way, BTW?
> As long as an image does not mislead (morally f.i.) the viewer, there's
> nothing wrong with it, IMO.
> Or is photography a mere reproduction technique?
> And then how about deciding about under and overexposure, DOF, printing
> techinques etc? Doesn't that influence "what I'm looking at represents 
> a
> thing, person, time, and place that actually existed", too.
>
> This is one of the most interesting discussions possible about 
> photography
> ATM.