Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Is that so wrong?
From: SonC at (
Date: Sat Feb 26 15:04:31 2005

In a message dated 2/26/2005 3:26:57 P.M. Central Standard Time, writes:

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  


Um.. Of course the first use of cameras did not involve chemistry at  all. 
Also, I don't think print out paper utilized any chemistry to create  an 
Just light falling on a piece of paper coated with a thin blend  of 
 I have a couple POP prints from the fifties that were never fixed,  and if 
could find them in this mess, I would  electronically transmit  them to you 
so you could examine them. Of course, the act of scanning them might  
them, so I might just shoot them with my little Leica digicam ;-)
You might have to shun the word "photograph" if you were to limit the act  
creating a picture by light and chemistry alone, that is, give that process 
 unique name, as photography is pretty well defined as "writing with  light."
It seems  useful to keep our options open when it comes to language  use, at 
least for me.

Natchitoches, Louisiana
Oldest continuous  settlement in La Louisiane
?galit?, libert?,  crawfish

Replies: Reply from paul at (Paul) ([Leica] Is that so wrong?)