Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
>you are proposing a
>particular
>definition intended to exclude from the meaning of photograph a new form
>of
>the medium which you chose not to recognize.
Where in the world did you get that idea?
I included digital photography in my definition of photograph.
I recognize, make and sell inkjet prints of my conventional photographs.
I recognize, make and sell photographic prints of my digital photographs.
I recognize, make and sell photographic prints of my conventional photographs.
I recognize, make and sell digital photographs and other digital
(non-photographic) images for use on the web, in print (including lithography)
some of which originated as digital photographs, some of which originated as
conventional photographs, and some of which originated as illustrations (either
digital or conventional and then scanned).
I recognize, make and sell scanning services of other's images.
However the questions often arrise, "What is it?" or "What am I looking at?" or
"What am I paying for?"
And the clarity of terms and definitions, not only come into play in the
classroom, but also in commerce. I met with a wedding client over the weekend
and attempting to communicate the print possibilities of:
chromogenic proofs (cheapest I can offer)
silver based rc prints (more costly)
silver based fiber prints (more costly yet)
inkjet prints (even more costly)
Point to the necessity of clear communication of terms.
George
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html