• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Call it what it is


Okey-doke.
 
Oh… the dollar prize has already been awarded? Okay… maybe next time.

But if still available, my submission is: “Art can be fickle.”
 
true photography

What makes something a photograph? Is the paper it's on? Is it the device that was used? Is it the subject? Can it be on a lcd display? When you look through a photo book, say by Bresson, you are not seeing physical silver-gelatin prints. You are seeing reproductions of them - perhaps very good ones. Maybe the book you are looking at was made from digital scans of prints - maybe even from digital scans of negatives. But when you look, is that what you're looking at or are you looking at the content and composition of the image?

Anything you say about ink drops on digital photography paper (or however you phrased it) is as true for dye-clouds or silver grain clusters.

It is romanticism to see physical "touching" of reflected light in film photography: the light that touched the subject touched the film, changed the film, and gets "reborn" by enlarging. Contrasting this with data produced by a digital sensor emphasizes that romanticism. In cold practical terms, there is no fundamental difference: the process abandons the subject and provides a record.
 

There is nothing like holding a silver gelatin print in ones hands.
 
  • Don_ih
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Offtopic
There is nothing like holding a silver gelatin print in ones hands.

For some. But as this is a thread in the digital printing part of the site, that is irrelevant - please refrain from digital vs. analogue discussions.
 

Not sure what universe you live in, but a high-res stiock photo will cost significantly more than $1 plus it has no collector value, only decorative. Most stock licenses will not allow you to resell that image, printed by Walmart or on a T-Shirt or mug.

It always amazes me that folks go on and on about art or the value of a photograph or claim that a photograph is not a photograph if it is digital or printed digitally, yet have never sold or purchased one. Many don't even print. as far as I can tell. A lot of grandstanding IMO.
 
What makes something a photograph?
Ok I started a new thread on this topic, probably more appropriate not to keep ranting here:
 

Well no, definitely I will not try to resell anybody's stock image. I was saying the customer has too many options with digital images and the availability of ink-jet printers.

Regarding photographic prints, I think ink-jet prints are not photographic by definition. They are prints but not photographic prints. I carried on the discussion here: