No photograph portrays the truth. It is always filtered through at least two people.
No, not if you've paid a lot for the phony watch when you thought it was the real thing. But my point is, just because something is a "Genuine Photograph", that doesn't necessarily mean it is portraying the "truth".
Maybe I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I'll get my coat...
While we are splitting hairs: a pinhole does not focus light at all. (Can't, because it doesn't have that glass.)
It just restricts the angle of view rather seriously.
I like your style, mister.
But when you drill the pinhole, you actually drill a round edge. Which exists.
My point being that material is not required to focus light. In the case of the pinhole (simple aperature), light will be focused in a particular point at a particular distance that will defined by electromagnetic theory and the properties of the pinhole (aperature).
Oh! But is so good! But that depends entirely upon what is is.This whole thing is becoming a Monty Python bit. The Department of Perpetual Pointless Argument.
You are jumping from a perceived general possibility that material may not be needed (badly based, because upon an example of how material (!) bends light through gravity) to the assertion that a hole focusses light.
It quite simply does not. The image forming process in pinhole photography involves nothing that even with the richest of imaginations could be construed as focusing light.
All a hole does (or rather, as has been establised, the material around the hole), is exclude things from the field of view.
You do need material to focus light. No way around it.
Using a pinhole, there is no plane of focus. No focussing distance nor fixed hole to film distance. No focus at all, in fact. No "f-stop".
Firstly, it's is not a perceived general possibility. It has actually been proven numerous times. In point of fact, it is space-time that changes/moves and does not actually bend light (and thusly NOT badly formed). Light still follows a straight path. It's basic non-euclidean geometry.
Plus a black hole by DEFINITION is a SINGULARITY and is not made of any matter (as yet to be disproven since no one knows what happens past the event horizon). So the lensing effect is a byproduct of the accumulated mass/energy of the singularity.
Secondly, gravity is not mass.
Nor is material (mass) needed to induce fluctuations in space-time.
Please take a basic physics & optics class and learn about how there is no such thing as a "perfect" focus, circles of indistinctness, point sources, and basic EM theory.
Lastly, you sir are an idiot.
Firstly, it's is not a perceived general possibility. It has actually been proven numerous times. In point of fact, it is space-time that changes/moves and does not actually bend light (and thusly NOT badly formed). Light still follows a straight path. It's basic non-euclidean geometry.
Plus a black hole by DEFINITION is a SINGULARITY and is not made of any matter (as yet to be disproven since no one knows what happens past the event horizon). So the lensing effect is a byproduct of the accumulated mass/energy of the singularity.
Secondly, gravity is not mass. Nor is material (mass) needed to induce fluctuations in space-time.
Please take a basic physics & optics class and learn about how there is no such thing as a "perfect" focus, circles of indistinctness, point sources, and basic EM theory.
Lastly, you sir are an idiot.
A negative or slide is an image created using light projected onto a photon sensitive structure (film) and a physical reaction (usually chemical) is needed to bring out the image
A print is an image created using light projected onto a photon sensitive structure (print paper) and a physical reaction (usually chemical) is needed to bring out the image
Chiron highlights the conceptual gulf between "photographs" (negatives and slides for example) and "prints" that bedevils contemporary thinking. I suggest that so called prints are in fact photographs. A curious incident in Point Light Gallery (an exclusively photographic gallery in Sydney, Australia) led me to this insight.
If you run into this much resistance to your idea in APUG, what can you possibly hope to achieve in the larger photographic community?
Second: I have not understood yet why labeling my pictures as genuine photographs should deny other pictures this property.
Ulrich
I myself ask me this question appr. since post #50. I am not sure about it but it may have to do with some still unanswered questions that I hope to get answered by not giving up yet.
First: I still want to know, what the term "genuine" in English really means and whether its meaning differs so basically from its German counterpart. (See Post #72 for reference.)
Ulrich
I think this example reveals a misconception. If I label one of my pictures and don't label another one of my pictures the conclusion, that the not labeled picture does not comply with my standards, is likely. I do not have (and do not want to have) the authority to label foreign pictures. So this does not say anything about pictures of others.Take two pictures of two typical men, say one European and one Asian.
Label the European "A Real Man!".
Don't label the other picture.
You can't see any problem with this?
Third: As the gun smoke settles a bit, the ongoing discussion uncovers that the term "photograph" itself does not seem to have a commonly agreed on definition. If the outcome of our attempt should be nothing more than such an agreement, at least to me it would have been worth all the hassle. Not having a commonly agreed on definition opens the term to all kinds of usage and does make it arbitrary. Our initiative at least is a reflex to this development.
Ulrich
We wish to understand why labeling them appropriately causes such an emotional turmoil.
" on the art of Photography, or The Application of the Chemical Rays of Light to the Purpose of Pictorial Representation" ( Herschel, 1839)
We have admitted already that we have made mistakes in the formulation of our statement (and have fixed them already) but we have always discussed your objections factually. We have stirred up a hornet's nest and really want to understand why. Up till now I (the others are on holidays, I have not understood yet why labeling my pictures as genuine photographs should deny other pictures this property.
the ongoing discussion uncovers that the term "photograph" itself does not seem to have a commonly agreed on definition. If the outcome of our attempt should be nothing more than such an agreement, at least to me it would have been worth all the hassle. Not having a commonly agreed on definition opens the term to all kinds of usage and does make it arbitrary. Our initiative at least is a reflex to this development.
I ask all interested participants in the discussion to concentrate efforts on discussing the term "photograph". My interest in the term "genuine" is purely technical. I have already said in an earlier post that we don't stick to it if someone comes up with something more appropriate.
Ulrich
I do not have (and do not want to have) the authority to label foreign pictures.
Concerning your example: If someone is looking at a picture and says: "This is a real man" this does not imply necessary that all other men on other pictures elsewhere are considered softys. It only say that this particular man on this particular picture is considered a real man (whatever that may be). The situation is fairly common I suppose.
Ulrich
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?