MattKing
Moderator
It probably emulated video at the beginning.
Think of the work that Sirius did with the space effort.
It probably emulated video at the beginning.Didn't it emulate painting before it emulated photography?
what are you referring to.. digital image making or chemical photography ?Didn't it emulate painting before it emulated photography?
what are you referring to.. digital image making or chemical photography ?
maybe for practical purposes it wasn't invented until the 80s (classmate was using photoshop to digitally edit his film photographs in 1988 )Digital painting (i.e. Corel etc.) came before the digital camera.
Imaging developed via the pottery industry in 1802:
Thomas Wedgwood and the invention of photography in a historical context* (hatiandskoll.com)
It's hard to imagine digital photography -1975- originating anytime close to this, the electron was not discovered till late 1890s.
Non-digital and digital photography are both fake news. Nice try.
I understand the fundamental extra layer of abstraction/“interpretation” involved in digital image recording (there was a long discussion about this some years ago on this forum), but from a practical perspective it’s all fake, edited etc. etc.
What I do not understand is why this thread is about a dicscovery, though it should be about an invention.
What is hidden in this approach ?
I think photography is very much about discovery rather than invention. Discovery by experimentation is discovery.
I give up, Mods please delete this thread.
I give up, Mods please delete this thread.
naaah. the question is like could Tesla have built their sedan if Porsche hadn't built the targa ...
Is it not more feasible for photographic discovery to emerge from one area of science rather than a combination? Film photography is a marriage of chemistry and physics, but digital photography is a product of physics. If photography had not been discovered in the 19th century and the first type of photography was digital at a later date, when technology allowed. Then what if? At a later date, a version of photography employing both physics and chemistry was discovered? Would it have more or less relevance? I ask the question as technological advancement may not always be chronological in order and would be interested on the thoughts of others about this question.
KenS -- that is just some ideas about what happened, cliveh wants (wanted) to discuss a 'what if' scenerio...a rewriting of photo history. Speculative fiction, so to speak.
To which my answer would be that artists will use any media available for expression, so wet photographic processes would have been developed primarily as an art form, with digital imaging (I doubt the word 'photography' would have been used) being the main 'photographic' imaging method. Wet-process photographers would still be the weirdos.
But digital imaging would have been totally different without the camera/film heritage of PhotoShop, etc. From the onset, it probably would have been used by a much broader artistic community. With no camera/film photography, painting would not have 'died' and painting would have had a much stronger influence of the development and advancement of digital imaging.
My question -- what would the cameras look like in this scenerio without the early design needs of photographic equipment?
The "Was photography invented or discovered?" is an interesting question...not quite the scope of this thread. Certain properties of chemical reactions were observed (discovered?) and further explored in the hopes of using these discoveries to invent a way to permanently record light. Patents, fame, and hopefully fortune, were the inspirations of the gentlemen scientists/inventors of the early 1800s of Europe. Photography had no hope but to be invented...and its importance and pleasures discovered.
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?