New term needed

Theodoros Fotometria tells us that the term photography only applies to the capturing of images that are delivered as paper prints. (Perhaps he would include prints on some not-exactly-paper substrate, such as a plastic base - maybe not.)

So if we accept that, we need a term for the broader art of capturing images by light that would embrace the possibility that the viewing of the image would be on a computer screen, on a digital "billboard", projection on the rear of a translucent "billboard" screen, and the like.

Now if we have in mind what some would call "motion picture photography", we can solve the problem by only speaking of cinematography. Then, for our more serious problem, "still" imaging, we could adopt some parallel term, perhaps also from Greek roots.

Perhaps it could be based on the concept of "drawing with light". That would nicely exclude, for example, the making of prints with an ink-jet printer, which would be embraced by the now-restricted term "photography".

No, wait - photography does mean "drawing with light".

Well, I realized this would be tough, which is why I ask for the help of this august body (albeit convened in November).

Asher, in the meantime, you might wish to rename this the Open Imaging Forum, although perhaps the name "photography" could be grandfathered.

Next week: Camera obscura - why do we use a short form of that for our photographic image capture apparatus, but not for a darkroom?

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Theodoros Fotometria tells us that the term photography only applies to the capturing of images that are delivered as paper prints. (Perhaps he would include prints on some not-exactly-paper substrate, such as a plastic base - maybe not.)

So if we accept that, we need a term for the broader art of capturing images by light that would embrace the possibility that the viewing of the image would be on a computer screen, on a digital "billboard", projection on the rear of a translucent "billboard" screen, and the like.

Now if we have in mind what some would call "motion picture photography", we can solve the problem by only speaking of cinematography. Then, for our more serious problem, "still" imaging, we could adopt some parallel term, perhaps also from Greek roots.

Perhaps it could be based on the concept of "drawing with light". That would nicely exclude, for example, the making of prints with an ink-jet printer, which would be embraced by the now-restricted term "photography".

No, wait - photography does mean "drawing with light".

Well, I realized this would be tough, which is why I ask for the help of this august body (albeit convened in November).

Asher, in the meantime, you might wish to rename this the Open Imaging Forum, although perhaps the name "photography" could be grandfathered.

Next week: Camera obscura - why do we use a short form of that for our photographic image capture apparatus, but not for a darkroom?

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Hi Doug…

1. To start with I don't tell you (or any other) anything… I participate (actively) on a forum and suggest/discuss my thoughts as anybody else does…
2. That was my post to you in regard to EVF photography… which I would prefer to discuss it on its own logic and not yours (since it is my accurate saying and not your "free" translation). Thanks.

"Doug, what Jerome means (and he is right) is that the values of photography change no matter how good an EVF will ever become…. You see, ...when photography was given a birth and after it was recognised as an art that one could express feelings, or meanings, or other "artistic communication language", this (the fundamental behind it in other words) was because there was the requirement of one to visualise an outcome (the photograph) by using human vision as it is known. Hence, since using an EVF is and will always be different to human vision, the visualisation to the outcome path is altered, which of course insults the fundamental and thus it is not applicable…
OTOH, in studio and still life (no matter if it is professional or artistic creation), the outcome is visualised through real vision and the settings (lighting, frame …etc) is performed without using a camera, the camera only enters as the additional tool/record media where parameters (that have been set/directed already according to the visualisation by using "real" vision) have only to be checked for accuracy… Hence, EVF is not (and IMO cannot be) a media when visualisation occurs through the viewfinder, but when the viewfinder use is pointless, EVF (or LV) is a great media to check the accuracy of the parameters set and great to use! …just like using a polaroid back, but only much better."

Hi, Theodoros,

My apologies for paraphrasing what you said.

To be accurate, here is one citation verbatim (I think this was your second mention of your position):

. . .since photography is still "only the printed thing on paper",

Click to expand...

This issue has nothing to do with EVFs.

Best regards,

Doug

Let's just wait till Maris joins the discussion.

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Theodoros,

My apologies for paraphrasing what you said.

To be accurate, here is one citation verbatim (I think this was your second mention of your position):



This issue has nothing to do with EVFs.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Yes, I have already explained this on that (or was it other?) thread… It's best if we all use one base to do a conversation Doug… I don't see why you started a new thread with the conversation still being under development.

Hi, Theodoros,

Theodoros Fotometria said:

I don't see why you started a new thread with the conversation still being under development.

Click to expand...

It was because the matter of the meaning of the term "photography" seemed to me to be quite separate from from the matter of "A D700 replacement".

Best regards,

Doug

Occasionally my friend Dave and I discuss the size of the universe. Just for fun. We often devise new words to describe concepts we feel are I inadequately named. So far we have come up with 2niverse (twin universes), multitrum (anything bigger than a quantum), shallow space (as compared to deep space, also applies to the depth of our thinking), red holes (faster black holes), fatycists (fat physicist) Big Fizz (our own personal theory for the origin of the universe. We use an ice cream soda as our model).

All of this is done with the knowledge that it's just fun and no-one is going to pay serious attention to us.

Or will they?

Hi, Tom,

Tom dinning said:

Occasionally my friend Dave and I discuss the size of the universe. Just for fun. We often devise new words to describe concepts we feel are I inadequately named. So far we have come up with 2niverse (twin universes), multitrum (anything bigger than a quantum), shallow space (as compared to deep space, also applies to the depth of our thinking), red holes (faster black holes), fatycists (fat physicist) Big Fizz (our own personal theory for the origin of the universe. We use an ice cream soda as our model).

Click to expand...

I think that is all lovely.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi,
just turn over to the church of FSM and everything will be allright ... )))