Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,597   Online: 841
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    A print is a print, a light jet print was made with dye, it is a reproduction of a photograph, not the original.
    The lightjet process using light to expose RA4 paper, there is no dye. (unless you mean the sensitizers in the paper) People typically use a digital file to send the exposure instructions to the lasers that do the exposure, and that's where it becomes non-analogue.

    But a lightjet print is made with light, not dye.
    Last edited by keithwms; 05-22-2010 at 08:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #32
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,532
    Images
    28
    I know what a lightjet is, it is made with dye, which is formed during the development process, the paper is exposed with light, but the resultant reproduction is made from dye.

  3. #33
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Okay. Just so we're clear, this is quite similar to how c41 works as well, so you could as easily deem colour or chromogenic negs as dye reproductions. (N.b. you can actually use lightjet/ra4 paper to shoot in-camera negs)

    If the fact that the image is reproduced to dye is offensive, well then one could also say the silver dev process reproduces the latent image. Not to start a meandering debate (which has probably been had many times before!), but this is a slippery slope...

    I belabour this point because some still do not understand what lightjet is, that's all. The non-analogue part is the instruction set sent to the lasers.

    ...not trying to provoke debate, people should use what they wish to use....
    Last edited by keithwms; 05-22-2010 at 09:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    I know what a lightjet is, it is made with dye, which is formed during the development process, the paper is exposed with light, but the resultant reproduction is made from dye.
    Just like a colour negative.

    A print, optical or lightjet, is a photograph of a photograph.

    I agree completely that as long as something involves recording light as it is 'changed' by the subject of the photograph, the thing that results is a photograph. No matter what technology is used to capture and 'fix' that light, or what technology is used to do something usefull with that recording.

    As such, digital photography is, of course, as much photography as is analog photography.
    If not, there would be no need to call APUG APUG, and it should simply be called PUG (or PG).

  5. #35
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,532
    Images
    28
    A photograph need not be recorded for viewing by others.

    It can even be conceived at one date and brought into physical existence years later, albeit slightly different or refined from the original.

    We perceive light, our eye is a lens, our retina is an imaging plane, our brain can bring up images for later viewing, I can create a photograph whenever I please, and can go about manifesting that photograph in a form suitable for showing others tomorrow, next week, or next year.


    I hand you a wet print, it is a colour image.

    What constitutes the image you are seeing? What is it made of? Dye.

    Yes, the image on C-41 film is made from dye too.

    Just because it is a wet print, or on film does not make it a photograph, there are other ways to get images onto both prints and film that isn't photography.


    Photography on the other hand is made from light. Whether you contructed the scene with controlled lighting or whether nature has provided the light, or even available artificial light provided by man.

    All photography is equal, there is no segregration of pure photography between film and digital, referring to something as film photography or digital photography is more a description of the equipment and methods of the photographer they have chosen in order to be able to show their photography to others or to keep it for their own record or enjoyment. Even a camera obscura will allow you to show your photography to others.

    Implying or saying that the equipment, process and methodologies of one photographer is somehow less photography than another is totally invalid, the very idea is not even worth entertaining.

    As I said before, all photography is equal, it is all created in exactly the same way with no differences. The amount of work gone into it, and value of the art, journalism or purpose may greatly differ, but this is not the point.

    The various types of luminscence, incandescence, and reflectance and translucency of objects remain identical for users of film or digital equipment, as does electromagnetic radiation.
    Last edited by Athiril; 05-22-2010 at 09:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin