I say image here when I post an entry into the galleries because what you see on this screen isnt the photograph, it's a digitial image of the photograph. Once i have the final print in my hand, then I have a photograph. Is it pretentious to say Photographic print rather than photograph?
I guess I keep finding words in the digital arena are being redefined at their convenience. Get ready for the new epson "gelatin" papers and "silver" inksets that will be called, you got it -> "silver gelatin" prints..
Originally Posted by jdef
According to the dictionary definition #1 an image is, " a representation of a person or thing." And it implies that a photograph is, as I wrote, "[only] an image of what is pictured." A photograph as work of art is so much more than that. Always.
Cheryl: I was inferring nothing from how you refer to a photograph. What I said was, "Those who use the word "image" when they really mean "photograph" are USUALLY indulging (consciously or more often, unconsciously) in pretentious and high-sounding languange." I said "usually". I did not say "always" and I was not referring to anyone specifically. That has been my experience. I know a number of photographers. I do not believe I have ever heard any of them refer to their photographs as images. But perhaps I have not met the right people. Calling photographs images is something that came out of the colleges, universities, and art schools where photography is taught. It is an academic and high-sounding way of referring to photographs. You, and others may disagree with that, but I have found it to be true, by-and-large.
"Photographic print" is not pretentious in any way. Neither is " picture." Yes, there is an image area, but that is not the same thing as calling a photograph an image. Maybe this is something out of nothing for sure. Hey, I did not start this topic. Only contributed.
To the annonymous noble beast: Real safe and cowardly to hide behind an annonymous name. What I wrote can be seen as so highly principled that some might consider it arrogant. But "pretentious"? Doesn't fit.
There's a vagueness to the word "image" that I'll willingly cede to the digi-crowd. Much worse would be if they tried to appropriate the word "photograph," thereby robbing it of its very specific meaning (remember the "carbon print" outrage on another thread?) I'm for anything that keeps the distinction between analogue and digital very clear.
I, too, would cede the term "image" to the digi-crowd if they would quit using the terms photography, photographs & photographers. Anyway, "Image" is closely tied to marketting & Madison Avenue - an area film photography plays a minimal role. But, as we search for terms to better describe who we are & what we do, we're open to charges of pretentiousness & forced definitions. Most prefer shorthand terms, ie. taking a shot to making a photographic negative. But much of the shorthand terminology has connotations of physical violence, probably influenced by the big game hunters. Maybe I'll be satisfied with "taking photos" rather than "making images" since it implies that I'm performing as a photorapher.
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
voss's higher-archy (yeah, i know... hierarchy) of nouns which are sometimes used, with great awkwardness, as verbs.
PHOTOGRAPH.....works exceedingly well as a noun or a verb and conveys a commonly understood object or process.
IMAGE.....works well as a noun to offer variety in paragraphs that would otherwise use 'photograph' to excess. should never be used as a verb....please!! (almost as bad as 'referenced'....ever hear of 'refered to'?)
CAPTURE.....YIKES!!!! predatory digiterm....may it never be used to denote an actual, analog photograph!!! however...should digicams themselves be captured and flung into the void....well.....here's a quiet hooray....ill drink to that!!
I'm with Dave on this one: Image is just a more general term.
A photo is an image.
An image is not necessarily a photo. It could be a painting, or any other 2d representation (without getting into the broader definitions of image as a concept, which is a distinct meaning).
If digitial are moving away from the word "photograph", then thats a good thing for everyone, as it implies that its being recognised as a distinct form. However the use of the term "digital image" is something as a stopgap - in 1900 we might have tacked about "photographic images", until we arrived at photograph. Digital will eventually arive at its own word but for now they're forced to use more general terms, and then qualify them.
(Over to Ed our resident expert on the derivation of words...)
"Image" can be artspeak, but to be fair to my academic colleagues, many scholarly articles discussing the work of photographers are about the "image" as a representation and not really the photograph as an object. One may disagree with the premise that the object is separable from the representation (I do), but sometimes (not always) the academic usage is for the sake of precision and not just pretense.
I don't know if I would call the word IMAGE pretentious. In fact I would call it generic, probably the most generic word used in visual communications. Think about all the times you see and hear the word image. You hear it when you talk about painting, movies, commercials, photos, television programs, celebrities, etc. etc. etc. It is hard to think of the image of a budweiser can as pretentious. In fact, Cheryl proves how versitile the word is. She uses it in a way to set her photos apart from the everyday snaps of her clients.
The digital world in my opinion, is just defining what they really are. Digital imaging, or an image created through the use of a computer. Where as we produce photographic images.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
I agree the object as a whole should be considered. I had a sculpture teacher who thought that using a media to imitate another (acrylic for oils or hydra stone or plaster for marble) was dishonest. He went so far as to say a sculpture should weigh as heavy as it looks like it weighs. A subset of the art object could be the image it projects or implies.
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
Image as a generic term is usable without pretense -- of course. There is implied meaning though, when used to describe a picture. That pretense is not always bad. Cheryl's usage has pretense --it is more than common -- and I don't see that as being bad. I think that usage of the word to cover a genre (as in the [digital] image) is wrongfully pretentious.
I think that Michael is sensitive to this latter instance. It may be that he wishes his photographs to be taken as whole without pretense.
Or maybe I'm all wet...