Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,710   Posts: 1,482,920   Online: 1016
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,072
    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?

  2. #12
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by jdef
    There are many kinds of images, a subset of which are photographic images, or photographs, and another subset includes digital images. I don't see anything nefarious in referring to a digital image as an image, or anything pretentious about referring to a photograph as an image. After all the area inside the borders is commonly referred to as the image area of a print, or photograph. Maybe you're making something out of nothing.
    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..

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    651
    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.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    653
    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.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,622
    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"

  6. #16
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,054
    Images
    177
    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!!

  7. #17
    127
    127 is offline
    127's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    581
    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...)

    Ian

  8. #18
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    "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.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,231
    Images
    9
    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

  10. #20
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,001
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    "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 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.

    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...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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