Quote Originally Posted by Sean
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..
Too late Sean, remember digital "platinum" prints? It used to really bug me to see all the contortions and the lengths to which digitoheads go to make their work more acceptable, the word "image" is just another attempt to do this. They have tried glicče, carbon pigment, etc.

Unlike Michael I dont see anything wrong with using the word image interchangeably with photograph, the funny thing is that in spanish we have been doing it a long time, before digital was even on the horizon. "Imagen" is a much simpler word than "fotografia", and print does not translate well in spanish, so people who are trying to sell and show their work many times call their photographs images, for the sake of simplicity.

It has been a few years since this debate started and since then I have learned a few things. Despite the claim from digitoheads that the "image" is everything and the process does not matter, go to a gallery, any good gallery and digital is nowhere to be seen with exception of a few who are doing Fuji crystal archive. Seems that for all their efforts and bombardment the public is not easily fooled and quality still matters.