I like the word umbrage
And a well solid argument to boot!
"Lachlan717"]Maris wrote:Photography is not ink-jet printing, monitor displays, or picture-making done any-which-way, "different" is not "the same". Photographs come into existence via the light sensitivity of the materials of which they are made and as a consequence they claim a unique relationship to subject matter and offer a unique relationship to the discerning viewer.
Obviously, I think that our opinions differ, as I think this is bullshit.
I also take umbrage at your assertion about "discerning viewers". What a pompous claim.
Your theory falls apart when digital negatives are considered. Captured on "light sensitive" film, processed via Photoshop, ink-jet printed onto clear base and then contact printed onto "light sensitive" media. You would have no way of knowing that a contact print was from a good digital negative, no matter how "descerning" you believe you are.
="Ray Heath"]Maris, "Well, right down at the microscopic level cyanotypes, Van Dykes, platinotypes, gum bichromates, etc do emerge from the sensitised surfaces of individual substrate fibres", is not really what your bombastic previous post asserts.
So your argument is basically the old one that only photographers can appreciate photographs?
Ray Heath wrote:Not all painting is art, nor are all sculptures art, so not all photographs are art, but some could be.
Walter Glover wrote:Ray Heath wrote:Not all painting is art, nor are all sculptures art, so not all photographs are art, but some could be.
Ray,
We sing from the same song sheet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests