Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders

From: Robert W. Schramm ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 03/16/05-09:23:56 PM Z
Message-id: <BAY21-F24FB858942A413C0ECD939D0490@phx.gbl>


    If you already had an answer, why did you ask the question?
    It seems to me that this is a debate about semantics and details. We
could go on forever with hundreds of opinions and I'm not sure I care to be
involved in such a discussion since nothing, inmy opinion, is to be gained
from it.
     Anyway, I have my own opinion with which I am satisfied and it is
again, photography means writing with light. You have an object which is
emitting or reflecting light, you have a lens or a pinhole which forms an
image on some kind of a photosensitive surface and a means of fixing the
image. Everything else is just details.
     Photographs--- I just make them. I leave it to others to philosophize
about them. And, thats all I have to say about that.

Sincere best wishes to all,

Bob Schramm
Check out my web page at:

&gt;From: Ryuji Suzuki &lt;;
&gt;Subject: Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders
&gt;Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:14:19 -0500 (EST)
&gt;From: Joe Smigiel &lt;;
&gt;Subject: Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders
&gt;Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:22:21 -0500
&gt; &gt; OTOH, I can take any number of salts of silver, chromium, iron,
&gt; &gt; coat them on a substrate, and subject them to exposure of light
and they
&gt; &gt; will directly be affected by the action of that light upon them
&gt; &gt; darken. They form photographs.
&gt;Although some may think I may be one of those who take this viewpoint,
&gt;I am not quite so at this time.
&gt;According to your definition of photography, the final image must form
&gt;without any extraneous aid. That definition may include print-out
&gt;materials such as dichromated colloids, cyanotype, silver halide POP,
&gt;etc. but not daguerreotype, calotype, wet collodion, and silver
&gt;gelatin process other than POP. This is because what you see as the
&gt;negative or print is a result of electrochemical amplification of what
&gt;is originally recorded. Even today, there is no easy way to see the
&gt;image recorded on film without chemically amplifying it. (Note: so
&gt;called &quot;physical development&quot; is actually a form of
&gt;reaction and it is highly misleading. Also, rinse solutions in
&gt;dichromate processes and iron processes are technically not
&gt;That is, the definition of &quot;photography&quot; given by Joe Smigiel
is the
&gt;same as the conventional definition of &quot;printing out process&quot;
and is
&gt;narrower than the conventional definition of &quot;photography.&quot;
&gt;this problem can be solved by adding a phrase to Joe's definition. It
&gt;is also easy to write a definition that includes all photography
&gt;except electronic imaging means.
&gt; &gt; The original 55s and the latter alternative prints are. The
&gt; &gt; digitally printed images are not.
&gt;In my view, the image of Polaroid type 55 is not made solely by direct
&gt;action of light.
&gt;I wanted to say more about what I think about this issue but I'll have
&gt;to wait because all examples I can think of are related to whiskey and
&gt;wine right now.
&gt;Ryuji Suzuki
&gt;&quot;Well, believing is all right, just don't let the wrong people know
&gt;what it's all about.&quot; (Bob Dylan, Need a Woman, 1982)
Received on Wed Mar 16 21:24:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:01 AM Z CST