A photograph should be something that makes a direct record of the light of the lens image a digital image is an analog, a map, if you will, of picture elements substituted for points in a lens image, that can be modified at will. A few of you indefatigable longtime readers will recall that I originally made the suggestion that "digital imaging" and "photography" should be made distinct, terminologically speaking. It would have been nice if printers like the Canon above had been called "printer machines" from the get-go, but I know better than to hope anything will change. I tried to start calling the person a "printmaker." This has not, um, become universal. Little me, fenced off here in my little virtual domain, tried in my usual wan and lugubrious way to offer up a correction for this, but I'm not good with names or coinages, alas. Maybe the problem in photography is merely that its changes consistently keep two hops and a sidestep out ahead of language, which then always has to keep up, and can't, quite. And yet a printer-person is still also a printer, which gives rise to possible statements such as, "I decided not to get a printer, so I need to find a printer."Īs is our way, eventually language shall catch up to the use-cases and we'll find a way to indicate needed distinctions. A printer back then was a human person who printed, and there wasn't much ambiguity. Perhaps just wrong in a different way variants of wrong.Īnyway, "printer" is now a problem, and it wasn't forty years ago when I was in art school. A lot of terms that were correct and proper when I was young, even though they kinda didn't make sense, are no longer known to young people now. It is not only poor to start with, but then it changes. Photographic terminology drives me buggy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |