Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > Keith,
> > >
> > > > >>Fist, photography always has and always will be about
> > artificiality and
> > > > >>manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how
real
> > and
> > > > >>true is that...?).
> > > > >
> > > > >I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is
about
> > accurate
> > > > >reproduction of a scene.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not since I left Pleasantville have I seen a B&W image that
> > actually
> > > > accurately depicts reality.
> > > >
> > > > B&W imagery is axiomatically an abstraction of reality..
> > >
> > > That's not true...it is different from some people's vision of
> > reality, but
> > > it IS reality, just an aspect of reality YOUR sensors don't see.
> > What's
> > > there, is in fact, there.  But none the less, it's only tonally
> > "different".
> > > That doesn't make it an abstraction at all.
> > >
> > > Is IR not reality?  Just because you can't see in that spectrum,
> > doesn't
> > > make it not reality, or make it "an abstraction of reality".
> > >
> > > Austin
> >
> > Actually, it is true.
> 
> You BELIEVE it's true, and I strongly disagree with that.
> 

I do believe it's true because, by definition, it *is* true. 

You can disagree all you want, but just because you don't like the
definition of a word doesn't make its definition invalid. You are
misusing the word "abstraction" and applying your own Austin-centric
definition. Argue with the OED if you think the definition needs to be
changed to suit you.

Since you refuse to use accepted definitions, your argument is
meaningless.  

<snip>