Digital BW, The Print

It's my impression that the discussion and debate within this thread 
has focused on the "legitimacy" (or not) of various physical means of 
controlling the appearance of photographic images. This is a different 
perspective than the usual one adopted by viewers, who respond to 
whether or not an image has a distinctively photographic "look and feel". 

I think we can and do grasp immediately whether an image has this look, 
and questions about  the technique/means used need not enter in at all  -- 
we simply recognize a camera-based way of representing the world 
when we see it. (We also sense how good the image is, and whether it 
grips us). 

Approaching pictures this way, maybe we can more readily recognize 
that a photo-image made via some "impure" means (e.g. montage, 
deliberately arranged setup, etc.) can be (even if most aren't) as 
photographic-feeling as one made via a more "pure" approach.
 
IMHO when an image really has the look and feel of a photograph, when 
it makes good use of the still camera's great capacity to capture or describe, 
it is engaging us with the world in a way that's different from the kind of 
connection that's set up by a painting, or by a sculpture, or by a movie. 

To me, members of the various photographic-style tribes are more alike  
than different when they each do their work really well. 

John

        




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]