Digital BW, The Print

Hello Jim,

>inkograph 

LOL!


>Would we feel OK representing one of Saint Ansel's posters 
>as a photograph?  They are ink on paper.

Excellent point. No, of course we wouldn't feel ok, and this actually
illustrates the point.  We call them "posters" and everyone knows what
that means.  We need a term to describe our work that everyone
understands.  If I use "Carbon Ink Print" I'm not calling my work a
photograph, so it nicely sidesteps the issue. 

This brings up the question: What is a photograph?  Here's what my two
dictionaries say:

D1 - "An image formed on a light-sensitive surface by a camera and
developed chemically to produce a positive print."

This brings up the question: Is a negative not a photograph?  The
definition leaves out the chemical step of developing the neg.  This
dictionary was printed in 1983.

Another dictionary from 1980 says: 

D2 - "A picture formed by means of the chemical action of light or
other radiation on a light sensitive surface."

This is a little more inclusive as it doesn't have the concept of a
negative or positive image.  It could include the negative or a
positive derived from it.  Interesting that it uses "picture" instead
of "image".  But it does clearly state that whatever a "picture" is it
must be formed on a light sensitive surface.

Here are the two definitions of "picture":

D1 - "A visual representation or image painted, drawn, photographed or
otherwise rendered on a flat surface."

D2 - "A representation of a person or people or object(s), etc., made
by painting, drawing or photography, especially as a work of art."

So, by these definitions it certainly could be argued that our ink
prints are not photographs since the print itself is not made on a
light sensitive surface.  But they certainly would qualify as
"pictures", and as "photographic art".

Both of these were written before digital cameras, so I wonder what a
dictionary would say today?  Certainly a sensor is a light sensitive
surface.  But what is the resulting digital image file?  Is that an
electronic picture?  Or is it not a picture intil it is "otherwise
rendered on a flat surface".  Does an LCD monitor screen qualify as a
flat surface?  The 1st definition of photograph could be modified to
include an ink print, either from a digicam or a neg:

"An image formed on a light-sensitive surface by a camera and further
processed to produce a picture."

If this definition was accepted then our prints would be photographs.
But then so would posters.  Trapped again! :-)

However, this will probably never happen because "photo" implies
light.  So an ink print of any sort will probably never technically be
a photograph.  But everyone will call them photographs.

This could (and probably will) be debated forever, but actually all of
the commonly used terms so far use "print", not "photograph", so the
issue is sidestepped.  Seems to me the real issues are:

1) whether a term accurately describes what it is, with implied
emphasis on archival longevity 

2) whether the term is acceptable in other ways, such as how it
"sounds" (or "rolls off the tongue"), other connotations or subtle
meanings, historical precedent, etc.


Well, this is great fun, but I have real work to do.  So long for
now. :-)


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm