Paul, I agree about calling digital images something unique. They are too different from film photos materially, artistically, and philosophically. I've seen prints in galleries described "digital acquisition" or "film acquisition" which would be unnecessary if there was a term for digital. No doubt someone will propose something like giclee and it will become the rage. "Digitality" could work - "Digitality on 100 percent cotton rag." I have lately been using the term "as recorded" on digital or film prints that have not been manipulated. This still leaves room for people to quibble the same as over the term "straight" photograph. I find nothing wrong with ANY imaging technology used to make pictures. What counts are results. Zombies can take interesting pictures too, they just don't appreciate them for the same reasons I would. AZ Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround Book. Now an E-book. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > From: Paul Weyn <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, October 10, 2007 2:12 pm > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Thanks for the article. Computational photography is a very exciting > development alright but I'm with you Karl. For one thing I place a higher > value on the traditional craft of photography, including the skills required > in getting the image right before the photo is taken rather than after. > Digital "photography" is definitely an art form but in my mind it should be > called something else as it demands an entirely different skill set. > Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of karl shah-jenner > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:30 PM > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
