The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
My Pet Peeve for the Day
- Thread starter jklotz
- Start date
Don Libby
Well-known member
Speaking only for myself - I use the term "capture(d)" a lot when describing my images. To me it brings a better sense of how I feel about the process of capturing landscape images. I feel I capture the feeling of the moment the reason that brought me to the place to begin with. It may be nuts but that's just me...
I very rarely use the term photograph when speaking about one of our prints - I use the term image instead. To me it's a photograph until I print then once it's on the wall being displayed it's an image.
I too believe that photographs are made not taken....
That's just my 2¢
Don
I very rarely use the term photograph when speaking about one of our prints - I use the term image instead. To me it's a photograph until I print then once it's on the wall being displayed it's an image.
I too believe that photographs are made not taken....
That's just my 2¢
Don
jonoslack
Active member
Interesting Steve - I rather prefer made as well . . . . but it sounds pretty pretentious around here.
Taken is absolutely normal - capture / taken - I guess it makes sense.
These days though I generally snap them (and get snaps as a result).
all the best
stephengilbert
Active member
In the trendy photo world, I doubt that "photograph" even comes in second. It appears to me that both "image" and "capture" come before it.
It's because digital imaging is not photography. They are two separate mediums with increasingly independent terminologies.
Film photography is a mechanical process that produces a physical object. Digital imaging is an electrical process that must be interpreted by software. The difference between digital and film is the difference between acoustic and visual worlds. Digital, like sound, cannot be touched. Does a tree make a noise if it falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it? There must be an ear present to "capture" the sound. The visual world doesn't need to be seen to be known because it can still be felt and touched. The visual world, like a photograph, has a beginning and ending. The acoustic world, like a digital file, has no center and no boundaries. Any process that lacks boundaries is elusive and must be "captured" or contained.
Film photography is a mechanical process that produces a physical object. Digital imaging is an electrical process that must be interpreted by software. The difference between digital and film is the difference between acoustic and visual worlds. Digital, like sound, cannot be touched. Does a tree make a noise if it falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it? There must be an ear present to "capture" the sound. The visual world doesn't need to be seen to be known because it can still be felt and touched. The visual world, like a photograph, has a beginning and ending. The acoustic world, like a digital file, has no center and no boundaries. Any process that lacks boundaries is elusive and must be "captured" or contained.
doug
Well-known member
This could be tomorrow's pet peeve
I use photons to make pictures. Sometimes the photons exite electrons in silver halide molecules on flexible film, sometimes they excite electrons in pixel wells on a silicon wafer. Either way I get pictures from photons.
You mean like primitive peoples sometimes think a camera can take something away with it in a literal sense, like soul? Interesting
Hi Doug, I'll try and explain it another way...This could be tomorrow's pet peeve
I use photons to make pictures. Sometimes the photons exite electrons in silver halide molecules on flexible film, sometimes they excite electrons in pixel wells on a silicon wafer. Either way I get pictures from photons.
A truck or a bicycle will get a person from his home to the supermarket, but both are still different mediums. People ride bicycles and they drive trucks. The variations in terminology used are the result of the differences between the mediums.
doug
Well-known member
No sale, sorry.
Nobody is trying to sell you anything. They are different mediums whether you "buy it" or not.
Last edited:
yes that is understood
Just like a truck or a bicycle can get a person to the store...both are still different mediums.
doug
Well-known member
Either way I get groceries.
charlesphoto
New member
I think capture is a term unique to amateurs on photo forums, workshops, etc etc. Never once have I had a client ask for me to send them my "captures." It's photographs, images, or files. Capture sounds too much like you were out hunting something... which in many cases with amateurs is a wild kitten or unruly sunset and just sounds silly.
That said the term "shoot" or "shooting" is endemic to pros. I never really liked it (esp in relation to some of my dead subjects or to children) but it cuts to the quick and most everyone knows what you are talking about.
That said the term "shoot" or "shooting" is endemic to pros. I never really liked it (esp in relation to some of my dead subjects or to children) but it cuts to the quick and most everyone knows what you are talking about.
