|
Title
|
|
|
|
Can digital pictures qualify as photographs
| |
|
Author
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
| Can digital pictures qualify as photographs? The commonsensical answer is that they can. We are happy to call a picture of a scene made with a digital camera a photograph. According to William Mitchell, however, we are wrong to do so. Pictures made with digital cameras would not qualify as photographs, because they lack a certain realism essential to classical, i.e. film-based, photography. In the following, I first present two ways in which film-based photographs are realistic (section 1). Next, I discuss Mitchells position that pictures made with digital cameras are not realistic and, consequently, not truly photographic (section 2). Finally, I argue against Mitchell that pictures made with digital cameras are realistic and, thus, do qualify as photographs (section 3). |
| |
|
Language
|
|
|
|
English
| |
|
Source (journal)
|
|
|
|
ASAGE / American Society for Aesthetics. - Savannah, Ga, 2008, currens
| |
|
Publication
|
|
|
|
Savannah, Ga
:
American Society for Aesthetics
,
2012
| |
|
ISSN
|
|
|
|
1946-1879
| |
|
Volume/pages
|
|
|
|
4
:1
(2012)
, p. 1-7
| |
|
Full text (open access)
|
|
|
|
| |
|