PDA

View Full Version : on Space.com



CJSF
2002-Jun-10, 06:40 PM
OK, I post my objections to calling digital images, particulary those taken by telescope or satellites, "Photos" or "Photographs"... I've been told that it is just an accepted use of the word now, and I'll (almost) concede that point.

However, this Space.com article (http://space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/eso_nebula_020610.html) SPECIFICALLY states that the image of the Tarantula Nebula was put on FILM! This is NOT correct.

The images are digital... no film involved.

CJSF

amstrad
2002-Jun-10, 07:48 PM
On 2002-06-10 14:40, Christopher Ferro wrote:
OK, I post my objections to calling digital images, particulary those taken by telescope or satellites, "Photos" or "Photographs"... I've been told that it is just an accepted use of the word now, and I'll (almost) concede that point.


As you should. The word photograph makes no stipulation on the form of media used. Literally, the word mean light-diagram. Technically the word means the artifact generated by capturing a real image (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/image.html) on photosensitive media.

Darkwing
2002-Jun-11, 03:37 PM
"Film" itself in this context is really just short for "photographic film" anyway. I think the article was just trying to be poetic when they said that the ESO caught the nebula on film. Typically, they forsaked accuracy in favor of something that sounds good.

Tom
2002-Jun-11, 06:10 PM
From the ESO web page on the pictures:



The present images of the Tarantula Nebula were obtained with the Wide-Field Imager (WFI) on the MPG/ESO 2.2-m telescope at the La Silla Observatory. This advanced digital camera has already produced many impressive pictures, cf. the WFI Photo Gallery [1].


Throughout the article, the pictures are referred to as "the photo". Since "photo graphy" means literally "drawing light", it is VERY applicable to the method used to derive the final result.


http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/phot-14-02.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom on 2002-06-11 14:11 ]</font>

CJSF
2002-Jun-11, 06:18 PM
Fine, I give on the "photo" term... but the first paragraph still says it was caught on film...

CJSF

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

beskeptical
2002-Jun-11, 07:31 PM
Digital image is too long. (So is photograph.) Can we invent a new word? How about digifoto? Nah, it'll get pronounced wrong. How about digigraph? Then we can call it a digi for short.

Seriously, are there any cyber words in use besides the formal digital image?

amstrad
2002-Jun-11, 07:51 PM
On 2002-06-11 15:31, beskeptical wrote:
Digital image is too long. (So is photograph.) Can we invent a new word? How about digifoto? Nah, it'll get pronounced wrong. How about digigraph? Then we can call it a digi for short.


no, we don't need to create new words for this... "photo", being short for photograph, is correct and just fine.