preston, i thought that was the way you people in north america did it ... riding wildly across the prairies twirling a bit of rope about your heads, no?
ah, the language of photography. make, take, capture, snap, click, photograph, record, get, shoot, fire ...
Ah, I see we all have too much time on our hands ;^) especially as we wait on the sun, the moon, the clouds, the mist to capture that perfect moment of time.
Technically both side are correct. We capture the image at that specific moment, but we never ever display that out of camera without even a single click of something to enhance it... sharpening, crop, saturation, something. When we do that, we turn our capture into a photograph. So in the end, Preston's right, it's a photograph. The capture is just your RAW file or film sheet.
And as we used to say back in NY, that thought and 85 cents will get me a ride on the subway.
(Anybody know what the subway costs now? Haven't been there in 20 years...)
You beat me to the punch Paul. If we use the term capture then it should only apply to an unaltered version. Even point and shoots make in camera default adjustments so probably only RAW files. I like the term "grabbed".
I'm with Marylynne. Not too long ago, on the ferry coming into the dock, I was on the car deck-fantail, er..., < shooting > the arrival. Some very serious looking ferry security people approached me wanting to know what I was doing. "Just taking photos," I replied in all innocence, while I felt like a criminal about to be
< grabbed > < captured > and < taken > away. They just kindly informed me where on the vessel not to photograph…, and all was well.
The black helicopter should be over my house pretty soon now.
Maybe I am just used to hearing it, but I actually think "capture" is a pretty accurate term, especially when used to describe "getting" (hard not to use the word "capturing" here) the subject, timing and composition of a photograph. A good photograph is still a good capture of a moment, even though it is enhanced by processing.
I would think that people would be more likely to criticize other words used in photography. When you are overheard telling someone that you went on a shoot and fired off a burst, I bet there are people who might easily misunderstand what you are trying to convey. How many wildlife photographers have had to stop and explain what they mean when they say things like "I'm headed to the wildlife preserve to shoot birds." Every year, the Secret Service detains photographers who answer questions about their intended business by saying "I'm here to shoot the President." If that doesn't get us to change our language, I doubt that we are going to do it here!
You can't 'capture' a photon because it has no mass, all that happens is it's energy is absorbed and then converted into an electrical signal at a much reduced frequency, and heat.
In any event, it appears my proposal is losing ground. Any more thoughts out there?
"You can't 'capture' a photon because it has no mass, all that happens is it's energy is absorbed and then converted into an electrical signal at a much reduced frequency, and heat."
Sure you can capture a photon. It need not be mass--it is energy and one is capturing the energy. In the capture process, the photon is destroyed and the energy from the photon is used to make the image.
OK, I agree the energy of the photon is 'captured', but the photon is not destroyed.That would violate the law of the conservation of energy.
As I said, it's energy is absorbed by the atoms in the sensor thereby precipitating a change in their quantum energy state. Since the pixel elements in the sensor are essentially photo-transistors, the current flow that is induced has a very specific amplitude and frequency corresponding to the intensity and color of the light (photons). These signals are then converted into a digital signal that is processed by the camera, and voila! an image is formed.
So, even though the photons are 'captured', the resulting array of RGB colors that we see is a photograph.
Interesting and great perspectives here - I thought I would chime in. First time in ages!
This response is from someone who's very first domain and website, circa 1995, was "capturingtime.com" Initial response is that "capture" was just always a better term used in place of "taking pictures" which I think most folks associate that with snapshots.
To me, "capture" is a verb, not a noun. So for those talking about capturing moments in time, that's what it truly means to me. What capture is a photograph(noun). To photograph (verb) can be synonymous with capture, but not necessarily, ie. taking a snapshot with disposable camera is also to photograph.
Then again, it all can just be semantics. You say tamahto, I say tamayto.... ;-)
But what really wanted to jump in for is to give someone a free tip. I just checked for domain registration and both "photographingtime.com" AND "photographtime.com" are available! For those who like the "moment in time" approach, you should go grab one of those domains! I can't believe they're not already taken!
"OK, I agree the energy of the photon is 'captured', but the photon is not destroyed.That would violate the law of the conservation of energy."
There is no violation of the conservation of energy. When the photon is captured, it is destroyed, as it is no longer a photon. The energy from the photon is not destroyed; it is conserved and used to record the capture of the photon. Physicists talk about creation and destruction of photons all the time. e.g., see:
Discussion
24 repliesThe proposal: Instead of using 'capture', let's use 'photograph' in it's place.
*****
Fire away!
--P
ah, the language of photography. make, take, capture, snap, click, photograph, record, get, shoot, fire ...
Roll with it
And as we used to say back in NY, that thought and 85 cents will get me a ride on the subway.
(Anybody know what the subway costs now? Haven't been there in 20 years...)
< grabbed > < captured > and < taken > away. They just kindly informed me where on the vessel not to photograph…, and all was well.
The black helicopter should be over my house pretty soon now.
I would think that people would be more likely to criticize other words used in photography. When you are overheard telling someone that you went on a shoot and fired off a burst, I bet there are people who might easily misunderstand what you are trying to convey. How many wildlife photographers have had to stop and explain what they mean when they say things like "I'm headed to the wildlife preserve to shoot birds." Every year, the Secret Service detains photographers who answer questions about their intended business by saying "I'm here to shoot the President." If that doesn't get us to change our language, I doubt that we are going to do it here!
In any event, it appears my proposal is losing ground. Any more thoughts out there?
--P
Sure you can capture a photon. It need not be mass--it is energy and one is capturing the energy. In the capture process, the photon is destroyed and the energy from the photon is used to make the image.
Roger
As I said, it's energy is absorbed by the atoms in the sensor thereby precipitating a change in their quantum energy state. Since the pixel elements in the sensor are essentially photo-transistors, the current flow that is induced has a very specific amplitude and frequency corresponding to the intensity and color of the light (photons). These signals are then converted into a digital signal that is processed by the camera, and voila! an image is formed.
So, even though the photons are 'captured', the resulting array of RGB colors that we see is a photograph.
QED
--P
This response is from someone who's very first domain and website, circa 1995, was "capturingtime.com" Initial response is that "capture" was just always a better term used in place of "taking pictures" which I think most folks associate that with snapshots.
To me, "capture" is a verb, not a noun. So for those talking about capturing moments in time, that's what it truly means to me. What capture is a photograph(noun). To photograph (verb) can be synonymous with capture, but not necessarily, ie. taking a snapshot with disposable camera is also to photograph.
Then again, it all can just be semantics. You say tamahto, I say tamayto.... ;-)
But what really wanted to jump in for is to give someone a free tip. I just checked for domain registration and both "photographingtime.com" AND "photographtime.com" are available! For those who like the "moment in time" approach, you should go grab one of those domains! I can't believe they're not already taken!
Lon
There is no violation of the conservation of energy. When the photon is captured, it is destroyed, as it is no longer a photon. The energy from the photon is not destroyed; it is conserved and used to record the capture of the photon. Physicists talk about creation and destruction of photons all the time. e.g., see:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module%201/photons.htm
Roger
I get your drift, here, Roger. No problem.
The physics world has changed quite a bit since I studied quantum mechanics back when God was a young man.
--P
Chris
Any other opinions on my proposal?
If not...It's all good.
--P