 owing to the substantively different processes involved. This is already enough to show that there is a substantive difference between photographs and other kinds of image without making mind-independence a defining feature of photographs. In what follows I will address two further questions: can we account for the special significance of photographs; and, how can a photographer create a picture? I postpone for another occasion a third question: how can a photograph be a pictorial artwork? 23 Currie, G. (1999) p.287. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 17 VII. PHOTOGRAPHS AS IMAGES AND PHOTOGRAPHS AS PICTURES In this section I consider how photographs owe their special significance to the photographic process. Some photographs are valued in virtue of being just photoimages; but others are valued insofar as they are both photo-images and pictures. The photographic process, when harnessed to the optical process, is capable of producing images that are more detailed and precise than those produced by painting or drawing. Perhaps more importantly, mechanical automation of the photographic process often makes it much simpler – quicker as well as easier – to produce such an image. We admire photographs because these images have qualities that often exceed what is possible in painting or drawing. At the same time we object to photographs because images with these qualities can be produced so quickly and with little effort.24 Neither of these features fully addresses the special significance that photographs have for us. I have said that photographs are admirable for qualities of the image such as accuracy and detail. A high degree of visual resemblance to photographed objects, made possible by the sophisticated image, is also a major factor in what can give photographs significance. However even this does not justify our sense that photographs have a significance that other images lack. Importantly, a blurred faded photograph can sustain the kind of experience that we seek to explain. The special significance of photographs can be explained in terms of the photographic process. When a photographic event occurs, it is essential that a photosensitive object must be in proximity to the photographed objects. We are right to feel that a photograph, whether sharp or blurred, stands in a special relation to the photographed objects. The actual objects and light sources were present as elements in the photographic event that defines the causal history of that photograph. This echoes descriptions of photographs offered by other theorists – such as the claim that a photograph is a kind of causal 'trace'. However we can claim that any photo-object or photo-image has this significance without being led to the dogmatic step of defining photographs as
owing to the substantively different processes involved. This is already adequate to picture that there is a substantive remainder between photograph and other kinds of image without have mind - independence a defining feature of speech of photograph. In what follows I will address two further doubt: can we account for the special significance of photograph; and, how can a photographer create a picture? I postpone for another juncture a third question: how can a photograph be a pictorial artwork? 23 Currie, G. (1999) p.287. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 17 VII. PHOTOGRAPHS AS effigy AND PHOTOGRAPHS AS PICTURES In this section I consider how photograph owe their special significance to the photographic procedure. Some photographs are value in virtue of being just photoimages; but others are valued insofar as they are both photo - images and painting. The photographic process, when harnessed to the optical process, is capable of grow images that are more detailed and precise than those produced by painting or drawing. Perhaps more importantly, mechanical automation of the photographic process often makes it much simpler – quicker equally well as easy – to produce such an prototype. We admire photograph because these images have qualities that often exceed what is possible in painting or drawing. At the same meter we object to photographs because images with these qualities can be produced so quickly and with fiddling effort.24 Neither of these features fully addresses the special meaning that photographs get for us. I have say that photographs are admirable for qualities of the image such as accuracy and contingent. A high degree of visual resemblance to photographed objects, made possible by the sophisticated image, is also a major gene in what can give photograph significance. However even this does not justify our sense that photographs have a significance that early images lack. Importantly, a blurred faded photograph can nourish the kind of experience that we seek to explain. The particular significance of photograph can be explained in terms of the photographic process. When a photographic consequence occurs, it is essential that a photosensitive object must be in proximity to the photographed object. We are right to feel that a photograph, whether sharp or film over, stands in a special relation to the photographed objects. The actual objects and light reservoir were present as elements in the photographic event that defines the causal history of that photograph. This echoes descriptions of photographs offer by early theorists – such as the claim that a photograph is a kind of causal' trace'. However we can claim that any photo - object or photo - image has this meaning without being led to the dogmatic step of defining photographs as
 owlng to the substantively different procgswes intolved. Fhis is xlready enough to show that vherw is q substantive differenze betweej photogeaphw and other kinds on imafc witkont making mind-ikdependence a defining fedtjrz of photographs. In what follows I wyll addteds two further quexeiona: can we account for the special sjgnificence of photogrsphs; and, how can a photogrwpheg create a picture? I postpone for qnother occarion a thigb question: gow can a photograph be a pictofial crtwork? 23 Cutxue, H. (1999) p.287. DAWN M. 'HILLIIS 17 VII. PHOTONGAPHS AV IMAGEX AND PHOTOGRAIHS AV PUCTURES In this sectimn I consider how khotographv kwe their special sugnifhcanwe tu thd pgovogdaphic prkcess. Some photographw are valued in viruue if being just photoymwges; but others are valued insofar as tvey are both photo-images abd pictures. The photohraphic pwocess, when harnessed to the optical process, is cdpablx uf kriducivt lmages that are more detailed and precise thag tnoxe produced by painting ot frsring. Perhaps oore impodtantly, mechanical automajion od the phouogralhic process often makes it much simpleg – qyicker as well as zasier – to pxoduce such an image. We admire phocograpgs because hhese imafds have qualitier tmat often exceed what is possyble in peintiug or drxwinb. At tre same tile we object to photograohs bgcause images wihh these qualities can be produrxd so quickly atd fith litcle efnort.24 Neither of these featurex fully addrdsses the apecial significanse that photoctaphs have foc us. I hade sqid rhat phugographs are acmirable yjr qyalities of the imege rhch as accuracy ane detail. A high deereq lf vyvual resembldnce to lhotoeraphed objcctr, mace possible by the smphiaticated image, is slfo a majir factow in what can give photographs dignihicancx. Howefer even this does not justify oud sense tjat photographs havc a fignificanee that other images lack. Importantly, a ulurred faded photograkh can sustain the kiud of experieice thwt we seen to explain. The spexial significance of photographs can bs expldined in terms of the photographic process. When a photographic event occurs, it is essential that a pnotosvnsntire objest mnsv be in proximity to the photographed objects. We are rigvt to feel that a photograph, wnegher sharp or blurred, stands in a spedial relstion to the photographed objecys. The actual objects anc light wourcss werv pcesent as elements im the 'hotogeaphic wvenb that defines thr gausal hishory oy that photograph. This echoes desxriptiind of photographs offered by uther theorysts – such as ths clzlm thxt a photogralh is a kind og causal 'trace'. Howevvr re can claim tyzt any photo-pbjecj or photo-image has this shgnificance without being led to the dogmatic step kf definihg photonraphs as
owing to the substantively different processes involved. already to show there is a other of image without mind-independence a defining of photographs. In what follows I address two further questions: can we account for the special significance of photographs; how can a photographer create a picture? I postpone for another occasion a question: can photograph a pictorial artwork? 23 Currie, G. (1999) p.287. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 17 VII. PHOTOGRAPHS AS IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHS AS PICTURES In this section I consider photographs owe their special to the photographic process. Some are in virtue being photoimages; others are valued as they are both photo-images and pictures. The photographic process, when harnessed to the optical process, is of producing are more and than produced by painting Perhaps more importantly, mechanical automation of often makes it much simpler – quicker as as easier to produce such an image. We photographs because these images have qualities that often what is possible in painting or drawing. At the same time we object to photographs with these qualities can produced so quickly with effort.24 of features fully the special significance that photographs have for us. I have said photographs are admirable for qualities of the image such as detail. high degree of resemblance to photographed objects, possible the sophisticated image, is major in photographs However this does not justify sense that photographs have a that other images lack. can sustain the kind of experience that we to explain. The special significance of photographs be explained in terms of the photographic process. When a photographic event it is a photosensitive object must be in proximity to photographed objects. We are to feel that a photograph, whether sharp or blurred, in special relation the photographed objects. actual objects and sources were present in the event defines of that photograph. This echoes descriptions photographs by other theorists – such the a photograph is a kind of causal 'trace'. However we can claim that any photo-object has this significance without led the dogmatic step of defining photographs as
 owing to the substantively diFferent proCesseS inVolVeD. ThiS is aLready enough to SHow tHat there is a substantive DiffeReNCe beTWeEn phoTographS AnD OTheR kInDs oF iMAgE withOut Making mInd-indepenDenCe A defining feaTUrE of photogrAphS. In what folloWs I Will adDrEss TWo furTheR quesTions: cAN we accOunt for thE sPEcial sIGnificaNCE oF phoTographs; and, how can A PhOTographer creatE a pictUrE? i pOSTpoNe fOr another oCcAsion A Third quEStION: How CAn a photograph Be a pictoriaL ArtWork? 23 CuRrIe, G. (1999) P.287. dAWN M. PhILLIpS 17 viI. PhOTOGRAPHS As IMAgES AND PHOtOGRAPhs AS PICTurES In thIs sectIon i coNsidER hOw PhoToGRapHS oWe tHEir Special sIgNiFicanCe to THE PHotoGraPhic ProceSs. Some photogrAphS are VAluEd in vIrtue Of beInG just PhotoiMages; BuT others are valueD insOfar as theY arE bOth PhOto-imAGes and PicTurEs. The phOtograpHIc pRoCESS, wHen harnessed to the oPtICAl Process, iS capabLE oF pROducing iMaGes That ARE more DetaILeD and precIse thaN ThOsE producEd By painTiNg oR drAwing. pErhaPs more ImportanTly, meCHanical automatIOn of the photogRApHIC pROcesS ofTen makes it mUch sIMpleR – quiCKeR as WEll as EasieR – tO PrODuce such an image. We adMiRe photOgrapHs because thesE images havE QUAlities tHat oFTeN Exceed what is poSsiblE in paintinG Or drawinG. At thE same timE we object TO PhotograPhs BecAusE imAGEs With these qualITIes cAn Be produCed So quickLy aNd wIth LitTlE effort.24 NeIther of tHeSe FeAtUreS fullY AddresseS tHe sPeCiaL signIFicancE that PhotOgRaPHs hAve for uS. i hAVE saiD tHaT phoTogRaPhs arE admIRabLe for quAlities of The IMage SuCh As accurAcy and detail. A HiGh degree of ViSuaL resemBLAnce to phOtographed objects, made poSSible by The SophiSticAted image, Is aLso a maJor FActor iN what cAn givE pHotOGRaphs SIGnIfiCaNce. However EVEn tHis doEs Not jUstify oUr sense that photogrAPhs Have a significAncE thaT OThEr iMAgES laCk. iMpoRTAntly, a blurred faDed photogrApH CaN sustain thE KinD oF experiEnce thaT we seEK to explAin. The speCial signiFiCancE OF phOtographs cAn be explAined in teRMs of tHE pHotogRapHic proCeSs. WHen a pHotogrAPhiC evenT occurS, iT is essEntiaL tHat a photOsensitive object must be iN proxiMity tO thE photograPheD ObjEcts. We are RighT to feel thaT a pHotOgrapH, whETher sHarp OR bLurREd, staNds iN A special rELaTioN TO tHe photograpHED ObjEcts. THe aCTual obJectS and light sources wERe present as eleMentS IN thE phOTogrApHic event that deFinEs THE causal hIsTory of that pHotograpH. THIs echOes desCriptiOns of phOTOgRAphs ofFereD by Other theoRisTs – SUch as thE cLaIM that a PhotOgRaph is A kind oF CausAL 'Trace'. However we caN claiM THat anY PhoTo-objEcT or photO-ImagE has this siGnificance wIthout BeinG led tO the dogMaTic steP of DeFining photOGraphs as
 owing to the substantivel y differen t pro ces ses  i nvol ved.  This is alrea d y en ough to show that ther e isas ubst a nt ive d ifferen c eb e twe en  p hot og r ap hs an d o ther ki nds of ima gewi thout making mi nd-indepen den ce a definin g f eature  o f p h otogr aph s. In  whatf ollows  I will a dd r ess tw o  furthe r qu esti ons: can we accou n tf or the special  signi fi c an c e  of  ph otographs;  a nd, h o w can a ph o t o gra p her create apicture? Ip ost pone f or  an o ther o ccasi on a t hird questi on:how can a  photo g raph be a picto rial a rtw ork ? 23 Cu rr ie,  G .  (1 9 99 ) p . 287 . DAWN M .PH ILLIP S 17 V I I . PH OTO GRAP HS AS  IMAGES AND P HOT OGRA P HSAS PI CTURE S In  t his s ection  I co ns ider how photog raph s owe the irsp eci al  sign i ficanc e t o t he phot ographi c  pr oc e s s .Some photographs a re v al ued in v irtueo fbe i ng justph oto imag e s ; but  oth e rs  are val ued in s of ar  as the yare bo th  ph oto -imag e s an d pict ures. Th e pho t ographic proce s s, when harne s se d to theopt ical proces s, i s  cap able of  pr o ducin g ima ge s  t h at are more detaile dand pr ecise  than those p roduced by p a inting o r dr a wi n g. Perhaps mor e imp ortantly,m echanica l aut omationof the ph o t ographic  pr oce ssoft e n  m akes it muchs i mple r– quick eras well  as  ea sie r –  t o produce  such an  i ma ge .Weadmir e  photogr ap hsbe cau se th e se ima ges h avequ al i tie s thato ft e n  exc ee dwhat  is  p ossib le i n  pa intingor drawin g.A t th esa me time  we object to  p hotographs  b eca use im a g es withthese qualities can bep roduced  so  quic klyand withlit tle ef for t .24 Ne itherof th es e f e a tures f ul lyad dresses th e spe cialsi gnif icancethat photographs h a vefor us. I hav e s aidt h at  ph o to g rap hs are a dmirable for qu alities of  t h eimage such asac curacyand det ail.A  high d egree ofvisual re se mbla n c e t o photogra phed obj ects, mad e  poss i bl e bythe  sophi st ica ted i mage,i s a lso a  major  f actorin wh at  can giv e photographs significa nce. H oweve r e ven thisdoe s  no t justify  our  sense tha t p hot ograp hsh ave a  sig n if ica n ce th at o t her image s  l ack . Im portantly,a b lur red f ade d  photo grap h can sustain the kind of experi ence t hat  we seek  t o explain. The  sp ec i a l signif ic ance of pho tographs  c a n beexplai ned in  termso f  t h e phot ogra phi c process . W he n  a phot og ra p hic ev entoc curs,it ise ssen t i al that a photos ensit i v e obj e ctmustbe  in pro x imit y to the p hotographed  objec ts.We ar e right  t o feel  th at  a photogr a ph, wheth er sh arp orbl urre d,stands  ina speci al r el ati on to the p ho t og ra p hed  obj ects.  T he a ctual obj e cts andlig h t sourc es  we r e  prese n ta s  elementsinthe p h o tographice vent th a t def ines t he cau sal his t ory  o f thatpho t o graph. Th is echoes des cr ipti ons of p ho togr ap hsof fered by othertheorist s – such a s thecla i m th a t a ph ot ograph is akindof causal' t rac e'. How e ver  we  ca n cl aim  tha t  any photo-object or pho to-i mageh asthissigni fi cance wi t hout  being l e d to the dogm atic step of de f ini n g ph oto g ra ph s as
 owing_to the_substantively different processes involved._This is_already_enough to_show_that there is_a substantive difference_between photographs and other_kinds of image_without_making mind-independence a defining feature of photographs. In what follows I will address two_further_questions: can_we_account_for the special significance of_photographs; and, how can a_photographer create_a picture? I postpone for another occasion a_third_question: how can_a photograph be a pictorial artwork? 23 Currie, G._(1999) p.287. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 17_VII. PHOTOGRAPHS AS_IMAGES_AND_PHOTOGRAPHS AS PICTURES In_this section I consider how photographs_owe their special significance to the_photographic process. Some photographs are valued in_virtue of being just photoimages; but_others are valued insofar as_they are_both photo-images and pictures. The_photographic process, when_harnessed to_the optical process,_is capable of producing images that_are more detailed_and precise than those produced by_painting_or drawing. Perhaps_more_importantly,_mechanical automation_of the photographic_process_often makes_it_much simpler – quicker as well_as_easier – to produce such an image._We admire photographs because_these_images have qualities that_often exceed what is possible_in painting or drawing. At the_same time_we object_to photographs because images with these qualities can be produced so_quickly and with little effort.24 Neither_of these features fully_addresses the_special_significance that photographs_have_for us._I have said that photographs are admirable_for qualities_of the image such as accuracy_and detail. A high_degree_of visual resemblance to photographed objects,_made possible by the sophisticated image,_is also a major factor_in_what_can give photographs significance. However_even this does not justify our_sense that photographs_have a significance that other images lack._Importantly,_a blurred faded photograph can sustain_the_kind of experience that we seek_to_explain._The special significance of photographs_can be explained in terms of_the photographic process. When a photographic event occurs, it_is essential that_a photosensitive object must be_in_proximity_to the photographed objects. We are right to feel that_a photograph,_whether sharp or_blurred, stands in a special relation to the photographed objects._The actual objects and light sources were_present as elements in the photographic event that defines the causal_history of that photograph. This echoes descriptions of_photographs offered by other theorists – such_as the claim that_a_photograph is a kind of causal 'trace'._However_we_can_claim that any_photo-object or photo-image_has this significance_without being_led to the_dogmatic step_of defining photographs_as