Response to the Ontology of the Photographic Image

     Right off the bat, the Ontology of the Photographic Image is obviously dated. The comparison between a painting and a photograph is ridiculous considering we live in an age of not only colored photography but of 3-D films. But, I can see how and why the writer would go to the trouble of comparing both. He does a good job of giving some history of why images, whether in painted or photographic form, are important to humans. Before photography, a painting by a famous painter of a famous or important person was the norm. Only the rich it seemed were allowed this. In photography, there was no real limit whose image could be taken or preserved. The only limitation it would seem would be of the ability of a person to operate a camera and if they had one at their disposal. No need for real skill. Just point and shoot. I personally am not a fan of photo realistic paintings since we now have cameras. I am somewhat bored sometimes of looking at old paintings for art classes to get my degree. The reading is obviously limited by its time of writing. It would be interesting to see the writers full view on our technology now of "moving pictures".