2021/02/22 by Dawn M Wilson, Dawn Wilson
Arts and Humanities · Neuroscience · #Aesthetic Perception and Analysis #History of Science and Medicine #Photography and Visual Culture
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/jaac/kpab005
openalex publication_date 2021/02/22 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Abstract Some photographs show determinate features of a scene because the photographed scene had those features. This dependency relation is, rightly, a consensus in philosophy of photography. I seek to refute many long-established theories of photography by arguing that they are incompatible with this commitment. In Section II, I classify accounts of photography as either single-stage or multi-stage. In Section III, I analyze the historical basis for single-stage accounts. In Section IV, I explain why the single-stage view led scientists to postulate “latent” photographic images as a technical phenomenon in early chemical photography. In Section V, I discredit the notion of an invisible latent image in chemical photography and, in Section VI, extend this objection to the legacy of the latent image in digital photography. In Section VII, I appeal to the dependency relation to explain why the notion of a latent image makes the single-stage account untenable. Finally, I use the multi-stage account to advance debate about “new” versus “orthodox” theories of photography.