an image and a picture

[cacian]

what would be in mathematical or literary sense the difference between the two?

[loe]

An image need not necessariliy be a material product, it can also be limitied to our mind (--> imagination).
A picture is something outside - a photo, painting etc.

Maybe...
As English is not my mother language this is only a wild guess.

[cacian]

An image need not necessariliy be a material product, it can also be limitied to our mind (--> imagination).
A picture is something outside - a photo, painting etc.

Maybe...
As English is not my mother language this is only a wild guess.

Hi loe thank you for your post.
Woud you say that an image is not exact and therefore nevers sets and is as good as an illusion?
A picture however is exact and set to a one format and there is no two pictue the same ever?
Which then leads me to conclude that an image is the opposite of a picture because of the above explanations?

[loe]

Woud you say that an image is not exact and therefore nevers sets and is as good as an illusion?
A picture however is exact and set to a one format and there is no two pictue the same ever?
I'm not sure if I'm getting this right, but here are some more thoughts:

It is possible that an image in our mind is not very concrete and it can change from one minute to another. This doesn't work with a picture - the content is exact and can only be changed when we use a pencil or something like that. So in distinction from the image a picture is more exact, though the topic of the exact content can be vague... hmm...

And if you make photocopies you have more pictures that are the same, unless the different place in space makes them already different...
(I would say that there are no two same images, WHEN they are something else like a picture)


Which then leads me to conclude that an image is the opposite of a picture because of the above explanations?
I wouldn't say that the image is an opposite of a picture. There CAN just be a few differences/different point of views.

Sorry for getting confusing/confused...

[cacian]

I'm not sure if I'm getting this right, but here are some more thoughts:

It is possible that an image in our mind is not very concrete and it can change from one minute to another.
Hi loe yes you are right that an image can only be called an image if when we actually both see it. Hence the word.
the word image derives from 'imagination' and since neither of us or any can show a concret image of what imagination is then it is just that, a word,unatainable but true if you like.We all know we have imagination because we humans are creative in terms of arts and literature and many others. This puts up at different level from animals and thus makes us ultimately different from them.
If then you wish to prove that an image ,from the mind, can be concretised proved then you may proceed in drawing to show it.
The minute you share it with others then it becomes a picture because of the act of viewing/viusaling the same thing/picture.
However an illusion is a kind of a picture that is ''seen and not seen''.
a perfect example of illusion is mirage because it behaves in the exact way as it, the illusion. So mirage illusion is exactly the same and since both of them are explainable then they are concrete in that sense and makes them very different from an image which is not.





This doesn't work with a picture - the content is exact and can only be changed when we use a pencil or something like that. So in distinction from the image a picture is more exact, though the topic of the exact content can be vague... hmm...

a picture is never the same no matter how exact it is because of timing.
once a picture is taken it is timed . The next exact one will be half a second or less later.
Time is what makes one picture different from the next.
Camera can only take one shot at one given time and therefore there are no pictures the same.

And if you make photocopies you have more pictures that are the same, unless the different place in space makes them already different...
(I would say that there are no two same images, WHEN they are something else like a picture)
Photocopies again not really because
a) colours cannot be reciprocated in the exact way as an original because lighting issues
b) timing is different.


I wouldn't say that the image is an opposite of a picture. There CAN just be a few differences/different point of views.

Sorry for getting confusing/confused...
As I explained before there is no such a thing as a concrete image and therefore an image is not a picture.
Again even if we wanted to incorporate inw ords what you meant by image timing is an issue.
Your English is very good by the way:thumbs_up

[loe]

Very interesting!

a picture is never the same no matter how exact it is because of timing...
Photocopies again not really because
a) colours cannot be reciprocated in the exact way as an original because lighting issues
b) timing is different.
You can make ten photocopies, that would be the same then.
But I agree that time/timing (and space) make things not the same anymore (although this is a rather formal distinction).

Probably, the image is the same like a picture, when the image becomes a picture (by drawing etc.)... but then it's not an image anymore... *sigh* Always those circles in thinking...


Your English is very good by the way:thumbs_up
Thanks a lot for the compliment! :)
I'm trying to improve every day.
It's an interesting discussion, because distinctions like this one don't really exist in German.

(But I don't think that we are that much different from animals, because human beings ARE animals, though the most(?) intelligent ones... ;) )