picture vs image

21:47 Aug 17, 2012 

@Stephen - thank you. No, I know she wouldn't be averse to that being contacted - I know her, she used to be at my university... But I don't think that that would help much. The problem lies more in the attitude of the author than in the text...Unfortunately it is 400p long and I do not believe that a general rule can be given for the problem we're concerned with. I think I'll have to let my Bauchgefühl decide - as you both (H and you) said - context is all.... Anyway - you'll hear from me as soon as my head (and the rest) is a little more out of the mire - unless I hear from you first...

19:22 Aug 17, 2012 

Not really. That article is about 'mental images' transferred into tangible, visible form. The term 'image' as being discussed here is used differently - also by the author being translated.

19:19 Aug 17, 2012 

Interesting reading:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1572048?uid=3738488&ui...

Sort of in line with the author's thinking: the "picture" (pictorial representation) as the tangible form of the "image" (mental or otherwise)

17:23 Aug 17, 2012 

probably wouldn't be averse to being contacted. Regards from me. With Helen re. micro-contexts deciding between image & picture, & her other comments. Older Eng. art-apprec. language had things like limning, graven images, likeness (cf. Bildnis) if we're talking portraits... but really old, C18, see Hogarth... but your author I think will have to 'lump it'/sich damit zufrieden geben & Dir dankbar sein, if you paraphrase or even comment re. German voc. usage, i.e. you become translator-editor- if he/she wants to be read & understood. Usu. a clumsy & tiresome solution within a straight translated text but this might well benefit from it. Best / S

17:22 Aug 17, 2012 

Thank you, Helen - that was most helpful - I'll see what I can do with that sentence...

17:21 Aug 17, 2012 

Unfortunately the author is a nitpicker...

15:55 Aug 17, 2012 

I don't know her work so it is difficult to be precise on the basis of one sentence, but it seems she is talking about a narrow concept of the 'picture' / maybe even 'painting' in the second half of the quote. I really don't think you are going to be able to come up with a rule. It is about completely understanding the text and what the author / quoted author intends in each given instance.

15:51 Aug 17, 2012 

It is perfectly possible to speak of a sculptural image or a visual statement in sculptural form. Perhaps you can approach it in this way.

15:49 Aug 17, 2012 

I think you can safely use 'image/s' for all of the instances in the above examples. In fact, I would definitely not translate any of them as 'pictures' with the possible exception of the passage:
'da es auf 'physical optics' basierende Techniken gibt, die Bilder zu sehen geben.... But to be honest, I think I would go with 'images' in that instance, too. 'Pictures' really does sit more comfortably in the realm of the fine arts. The term 'photographic pictures' would not be used here, but might be in a journalistic text.

15:48 Aug 17, 2012 

And here's a real difficult one:
Obzwar Begriffe wie 'Bildhauerei' oder 'bildende Künste' anzeigen, dass zumindest skulpturale Phänomene historisch auch 'Bilder' genannt wurden, folgt das Konzept des Bildes heute dem—so Martina Dobbe—„Paradigma des komponierten Tafelbildes".
My comment to the author was: "Das macht auf englisch leider wenig Sinn weil "Bildhauerei" eben "sculpture" heißt, d.h. hier eben. nichts mit Bild zu tun hat. Ich denke, Dunsolltest es einfach weglassen, weil man es ja auch nicht umformulieren kann. Auch Dobbe kann man hier nicht anführen weil "Tafelbild" im Englischen panel painting heißt…"
His answer: "Ich fände es wichtig zu erwähnen, dass es in Sprachen wie dem Deutschen eben noch Spuren des Bildbegriffs auch in der Beschreibung skulpturaler Phänomene gibt, bitte formuliere das so um."

15:43 Aug 17, 2012 

@Helen & Stephen - thanks to both of you, as always. The problem is that the author wants a rule and stick to it... Here are examples:
Diese haben gemeinsam, mehr Informationen über den Raum bzw. die räumliche Struktur der Objekte zu liefern als die linearperspektivisch projizierten Bilder der (analogen wie digitalen) Fotografie.
Zweitens ist das Sehregime der Moderne nicht als ein homogener Block zu verstehen. Vielmehr handelt es sich um eine systemische, von wechselnden Korrelationen und Dominanzen geprägte Koexistenz zweier verschiedener Modelle, Modi oder Formen, korreliert mit je verschiedenen Typen technischer Bilder. Offenkundig ist das Kennzeichen der Moderne eben die Koexistenz verschiedener Typen technischer Bilder und ihnen entsprechender Formen des Sehens.
Die Geschichte des Sehens kann keine Geschichte allein des subjektiven Sehens sein, da es auf 'physical optics' basierende Techniken gibt, die Bilder zu sehen geben, welche in keiner Weise spezifische körperliche Attribute bzw. das Wissen darum voraussetzen.
Die transplanen Bilder und die Produktion des Raums

12:18 Aug 17, 2012 

As ever, context is all, but dobri doesn't give us any, unfortunately. Perhaps if she was prepared to give us some examples we could discuss more effectively.

12:10 Aug 17, 2012 

Hello, Both,
Er - I can follow both Helen's and author's interps. Yes, image more general than picture - dep. on context. (Get the picture? I have a distinct image of... ). I often opt for Helen's distinction. Real/visual images, or again in sense of 'metaphor', can be part of physical pictures. & yes (@ freekuweel), you take a pic., but how high-resolution is... the image? (in this case: image on paper or on screen etc.; picture almost synon. with 'photograph'). Writing about photos I tend to avoid 'picture' or reserve it for colloq. sense (synon. 'photograph'), which, of c'se, can also occur in an art item. This qn involves several possible lang.-levels and breadths (or narrowings) of context, that's the problem, & the Ger. use of Bild in broad, colloq.& tech. precise senses... Herzlichst, for what it's worth! / S

11:29 Aug 17, 2012 

I don't agree with the author's distinction. I would use 'image' for any visual statement of a 2D nature. 'Picture' for me is likely to be confined to painting, drawing, prints and the like - generally where the image is representational. I would be very unlikely to use it for photography, for instance, or a graphically generated image of some sort (and definitely not for something 3D).

09:58 Aug 17, 2012 

you draw an image. Example: medical imaging; one has an idea based on a blurry image, not picture.

Author might be right.