There are a series of photos of Betty outside with her father, brother, and some other guys who all have guns. I have no idea what they were doing. Possibly target practice, but there are no shots of them actually shooting the guns as I've shown in the past. Betty is not shown with any guns in this series. In fact, there are no images of her dad carrying a gun. So I'm guessing he was just carrying his camera with which he shot Betty.
Isn't it odd that we "shoot" photos? Where did that come from? Someone wise have an answer?
Click on image to see it larger.
All of the photos of Betty from the past few posts were taken in March 1956. Betty was around 31.
Posts
I don't know why one "shoots" a photograph. One aims and shoots (like a gun) and puts film in the "magazine" like bullets in a gun. Both shot and shoot have over a dozen definitions of diverse meanings. In generic form "shoot" means to eject outwards" - perhaps the word got reversed when you let "light into" the camera (it shoots in). Or after the exposure, the film is "shot" (that is, you can't use it again)?
ReplyDeleteThe root of the word seems to be shared with shut (shot/shut) and perhaps it was the act of "clicking the shutter" that got mangled into "shot"?
I'd love to see where the word came from myself!
You definitely supplied more to ponder. It's always been a term that at times feels a bit uncomfortable. You think of war photographers shooting. It feels like an uncomfortable choice of words, but there you go, it's what we say. I wonder if it is the same in other languages or if they have something different.
DeleteI read that the term comes from how the early cinematic cameras were cranked by hand to run the clockwork mechanism that moved the film and therefor resembled a Gatling style machine gun. There is definitely a target shooting element to aiming a hand held camera.
ReplyDeleteWell that's interesting. It makes sense. Wouldn't you like to know who the first person was to use the word.
Delete