Skip to main content
Italics for better parsing clarity
Source Link
mattdm
  • 143.6k
  • 52
  • 421
  • 745

There is no term for photos that don't involve people. Photos are categorized based on what they are ofof, not what they are not ofnot of. A photo is not ofnot of an infinite number of things.

If I take a photo of my wife indoors, it is not of outside, it is not of cats, it is not of nighttime, it is not of waterfalls, it is not of ants, it is not of the future, it is not of a TV, it is not of stars...

Having a term for what photos are not of simply doesn't make sense.

There is no term for photos that don't involve people. Photos are categorized based on what they are of, not what they are not of. A photo is not of an infinite number of things.

If I take a photo of my wife indoors, it is not of outside, it is not of cats, it is not of nighttime, it is not of waterfalls, it is not of ants, it is not of the future, it is not of a TV, it is not of stars...

Having a term for what photos are not of simply doesn't make sense.

There is no term for photos that don't involve people. Photos are categorized based on what they are of, not what they are not of. A photo is not of an infinite number of things.

If I take a photo of my wife indoors, it is not of outside, it is not of cats, it is not of nighttime, it is not of waterfalls, it is not of ants, it is not of the future, it is not of a TV, it is not of stars...

Having a term for what photos are not of simply doesn't make sense.

Source Link
AJ Henderson
  • 35k
  • 5
  • 55
  • 92

There is no term for photos that don't involve people. Photos are categorized based on what they are of, not what they are not of. A photo is not of an infinite number of things.

If I take a photo of my wife indoors, it is not of outside, it is not of cats, it is not of nighttime, it is not of waterfalls, it is not of ants, it is not of the future, it is not of a TV, it is not of stars...

Having a term for what photos are not of simply doesn't make sense.