I've put up a short page describing how I came about my photo in this week's gallery http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/photoforum/eternity/ What is a photo? There remains in my mind a subtle (possibly irrelavent) distinction between the processes involved in recording an image in-camera and doing computer art in photoshop. Two cases 1) My image this week was not a "collage" / "composite" under any of the dozen or so on-line / dictionary definitions of the word. My understanding - open for debate. a - Straight photo: scan a piece of film / show a digital file as it cmae out of the camera. b - Collages: involve cut and paste. In the digital world take two files and clone elements from one on to the other. c - Intermediate: stitched panoramas? 2) In a photo taken with a long shutter speed there will be inevitable motion blur of moving objects. Does that mean that such blur is "no different" to blur applied with a filter in PS? 3) Bokeh at the time of capture (the photograph) vs selective gaussian blur applied later. For me the distinctions are more than subtle: one is the work of a photographer, the latter more akin to a graphic artist. The artist has much more control in a way over the exact magnitude of the effect achieved. In doing an in-camera double exposure, in-camera motion blur etc there is an element of the result that is left only to chance to decide. ATEOTD the ignorant viewer only sees the photo. How it's made only really interests the person who took it - probably. Bob
