----- Original Message -----
From: "Qkano" <wildimages@lineone.net>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students"
<photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:15 PM
Subject: Gallery Reviews: "Eternity" - how the PHOTO was taken.
Fascinating, Bob. Thank you for going to the work of explaining the shot.
You did good {:->
Marilyn
------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
