> Just a thought - should images that have no connection > to reality be shown in our photography gallery? andy I believe yes. The future of photography as I predicted some 4 or 5 years ago is no photography. Computer simulations are getting better all the time to the extent that they become progressively more realistic. There may come a time when all "images" are in fact partly simulations: that is already 75% true with bayer-grid cameras anyway :) Seriously though, a hybrid simulation / digital capture could produce incredibly high pseudo-resolutions, to the extent that you could zoom in on every oak leaf of a distant tree ... when in reality the tree only occupied a dozen pixels on the sensor. What "intrigues" me is the preponderance of naked young female forms in these simulations - not just Chris's but in other sites devoted to Poser and Bryce. But there are others where the rendered images are so pseudo-real they are all but indistinguishable from a low res. photo. I think we can learn something from the illustrations - once they get beyond the naive. Bob PS: from the gallery page: "The PhotoForum Member's Exhibit Space is a non-juried space dedicated to exhibit subscriber's work on a rotating basis. Subject matter is wide ranging and similar to what one would find in a conventional fine art gallery." Well, simulations are "wrok" and since when has the "subject matter" in convetional "fine art galleries" been restricted to reality. Throughout the PhotoForum site I've long noted that "image" is used far more frequently than "photograph" anyway. I'd always assumed this was intentional to allow generalised imaging ...
