>Maybe so. But this goes back to what was stated earlier, that the >original photograph not be wiped out completely; manipulated >beyond recognition. Shyrell "beyond recognition" is sadly a subjective decision. So is "completely". We are at a stage where simulations (computer generated) can be all but indistinguishable from real photographs - and certainly so to the untrained eye. At the same time people are so heavily processing photographs - I'm remembering one of Chris's watercolour trams I particularly liked, that the processed image is barely distinguishable from a scan of a hand-painted watercolour. When there comes a time when you can not detect a "fake" you may as well give up and just accept it. What I think I'm saying is that it makes you think about what a "photograph" is. My own metric has always been "something that looks like what I saw through the viewfinder at the time I took the photo". Anything else was a "b*ggered about photo :o) But if it ever gets to me being unable to distinguish between computer-simulated images of a car, and a photo of the same car, I'll have to call them the same thing. While Chris's computer stuff stays close to using / simulating photos I'll not be upset about it. If he goes down the sci-fi fantasy route then maybe it will have drifted too far away. B -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
