Guy, I think a little common sense about media is being overlooked in this thread. Would a gallery dedicated to acrylic painting accept your photo of a tulip painting based on a photo? Of course, we all know the answer is no! Much graphic art uses some type of photo or photo reproduction in its process. I think many of us have been disappointed at finding a "Photography" exhibit infiltrated by PS illustrations or "mixed media" whatever. Not to say that this type of exhibit is not worthwhile - it just needs truth-in-labeling. I saw a show recently (all large work done with excellent ink jet) at the Chicago Art Institute photo gallery that was not only disappointingly uninspired art but so far removed from its photo origin you had to read the artist statement to find it. The show should have been categorized as art prints like silk screen and litho, which can be photo-based but are never considered photographs. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Chris's computer graphic > From: "Guy Glorieux" <guy.glorieux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, February 16, 2005 1:32 pm > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > I think it's very difficult to find any metric that will mean something > > consistently. > > > > > > Jeff Spirer > > My own metrics is that I will consider as photography any (digital) > manipulation that can produced in the darkroom - however complex and > exacting for the darkroom operator - and/or using light sensitive material. > > This is quite a loose definition with a lot of grey areas. It would exclude > computer-generated images but include color solarization. It would include > layering of images but exclude most of the watercolour-type PS filters, > etc... > > This is not to say that what falls out of this definition is not acceptable. > But in my view, it falls into the realm of graphic arts. > > For instance, many years ago, a number of PF'ers objected when I posted a > rather extravagant image of a tulipe. It was created beginning with a color > negative scanned into a digital positive, then solarized on Photoshop and > inverted back into a negative. This negative image was printed on paper and > converted into an 8x10 transparency using acrylic medium. The transparency > was then enlarged on color paper with an 8x10 enlarger. > > At the time, I considered that since photographic material were the source > and end product, it should be considered as falling in the realm of > photography. I would not consider it so today because of the intermediate > processess involving acrylic medium. > > Guy
