James B. Davis wrote:
I hope you will pardon me if I say that it seems that you are making some sweeping assumptions based on little or no information.On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:39:44 -0600, Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to:
Uh, Jim, the Seggerman site says the images are made without the aid of a "camera lens". Nothing there to indicate she doesn't know a scanner has a lens. I don't see a problem with the lack of information about the machinery used but that's just me. The Kauffman site says very plainly that they were done with a flatbed scanner.
Uh, ya, no 'camera' lens but where do you define camera and scanner difference. I've seen digital scanning backs on 'cameras'. So the lenses are lenses and I see no point where one is not the other. My point was that the question posed at first is unanswered. It appears that the 'artist' doesn't know the answer. It would not surprise me if the 'artist' doesn't know that she is actually using a lens that in fact is very much like a camera lens.
She may, in fact, be ignorant of this but I don't comprehend the importance of that. But did you like the images? <g> I will pass the criticisms on to the artist. She may amend her descriptions and help her sales.
Don
--
===========================================
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son." - Dean Vernon Wormer
===========================================
