Andrea, Photographs have been manipulated from Day One. Whatever it takes to get the result the artist is after doesn't matter nor does what it is called. If one were wanting to be picky call it "photo illustration." If it is important that the viewer understand the process to "get" the picture, then describe the process - or lack of manipulation if that is the case. I am inclined to state the latter these days. Then we all go nuts arguing about what a "straight" print is! AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: How much computer? > From: Andrea Coffey <why@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, April 25, 2005 5:19 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The Luminous Landscape site has some articles that make me think. I've just > read this one, on "making" images with significant computer post-production. > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-images.shtml > > To me, it's all about the exercise of the photographer's judgement. Based > on our original photograph, so it's photography. > > What do others think? Does it remain photography? > > > &i (:
