Alfred, I don't think the question had anything to do with how photographs relate to the "real". It was simply a question about termanology. For clarity of language don't call a photo-based picture a photograph. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 4Th ed. Now an E-book. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: What is a photograph anyway? > From: Alfred Tay <alfred_tay@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, March 05, 2006 5:20 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > what is darkness? > what is light? > who is to judge what is right? > > was photography ever faithful to the 'real'? > it merely replicates a facade of reality > were we ever close to reality > are what our eyes sees real? > > the real question is > are we ever in the 'real' > and how do we define that? > > missing the real by a hair > is as good as missing the real by a mile > if we cannot ever replicate reality > why do we care so much about what is real? > > does reality matter? > > >If you look through many magazines, go to photography competitions, visit > >exhibtions, so many exhibitors are displaying images which have been > >excessively modified, not just using PS filters, but including brushwork, > >text, multiple images some of which are not originally photographic images. > >Thr end result is thus a long way from the original capture. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Find love on MSN Personals http://personals.msn.com.sg/
