Jeff, Again, I was speaking only of trying to use clear language. The idea of a photograph isn't all that vague (like what's porn? - I knows it when I sees it). I know what's on the film (or the RAW data) and I know what the print looks like. If they aren't the same it needs a new name. It is essential to some of us that people understand exactly how we have used the medium. I currated this show at Buckham gallery recently - notice the name: http://www.gfn.org/buckham/01-06-show.htm One of the people in this show wouldn't say how the work was made even when most people guessed. Rather strange! Would awful truth diminish the value of the work? Do people who make photo-based images lack confidence in their medium and themselves? Does calling them photographs give them more self esteem? 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: Jeff Spirer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, March 05, 2006 10:47 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > At 06:48 AM 3/5/2006, lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >One has to draw a line somewhere to mark where straight pictures become > >something else. > > The problem is that there is no agreement on where to draw the > line. And then there's the problem of what you do with pure > photographic pictures that are total fabrications, such as Bob > Bennett's work - look at this - > http://bobbennettphoto.net/art/edge.fp.html - for example. > > As to Photoshop making things easy...well that's not really the case > until you learn it, just like the darkroom. It takes a lot of > training and/or practice to get really good, repetitive results in > Photoshop, just like in traditional work. But the "easy" thing is a > false argument anyway - did photographers lose out when mixed > chemicals became available, or minilabs popped up everywhere? > > I have been asked numerous times why I am so supportive of digitally > manipulated photography when I don't do it, always by people who > argue against it. I think the answer to their question is contained > in that sentence. You can either be interested in what can be done > or only what you can do. > > Jeff Spirer > Photos: http://www.spirer.com > One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
