de-lurking for the moment: My view: An illusion is an image, is a photograph, is a painting, is a drawing, etc. Can truth be attributed to a two-dimensional illusion? The referenced image (a computer-generated illusion) doesn't complicate my view. Maybe photo-journalism has become as "historical" as some of the photo technologies that brought it about (just as painting became "historical" when the camera became popular). Truth in labeling is concept, that for me, is relative. I find that most people can't even label a print (etching, lithograph, seriograph, etc.) correctly. I don't think that labeling is gonna help much. My observation has been that people want to believe and need to believe what they see. As they say, my two-cents worth. Hope it is found to be relevant. Thanks for the link. This is a good topic. Belinda (long-term lurker) On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Don Roberts wrote: In light of some of the recent posts regarding truth in photography and how altered photos should be labeled, I post the following URL for you consideration and comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glasses_800_edit.png It is a Wikipedia page and is safe to view. How does this sort of thing complicate the entire photo issue? Or does it impact it all? I'd like to hear views. Don
