-----Original Message----- >From: lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Sent: Apr 29, 2007 2:12 PM >To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: RE: [SPAM] re: What do you think? > > > >We see thousands of photographic or photo-optical based images of one type or another every day - somebody counted once. With just the relatively small bit of abstract graphical information in an image our mind apparently does a quick sort as to its meanings. > >The odds are in favor of all images being message. Advertising is the art of keeping all the elements of an image on message. Journalism is only slightly different. Would a publisher want images that distracted from or contradicted the story? We shouldn't be looking for truth or facts exactly but how the image, as presented, compares to what we know or feel. The above is precisely what I like about the non-objective image (image not based on the world of commonly perceived reality) . It requires I "know/ing or feel/ing" in response to the act of experiencing the image. For me, as a viewer, I have to work/see in a different way what is before me. > >I don't think most people assume that a photo-looking image is a traditional photo. I'm sorry, can you explain the above a little more. (From my perspective, most people who view a "photo-looking" image see the image caught (by camera) to be a photo/graphy, i.e. not a painting, drawing). .The "realistic" photo illustration is a popular and familiar form. Yes, it is. Using a commonly perceived reality as a basis for communication, usually makes the communication easier. Those of us that do un-altered photos very self-consciously advertise our craft. I see "craft" as function, "art" as non-function. The place where these two areas meet is like an area of confusion as far a labeling goes. From what I have seen of your work, I see art, not craft. Are you are using "craft" to mean a "pure" form of photography? Note: I don't want to restate what has already been discussed, so if I go there, please let me know. I was off list for a while (about a month) while moving. Thank you for your reply. Belinda >AZ > >Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! >The Lookaround Book. >Now an E-book. >http://www.panoramacamera.us > > > > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: [SPAM] re: What do you think? >From: Belinda Peters <picasso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Date: Sun, April 29, 2007 11:26 am >To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students ><photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >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'tcomplicate my view.Maybe photo-journalism has become as "historical" as some of the phototechnologies 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 thatmost people can't even label a print (etching, lithograph, seriograph,etc.) correctly. I don't think that labeling is gonna help much. Myobservation has been that people want to believe and need to believewhat 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 photographyand how altered photos should be labeled, I post the following URL foryou consideration and comment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glasses_800_edit.pngIt is a Wikipedia page and is safe to view. How does this sort ofthing complicate the entire photo issue? Or does it impact it all?I'd like to hear views.Don
