lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.
I don't think most people assume that a photo-looking image is a
traditional photo. The "realistic" photo illustration is a popular and
familiar form. Those of us that do un-altered photos very
self-consciously advertise our craft.
AZ
Build a 120/35mm Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
Now an E-book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us <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'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
Well, I felt that something like Bryce was questionable when it was
first released even though it was sort of crude. One knew it would get
much better. I have no idea how much computing power is required to do
the sort of realistic photo-like illustration shown at Wikipedia but I
doubt most of us have it at our disposal. Still it will become more
easily accomplished eventually. It does add another element to the
equation when people decide to use "photos" for different purposes. Can
you put a glass of booze in a political rival's hands with this?
I imagine you can. More opportunities for mischief at least.
Don
