yes, to me more realisitic is **usually** with photograpy. Its gives you more of the "being there" experience than grainy photos do. Realism is nice.
As for painting, that is another medium altogher. Once photgraphy came along, wasn't the school of "realistic" painting of real world subjects basically history? Why try to realistically paint something when you could photograph it more accurately? If the subject is only in your imagination, that would be a different case of course. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 11:51 AM To: pentax-discuss Subject: RE: "Fake" vs "Real" effects JCO wrote: > >In real life there is no grain! So if you want the most realistic >looking photographs, grain must be eliminated. > >To me, noise/grain is an unnatural artifact and is very undesireable >99.9% of the time. Aha! The key there is the "if" in your statement. It's really all about what you want to get out of your images. It's like comparing a Rembrandt portrait, with it's beautifully smooth tonal gradations and luminous details, to a Van Gogh, where the huge colorful brushstrokes make the image work. Some would say that the the Rembrandt is more "realistic" than the Van Gogh. But is it better? --Mark
