> fra: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> What sort of alterations are you implying? > > > > Anything that according the honest photographer does not change the > > content of the picture. It could be a plastic bag, some garbage, a lamp > > post, a fellow photographer etc. We have to belive in him anyway, or when > > should we stop believing in him. > > > > The world in an interesting place. > First, David Ahenekew insists that a speech to 200 people is a private > conversation, then Dag insists that changing the content of a picture isn't > really changing the content. > I'm so confused.
Sorry about that. I'll try an example: If you take a picture of Bush kissing Clinton on the mouth it doesn't really change the picture if you later remove the foot of a bird in the upper left of the frame. It does if the foot was sticking out of Clintons mouth. > I'm so drunk... That explaines a lot .-) DagT > > > William Robb > > >
