On 17/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >I can't remember the last time i've seen advertising photography that >didn't include some compositing of elements. No one calls that a collage. >It's a photograph. "Collage" suggests numerous elements arranged in an >artful fashion. A combination of two photos and some retouching to yield >a final image doesnt' qualify as a collage.Paul
1. The boundary appears hazy to say the least. If I saw an advert on a printed page with obvious signs that separate elements were brought together onto one canvas, so to speak (for example a shot of a car on the moon), I would say: "have you seen this photographic collage, love, it's quite good". 2. Other less obvious images, where it isn't readily easy to spot separate elements brought together, and perhaps leaves the viewer wondering if it really happened or if it was 'faked' (say, a car going over Niagara Falls), I would say: "look at this picture, love, it's quite good". 3 Still other images, say a photo of a cat with it's handler cloned out, I would say: "hey, nice pussy, love. And the photo" :-) My point is that, to me, it's about semantics. If I hadn't been to art college all those years ago, I probably wouldn't call scenario 1 (above) a collage. In scenario 2, if I was trying to decide if the picture really happened or not, I would say: " I can't decide whether it's an actual photograph, or a collage". In scenario 3, I'd give my own pussies a stroke ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
