You make it sound as though there's something sacrosanct about the word photography. I don't believe that there is. Like most definitions in natural language it's very Theriaultian around the edges. Surely the important thing is not whether object X is or is not a photograph. Surely the important thing is whether or not it is used honestly.
-- Cheers, Bob > > IMO, this type of article is a blasphemous shame, and is one > of the things that's destroying photography and making it > more about "image processing" > than seeing and creating in the viewfinder. Now, just to be > clear, there's nothing wrong with heavily manipulating an > image, and making it into something other than a straight > photo, but I don't really call that photography. I've done > it myself, but I don't consider the results to be a > photograph, and I usually make the photo with thoughts of > using it as a basis for something else. > > So, at what point does photography become something other ... > if you change the background in Photoshop, add or remove an > object, manipulate the color substantially, alter skin tone, > remove blemishes, lines, and wrinkles .... > at some point there's more Photoshop than photograph. I'm > reminded of the fellow who bought the original ax George > Washington used to cut down the proverbial cherry tree. It > had the handle replaced five time and a new head installed an > equal number of times. Is it still George Washington's original axe? > > > Shel > > > > >
