----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:36 PM Subject: Re: How to make Good Pictures (Let's Free the Captured Images)
> The question > posed in my post, which many seem to have missed, asserting that this has > been done one way or another in the past, or that it's OK, is that at what > time does manipulation in Photoshop take over and become the process rather > than photography being the process? And my contention is that it doesn't matter. If there is the use of a photograph in the final output, whether heavily manipulated or not, the process involves photography and can therefore be put under the broad umbrella of photography. Did you call it "photography" 100 years ago when it was done with scissors and a darkroom? Why can't you call it "photography" today? The tools are different (thank god for technologial progress!) but the outcome and creativity of the "photographers" is the same. No one "missed" your question, it's been answered by many on this list in many different ways over many years. You seem to pose a question for discussion and then dismiss other people's opinions because they don't agree with your own. > Are heavily manipulated images Photographs? They are art in one way or another. Does it need a name? Does it matter if Paul calls it a "photograph" and Cotty calls it "Collage"? For the record, yes, I call it a photograph. But who cares? > And, if you've taken the time to look at the photos I've posted here, or to > review my body of work over the last 30 years, you'd have seen a lot more > than conventional or straight photographs. Yes, I am somewhat of a purist, > but I suspect that my definition and yours may be at odds with each other. I suspect you're right. But my definition is just as valid as yours, and Paul's and Cotty's, etc. Christian
