PAUL STENQUIST wrote:
>
> PAUL STENQUIST wrote:
> >
> > I enjoy using technical tools to make a more perfect version of those
> > things I see.
> >
> and Shel objected to the premise of the sentence.
No I didn't. I just asked for an explanation. I said that your
comment was difficult for me to understand, and asked how a photograph
could be more perfect than what exists in the real world. I asked if
one could make a more perfect flower, etc. Where did I object to what
you wrote?
> That's difficult for me to understand. How can a photograph be
more
> perfect than what exists in the real world, even with the real
world's
> imperfections? Can you make a more perfect flower, or a more
perfect
> human, or a more perfect or more beautiful landscape by capturing
an
> image and putting it in a two dimensional form on a piece of
paper?
Only questions. No challenges to your point of view, no arguments, no
judgments. Only questions.
Some have noted that I've been silent in this thread, and the reason
I've not made any further comments is that the issues raised don't
interest me. Paul answered my questions, clarified his answers, and
that's fine with me. That's all I wanted.
--
Sheldon Belinkoff
CREATURE'S COMFORT
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
