A whole lot of photography isn't recording what we actually see.
(or, to be pedantic, what we think we actually see)
Some examples:
o A black-and-white print (except for a few individuals)
o Long exposures of waterfalls (or, for that matter, any of my panned
motorsports shots with a sharp car in front of a blurred background).
o Portraits, etc., using narrow depth of field to isolate the subject
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 03:01:14PM -0400, John wrote:
> But is it really "machine art"? Or is it "Art" made by people using machines?
>
> Ultimately the tool you choose doesn't matter as much as your skill using
> those tools and how well you you are able to show others what you've "seen"
> with your mind's eye.
>
> If you can communicate your vision, then it's the appropriate tool.
>
> On 10/23/2018 10:33, P. J. Alling wrote:
> > There's really only so much you can do with code, before you're no
> > longer recording a scene, and are actually generating it, which is art
> > not photography.?? Personally I prefer my art to be produced by humans
> > not by machines mainly because machine art is kinda dull.
> >
> >
> > On 10/23/2018 10:10 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> > > https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/22/the-future-of-photography-is-code/
> > >
> > > Dan Matyola
> > > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
> >
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> [email protected]
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
> the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
