From: "Robert Soames Wetmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, I agree Bob that it's the reality of it. Out of interest, what
defines
> a 'fake artifact'? Somthing you put there?
ar�ti�fact also ar�te�fact (�rt-fkt)
n.
1.. An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool,
weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest.
2.. Something viewed as a product of human conception or agency
rather than an inherent element: "The very act of looking at a naked model
was an artifact of male supremacy" (Philip Weiss).
3.. A structure or feature not normally present but visible as a
result of an external agent or action, such as one seen in a microscopic
specimen after fixation, or in an image produced by radiology or
electrocardiography.
4.. An inaccurate observation, effect, or result, especially one
resulting from the technology used in scientific investigation or from
experimental error: The apparent pattern in the data was an artifact of the
collection method.
I'm homing in on #3 for the definition of *artifact* for this case.
The external agents were speed and the near instantaneous photographic
process that made the event "visible" to us for by "freezing" time..
A "fake" artifact would be an attempt to "portray" #3 by providing
something that wasn't there in the first place.
> Something the computer put
> there for you (with or without you knowing about it)?
This would be artifact type #4. It's not fake, it just is. To me, fakery
involves human will and intervention with the intention to deceive, whether
for amusement (fun) or for nefarious (evil) purposes.
> Does it have to be
> large or obvious?
No.
> Is brightening the picture in photoshop fictionalizing
> it?
Not necessarily. Correction is not fakery. No deception is intended, whether
for good or evil.
> What about sharpening?
Look, these answers are for me. They are how I see things. Why don't you try
developing some terminology for yourself?
> What if that moisture cloud (or whatever it is)
> wasn't visible at all unless photoshop adjustments were made?
Then it would be an artifact, but not fakery. See #3.
> What if it
> was the same color as the background sky, so you made the sky blue? What
if
> you zoomed in on the border of the whitish spray stuff (again, whatever it
> is) and re-defined the edge...made it larger? Which of these is faking or
> adding artifacts?
Buy a dictionary and stop hasseling folks with trivial crap. Let's say I'm
wrong and my use of the terms "fake" and "artifact" are not exactly correct,
or that they don't match what you believe. So what! It's just my opinion,
and I'm entitled to it just as much as you are to yours.
Start a fight somewhere else. I'll entertain no further pickyness on the
matter.
Bob...
> Bob Blakely wrote:
> >For me, it's the reality of it. Otherwise it would just be a so-so->photo
> >with a fake artifact added.
> >
> >Just my opinion...
[demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of prime.gif]
[demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of schwa.gif]
[demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of abreve.gif]
[demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of lprime.gif]
-
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 .
