[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Folks: > > Snip> > So long as the original is available, Snip And would someone like to define "original"? I'm always very careful about how much weight I give an "original." A lot of things can happen between the object of interest and the film/sensor. Or, am I missing something here? Otis Wright > > > Paul G. > Milwaukee, Wi. > > >> >> I agree totally...well said - particularly the part >> about digitally creating a film-based image. Also, >> beyond photography, the world in general will be >> interesting when everything can be regenerated or >> simulated to appear as indistinguishable from an >> original and nothing can adjudicate reality. >> >> --- Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this distinction >> > will become even more >> > blurred when it becomes easier to create a >> > film-based image from a >> > digital one. as I understand it, even now you need >> > someone to swear >> > that the photo was not manipulated, which diminishes >> > its value as >> > something closely tied to reality. Even CCTV >> > images are ultimately >> > going to depend on someone vouching for their >> > authenticity. >
