Re: Chris's computer graphic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I recall a piece a many moons ago that was a picture of a Mazda that appeared to be racing down the lane and received rave reviews!  The image was doctored in such a way that it almost looked animated (but done exceptionally well I must add).  Granted, this falls into the category of a photo being digitally altered to twist "reality".  I agree that submissions to the gallery should be "photographs" (and that we're thankfully avoiding another digital vs film argument).  I'm just afraid of the potential for bickering as to what degree/percentage of the image must remain...for instance:
 
I take a picture of the pyramids...again...I get home and low and behold, it's rubbish (not CRAP).  So, I erase the canvas and paste Judy on a flourescant green pixellated outline of a camel...the original image was a photograph!  Am I wrong?  I can't wait till next week.

Rich Mason <cameratraveler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Interesting phrasing, Andy. What is reality? A better question might
be whether to include work in the Gallery which has little or no
connection to photography (the recording of light on a light-sensitive
medium).

What if Chris had made his creation and then printed it and
photographed the print for presentation in the Gallery? Would that
make it more acceptable?

How different is Chris's work (in terms of reality) than a studio
photographer building sets, adjusting lighting (color, intensity, etc.)
and photographing a manmade object? Only in one way that I can see:
The primary subject of Chris's submission this week is not
photographically derived, and the photographic portion of the
submission is relegated to a the background (heavily manipulated). A
studio photographer would at least be using photographic means to
record their unreality. So, what if Chris's digital creation was a
smaller component of a larger photographic composition? Can we draw
that line? Wouldn't it be more a matter of taste and personal
preference than whether the work is completely "photographic?"

I rather like AZ's suggestion to use the "model" as a commentary on
more traditional photography. I'd like to see Judy strolling through
some of the street scenes Chris has shown previously in the Gallery.

"...what is before the lens always has the illusion of reality; but
what is selected and put before the lens can be as false as any
totalitarian lie."

--Ansel Adams, 1962 letter to Dorothea Lange, quoted in Ansel Adams, An
Autobiography. With Mary Street Alinder. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1985, p. 269.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_role.html

Cheers,
Rich Mason


On Tuesday, February 15, 2005, at 10:56 AM, ADavidhazy wrote:

> Just a thought - should images that have no connection
> to reality be shown in our photography gallery?
>
> andy
>
>


http://richmason.com



"The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds.
 The pessimist fears it's true"  - J Robert Oppenheimer
 
http://www.geocities.com/tr_cunningham


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux