Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B.D., Why is the word "accurate" in your definition? > From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:25:42 -0500 > To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Is that so wrong? > > "Photographics," photo illustrations, photo mud puddles are fine - as > long as they are presented as such. But if something is presented as a > "photograph," it should be an accurate representation of a single > instant in time, as interpreted by the photographer - at least that's my > position, and I'm sticking to it. :-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Kenneth Frazier > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 1:22 PM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] Is that so wrong? > > > bob wrote: > >> but I'd like to know >> that >> what I'm looking at represents a thing, person, time, and place that >> actually >> existed. >> Is that so wrong? > > I've noticed that many of the local photo shows I've been to recently > feature "photo"s(?) that are apparently "graphics" > images....Photoshopped, or something. One of my artist friends who > attends with me views them with puzzlement, as do I. > > No offense to any of you who prefer the "photo-graphics" approach. > > Ken Frazier > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >