From: Jon (fotonerd@yahoo.com)
Date: 12/20/02-08:51:10 PM Z
I would dare to say that some things need to be clarified.
Just like making the mistake of considering that a photograph that has a
person in it should always considered a portrait, a similar mistake seems
to be made that just because a photograph has elements of a landscape
makes it a 'landscape photo'.
There are too many people trying to include too much under the title
'landscape photograph'.
Yes a landscape can be shot with a telephoto but it is probably more rare.
That doesn't mean that it can't be done.
The second point is that photography is a process. Some of the arguements
made on this thread seem to be like saying that if I make an oil painting
that looks VERY realistic, having photo qualities, that it IS NOT an oil
painting.
But to agree with using the term 'anti-photographic' I would choose to
argue that subject matter does not take an image into this realm. I would
consider this to only occur if there are specific things that take the
photograph away from the photographic process. Such as making hand coated
emulsions makes the process more painterly. Or to collage a photograph, or
a print on watercolor paper, etc....
It will take a lot of convincing for me to accept the fact that subject
matter will take an image in the realm of 'anti-photographic'
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST