From: Jon (fotonerd@yahoo.com)
Date: 12/20/02-09:00:13 PM Z
But this seems to say that photographic is realistic or represents
accurately that which is photographed. And the arguement seems to say that
once the image becomes distorted it is 'anti-photographic'.
This is naive. Does anybody on this list feel that photography in no way
distorts reality?
Or maybe it should be asked just how much distortion has to occur before
an image is no longer photographic.
And why are we not making the same arguements for wide angle? That seems
to be 'accepted' in the landscape field and nobody would argue its
validity(or nobody has yet).
photographic = process (it does not rely on subject or interpretation of
subject)
I could have a blank piece of paper that never touched a camera but was
exposed to light and can consider it '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