"Roy Jose Lorr" <kenthz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:us6dnb177Y-hYXfanZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Peter wrote:
>
>> "Roy Jose Lorr" <kenthz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:GZ6dnc2ibOv0kHTanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> Joel wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> And it could be hundred(s) of millions of dollars, I can't remember.
I
>>>> don't remember seeing the camera (?) to know how big it was, but an
>>>> article
>>>> and few samples. I believe it was film camera, but I may be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is not with the technology but in the way approach has
>>> deteriorated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you complaining that once we're free of the tyranny of the expense
of
>> film, some of us are becoming more experimental in our work?
>
> No. I'm saying that gimmick has replaced experiment.
OK, that's a fair comment. I suspect that since the first cave drawings
appeared, some no talents have tried to replace art with "gee whiz"
special
effects. Simply because some do this, is no reason to try to socially ban
all such attempts.
As a prior poster pointed out, photography is often thought of strictly as
a
medium for recording a snapshot in time. According to this line, any
manipulation is heresy. Whether and to what extent I accept manipulation
depends upon the purpose for creating the image.
Similarly there is a vast difference between a "I've been there" postcard
and an artistic interpretation. If the latter includes a manipulation, so
be it.
--
Peter
|
