Re: Is photography dead?
- From: Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:42:07 -0800
Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:efqdnUGryOK2aCjanZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:xuadncIgj6Yz7inanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AxisOfBeagles wrote:
The initial premise of this claim in invalid. Photography was never "tethered to realism". Only in the minds of those who knew nothing of the art. Dodging & burning, filters, overlays, ... numerous techniques of the craft to make a photograph more than 'reality'.
Yes, digital photography has expoded those techniques into a brave new world of manipulations avaiable to the photographer. But that certainly does not suggest that photography is dead. Quite the opposite.
Sesamy Street syndrome.
God, that sounds awful. I hope it's not contagious...
Horrifyingly, its reached the pandemic stage.
Is there a cure?
To late, those who might have been healthy enough in the past to look for a cure are no more, they too are infected and infecting others.
.
- References:
- Re: Is photography dead?
- From: Roy Jose Lorr
- Re: Is photography dead?
- From: Dudley Hanks
- Re: Is photography dead?
- From: Roy Jose Lorr
- Re: Is photography dead?
- From: Dudley Hanks
- Re: Is photography dead?
- Prev by Date: Re: Teleconverter/ Macro Lens
- Next by Date: Re: Another casualty on the digital highway
- Previous by thread: Re: Is photography dead?
- Next by thread: Black and White, again...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|