Pathetic is being a buffoon on a website. If you're that insecure about your photographs that you need to demean the way others make their photographs, maybe you should just sleep with your Hasselblads.
Pathetic is being a buffoon on a website. If you're that insecure about your photographs that you need to demean the way others make their photographs, maybe you should just sleep with your Hasselblads.No lying nails it quite nicely. Just do not call masturbation photography. How pathetic.
Pathetic is being a buffoon on a website. If you're that insecure about your photographs that you need to demean the way others make their photographs, maybe you should just sleep with your Hasselblads.
No, you were ok before - photon is correct.
Pathetic is being a buffoon on a website. If you're that insecure about your photographs that you need to demean the way others make their photographs, maybe you should just sleep with your Hasselblads.
Those should be used in a thread about whether something in a newspaper constitutes news.I know, that is why I uploaded front pages of the weekly world news
I wonder whether you would have corrected people back in the days when a lot of people referred to all cameras as "Kodaks".There is never a reason for using one method as the name for another.
I wonder whether you would have corrected people back in the days when a lot of people referred to all cameras as "Kodaks".
Do you consider cinematographers as photographers? Does it anger you when others consider them together?
Calling cameras Kodaks was common speech; calling cutting objects out and pasting in other objects to change the meaning of the presentation is not photography. One should invent a label for their work style, but it is not photography.
No, you were ok before - photon is correct.
Calling cameras Kodaks was common speech; calling cutting objects out and pasting in other objects to change the meaning of the presentation is not photography. One should invent a label for their work style, but it is not photography.
are these images photographs ?
https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/lincoln-calhoun-composite/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fading-Away
and if not why not ?
Arguments never ends...The particle/wave argument never ends...
I didn't lie.Poor eddie got his knickers all knotted up because he got caught in a lie with his widdle pants down. When you grow up, hopefully you will not need to weasle word.
Thanks. I've had a lot of fun doing them.The cityscapes were my favourites.
Interesting and historical early graphic art's composites using photographic negatives as component materials ("graphic arts"). When it occurred does not change its nature. Just because the final product is a silver emulsion print does not make the work a photograph.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/horror-slide-duplication-and-enhancement-techniques.182216/
When AA had the giant LP spotted out of his Winter Sunrise prints, how is that different than using a healing or cloning function in Photoshop?
its no different other than a modern computer wasn't involved. its hypocrisy as far as I can tell because the whole idea of making photographs or taking photographs or whatever terminology is that describes the act of doing whatever it is the person is doing involves manipulation from start to finish. back in the 1800s when people were head swapping, people swapping making composites, it was part of the photographic trade, it was photography .. and like today it ruffled some feathers. I can understand why,, the whole purity thing but
the well was never pure .. .. I like making photographic images too much to draw a line in the sand anywhere
Interesting stuff! I didn’t know there actually were standards. I know there are in photojournalist works, and over the last decade photographers got in trouble for changing elementsOk, that is fair enough. There is common language and there are more specific descriptions using some types of standards. Without some standards, we can never pass on to others what something is and how it was created.
You are correct in the sense for instance of a portrait photographer. If he wants to get paid, often he will need to soften the image, or spot out zits and other natural features that the subject does not want portrayed. A photograph that was retouched is refereed to in the trade as a "retouched" photograph (or a print made from a retouched negative in most cases). The fact it was retouched is not hidden in the statement that the result is a silver emulsion Or color) print, at least among photographers. The teenage girl who loves her portrait may not be told that zits were spotted out (or she might- her dad will when he receives the bill). referring to any silver emulsion (or ink jet) print as a photograph, is somewhat just common language. And that is really not a big issue. A bigger issue is what we refer to as "photography) vs. Graphic arts. The standards are not perfect. We generally accept a zitless portrait as a photograph, even though it was manipulated, but to be precise we should specify it was produced from a retouched or spotted negative. We may even connote the resulting field as "commercial" photography, in some senses indicating that that other standards are at play then perhaps artistic photography.
These types of quandaries are part of the reason I proposed photographic standards a couple of years ago. It removes the value judgement, and just creates accepted standards about what to call things so everyone can know, and if they want, they can apply their own subjective/value criteria.
Discuss points, do NOT engage in PERSONAL ATTACKSI didn't lie.
You're just a pompous, ignorant ass.
Do you really take photos, are do you just fondle your Hassy like Gollum saying, "My precious"?
When you're attacked respond how you wish. I choose to respond accordingly.Discuss points, do NOT engage in PERSONAL ATTACKS
You might want to suggest the same thing to mr glassDiscuss points, do NOT engage in PERSONAL ATTACKS
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?