[Leica] Is that so wrong?

[luisripoll at telefonica.net (Luis Ripoll)]

Hi Paul,

I prefer too the traditional photography, but finally photography is the art
of - not produce - CAPTURE images, the unique art of the decisive moment. I
like of course the photographic landscapes, but we capture an already beauty
image that probably a painter could do it better.

IMO, this is my opinion

Saludos desde Barcelona
Luis
-----Mensaje original-----
De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org]En nombre de
Paul
Enviado el: sabado, 26 de febrero de 2005 22:26
Para: Leica Users Group
Asunto: Re: [Leica] Is that so wrong?

I think it's a question of definition. Photography, for me, has always
meant the action of light on chemicals to create an image. I wish
someone would come up with a word to describe the production of digital
images and then we could all know what we're talking about.

Producing an image on a computer and calling it a photograph is as
preposterous as producing an image in a camera and calling it a
drawing.

P.

*******
Paul Hardy Carter
www.paulhardycarter.com
*******

On 26 Feb 2005, at 21:41, Philippe Orlent wrote:

> Using a photographic technique to obtain what one envisions in his
> mind, is
> that so wrong?
> Does everybody see reality the same way, BTW?
> As long as an image does not mislead (morally f.i.) the viewer, there's
> nothing wrong with it, IMO.
> Or is photography a mere reproduction technique?
> And then how about deciding about under and overexposure, DOF, printing
> techinques etc? Doesn't that influence "what I'm looking at represents
> a
> thing, person, time, and place that actually existed", too.
>
> This is one of the most interesting discussions possible about
> photography
> ATM.

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information