Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] B. D. PAW
From: jgovindaraj at eth.net (Jayanand Govindaraj)
Date: Sat Mar 26 09:06:18 2005
References: <01d401c531fe$72db5c40$6501a8c0@ccapr.com>

Touche? Is it?
Cheers
Jayanand
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 5:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] B. D. PAW


> Of course we can, Jayanand -  I've stated repeatedly in this discussion
> that I think that combining photographs, or elements of photographs, is
> a perfectly valid art form - I've said repeatedly that the standards for
> photojournalism and art photography are different. What I guess you
> can't deal with is my saying that combining elements of multiple
> photographs does not produce a photograph - it produces a photomontage,
> or a photocollage, or anything you care to call it other than
> "photograph."
> 
> Looks to me like your reading of posts may be too narrow and limiting.
> ;-)
> 
> B. D.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> Jayanand Govindaraj
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 9:40 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] B. D. PAW
> 
> 
> B.D & Ted,
> Cant you look beyond photojournalism and agree that other visions exist.
> 
> What you say reminds me of the Paris salons of the 19th century, where 
> pundits used to declare that Ingres was painting, but Manet was
> not...Looks 
> to me that your view is too narrow and limiting.
> Cheers
> Jayanand Govindaraj
> Chennai, India
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 12:06 AM
> Subject: RE: [Leica] B. D. PAW
> 
> 
>> Not at all, Jorg - You are using Photoshop to make the same kind of 
>> essential adjustments with a computer that have traditionally been 
>> made in the darkroom. And as to those who asked about double exposure 
>> - I'd say sure that's photography...HOWEVER...If it's done in a 
>> photojournalism context, it should be labeled a double exposure.
>>
>> Obviously we can come up with endless lists of 'what is thises?' and 
>> 'what is thatses?' The real question, however, is probably 'to be 
>> called a "photograph," does the end product have to -at a minimum - 
>> contain only what was captured in the original negative or in the 
>> original electronic capture?' - and I would say "Yes." That allows 
>> lots of room for work in the darkroom...and I would of course not 
>> quibble with Sonny over whether someone adds their signature in the 
>> darkroom or not. Damn, Sonny, got some ground glass in your grits this
> 
>> morning or what? :-)
>>
>> B. D.
>>
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] B. D. PAW)
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] B. D. PAW)