Dag T wrote:
I agree, totally.
At the danger of boring everybody I can refer to my unmanipulated portfolio on Photo.net:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=366144
None of them are manipulated according to photo.net rules: http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation
I have had people claiming that I must be lying, but reality i strange enough...
DagT
På 4. mar. 2004 kl. 21.29 skrev Christian:
His first statement:
"Hockney told the Guardian newspaper that photographs can be so easily altered these days that they can no longer be seen as factual or true."
is crap!
I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: ALL PHOTOGRAPHS ARE MANIPULATED.
It happens before the shutter is tripped with the selection of film, focal
length, etc.
You are seeing what the photographer wants you to see and in the way he/she
wants you to see it.
No photograph can be seen as "factual or true" not even snap shots taken by
grandma.
Christian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 2:13 PM Subject: Hockney on photography
Hi,
on my home from work tonight I listened to an interview with David Hockney about the trustworthiness of photography. Here is an article about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3532483.stm
I agree with him about art photography, but, like Russell Roberts, I thought his arguments about factual photography were rather simplistic. Still, it's interesting to hear him, nevertheless.
-- Cheers, Bob
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
