<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> When we used film (remember film? It was this celluloid stuff you had to put in lots of fluids in a room lit at most with IR light. You got something called prints on something called photographic paper from them, and grandmothers loved to carry them in their wallets, esp if the shots were of the littlest members of the family), I know the big discussion tended to be did art happen in the camera or in the darkroom. Things have gotten oh, so much more complicated but oh, so much more interesting. I've long dreamed of voicing a game or film (I have this problem of having sort of a character body and a soubrette voice, plus I can't even get cast in "motherly" roles like the aunts in Arsenic and Old Lace BECAUSE DIRECTORS THINK I LOOK TOO YOUNG for the parts (I'm 58). Just not fair. Animation as its own art form is going to change and revivify the "film" industry. Karen Webb On 10/21/2012 7:58 PM, Steven Krause wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:5084A83A.4080207@mchsi.com" type="cite">As a reference point from another hobby of mine that relies on photography: A photograph is "real" if you didn't add elements to it, or you didn't remove elements from it. (cell towers are a controversy in this respect - removing them is still modification in some/many people's opinion.) A photograph is still "real" even if you're doing HDR or other techniques in this fashion, but using the elements as they were presented to the camera (flashlight, headlight, that stuff all counts as "real" on the scene.) As soon as you start "making" stars or removing significant blur traces, or adding elements from other photographs, it's no longer "real". HDR avoids that problem because it's taking the details from another photo. Earlier, someone mentioned Ansel Adam's work. He took advantage of the negatives he was using having a much higher dynamic range than the paper he was printing on, and created prints using multiple exposures of that print that contained images from that negative, but that other photographers only could dream of. If this is a mosaic technique where he did add elements from another photo, then it's in a grey area by the rules of some people. It's a created image, not a photographed image. Fake is such a harsh word when you're talking artwork. Long story short. It's entirely legitimate to dislike the particular photographic style. The definition of "real" or "created" image has only broad consensus outlines, and in this case that difference is likely to be debated. I think it's a neat photo. Steve Krause On 10/20/2012 2:13 PM, Davis, Brian L. wrote: <blockquote type="cite">Janet White wrote: <blockquote type="cite">This photo doesn't look so much fake to me as simply an HDR version... is it really 'fake' if it's the same night, same time, just different exposures combined? </blockquote> That's a really good point. What's a "real" picture? One that faithfully renders how a silver emulsion reacted to some very specific wavelengths of light? Or one that captures the three specific frequencies of light that your eye does? Or one that evokes what your brain remembers of a scene? My eye/brain combination has an amazing dynamic range... far far better than film, or digital. And a camera doesn't capture what I see in the first place (eye integration times are on the order of 0.1 seconds, while the majority of cameras capture far faster, and so can record "invisible detail" to the eye). I tend to agree with Janet - this may not be a "real" picture... but that's not actually why most pictures are taken. They are taken to capture the experience. </blockquote> </blockquote> </body> </html>