Re: copy-right infringement, panoramic etc

[Randy Vaughn-Dotta <randyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy,

I agree that no concensus will probably ever happen on the definition of
panoramic photography amongst photographers.
And no I don't want to start that discussion.  I just didn't like the
reference of "fake" panorama to my pictures or camera.

Randy



>Randy Vaughn-Dotta  wrote:
>>
>> Never underestimate the enjoyment others get for righteous cynicism.
>> Imagine my reaction, as a Fuji 6x17 user, to this advertisers comments
>> about how Fuji 6x17 images are "fake" panoramas!!!  Definately ask the
>> webmaster to suspend his page untill this is cleared-up.
>>
>Ouch! That would be forever, because no concensus will ever happen.
>However, just to fuel the argument, (purely non-vitriolically)
>Webster's (on the Web) defines panoramic as a view of all directions
>from a central location and a panoramic camera as one in which both
>the lens and film move. I shoot almost exclusively longer thin
>negatives, but prefer do not consider them panoramic. Does merely
>cropping off the top and bottom of the frame make it panoramic? Why?
>
>Andy
>
>Andy
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
         Randy Vaughn-Dotta, Photographer
               Academic Innovation Center
                      Telephone, 278-4656
                          E-Mail,  randyd
         randy_vaughn-dotta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++