P3D Re: Computer Graphics, artistry and photography

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:28:15 -0700
>From: "H a r o l d   B a i z e" <baize@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Computer Graphics, artistry and photography

>Response to some comments on computer graphics and using other's
>work...

>...Ray Zone wrote

>>Is the (stereo)photographer to take greater credit
>>for the beauty of that which they have trapped because they have
>>efficiently trapped it in light by pushing a shutter button?  How does that
>>take artistic precedent over a 3-D conversion?  Both art forms are taking
>>that which pre-existed the cameraman or 3-D artist and utilize a form of
>>(secondary) refashioning for a binocular display.

>Good point Ray. Sometimes good photography is just luck, but that is
>rarely the case with computer graphics. Let me clarify though, I was
>talking about the case of someone rendering a computer graphics file
>that someone else created and merely shifting the virtual camera.

Even this restricted topic has some interesting points to consider. For
example, suppose somebody creates a "virtual Manhattan", with great care
to accuracy of depiction, and I find some point of view that makes a
particularly striking picture, but which neither the creator of the
digital file nor the architects of the city envisioned? I believe it
would be appropriate for the creator of the image to give credit to the
creator of the virtual city and possibly to the creators of the physical
city, but wouldn't the new image be considered in some respects an
original creation?

If not, what if I use the virtual city to find the point of view, then travel
to the corresponding spot in the physical city and take a conventional
photograph? I might never have found that spot without the use of the
virtual city, but how much credit needs to be attributed?

John R


------------------------------