Re: [photo-3d] C.G. vs. real (was: Re: Digest Number 286)

[Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:21:56 -0500 Ron Beck <rbeck@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Well, what would you call a photograph of a computer screen?  I can 
> set
> my camera up to photograph my display and thus meet your criteria 
> that
> the image was photographed.  I can also, with the proper equipment, 
> send
> my computer generated image directly to film and then send the roll 
> in
> to have it developed and mounted/printed.


Come on now..... this is one of those tangents I really do not like. The
question was about entering CGI into photo competitions. There are many
silly "What If's" we can use, but that is not productive. Please, gang -
let's not goo off on some ridiculous arguments. T

> It's not simple and the rules seem ambiguous enough to permit this 
> in
> certain circles.  

If the competition allows it, that's a different matter. If the rules are
too ambiguous and your CGI image is accepted, that's fine too. However,
if I were running the competition, I would ask how the image was made.
What film, lens, how was the exposure made. If I were told it was
computer generated, then I would not accept it. I would be absolutely
clear on what was to be and not to be accepted before anyone entered.

> Besides, I've seen some of Boris' work and it's great!

I am not commenting on how good the work is, but if it is generated by a
computer it is not a photograph.


Bob