Re: [photo-3d] Re: CGI

[Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"David W. Kesner" <drdave@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> This is my one and only post on this subject of digital images 
> versus photographic images:
> 
> It is exactly the same as watercolor verus oil painting verus 
> graphite sketches.
> 
> If you are having a watercolor exhibition then oil painting 
> and graphite are not allowed. But if you are having an art 
> exhibition then all are allowed.
> 
> If you are having a stereo photographic exhibition then 
> didgital is not allowed. But if you are having a stereo image 
> exhibition then both are allowed as well as handrawn images.

I agree with everything you said, up to ...

> The line is simple - if an image is converted to digital 
> ANYWHERE in the process then it is forever a digital image.

Does this mean if a photograph is printed in a book or magazine, it is
no longer a photograph?  Because almost all photographs are printed by
first being digitally scanned.  And photographs taken with a digital
camera are not photographs?

I think the distinction is between computer *generated* imagery (ie,
imagery where individual pixel values are computed by calculating
lighting and reflections, or some other algorithsm) and *captured*
imagery, where real-world scenes are recorded with a film or digital
camera.

Of course, there's a big gray area about how much manipulation of the
image is permitted between the capture and the presentation.


-pd


-- 
--------
                             Peter Davis
               Funny stuff at http://www.pfdstudio.com
    List of resources for children's writers and illustrators at:
                  http://www.pfdstudio.com/cwrl.html