[photo-3d] computer generated cheating

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

A day or two ago I wrote, regarding some of my computer generated (CG) PSA
stereo exhibition entries:

>>>...suffice it to say that I have always ignored this stipulation. I ignore
>>>the rule because it is theoretically unenforceable.  Some types of imagery
>>>can be digitally created now that is nearly impossible to tell from "real"
>>>photography.<<

And then just a few minutes ago, I wrote again that I would (should have
written "might" as I have not made my selections yet) send CG image(s) to
Cascade, contrary to their apparent eligibility requirements.  (note: I am
not entering Cascade EDI section).

You know how people get carried away on the net, and often say things in
haste without proper consideration.  Well, I think that has happened to me
here in the last two days.  I hope you will give me the chance to clarify
my intentions.

Thanks to a very strongly worded communication from a friend (and I hope
they will remain a friend), I have been made aware that the tone of my
comments was rather combative and disrespectful of exhibition rules - and
has set a bad example.

The impression is given that I willfully cheat when making a CG image
submission to an exhibition that does not permit them. If that is the case,
I am sorry.  I wish to apologize.  That is not the impression I wanted to
give, nor is it my intent to cheat.  Actually, I intend simply to bring my
best images to the exhibitions.

If I were to cheat in this manner, then I would want to submit views that,
though computer generated, did not appear so.  But contrary to my recent
musing that soon CG images may be indistiguishable from real photography,
the CG images that I have submitted to the various Salons are _very
obviously_ computer generated - unless you wish to believe I have
master-key access to starships!

I would dearly love to adhere to the exhibition standards (non-standard
such as they often are) for all PSA exhibitions, even with my CG images.
The trouble is trying to figure out if and when and whether an image I
would like to submit is eligible.

My first ever exhibition entry went to Potomac in 1997, and their
requirements said nothing about how the image should have been aquired or
created, although the assumption appeared to be that only photographic
images would be submitted.  Without further guidance, I sent Atlas
Industrial Robot, which is about 95% computer generated.  This won Best
Creative there.  I hope I didn't fool those judges into thinking mine was a
real photograph!

A year later I was invited to sit as a member of the jury for that same
exhibition.  I saw one or two mostly computer-illustrated views that year,
as well as one that appeared to be hand drawn.

As a result of this and subsequent experiences, I have gotten into a habit
of sending my computer views to exhibitions, simply because I thought they
were generally acceptable to PSA sanctioned exhibitions.  All of the PSA
exhibitions have the same eligibility requirements, right?  (Maybe not!)

Even when I saw a more restrictive eligibility requirement, it often struck
me as vague enough to permit my CG images.  But in truth, I have not been
looking at the requirements that much lately - in fact have not even had
entry forms for some of the exhibitions that I entered this year (I guess
I've been de-listed!).

Only recently did I notice an explicit requirement for an image to have a
true photographic source (digital cameras permitted).  I noticed it with
Cascade, and perhaps one or two other exhibitions - I can't recall which
ones.  But in these cases I wonder what is the spirit of the rule?  Is the
_intent_ really to exclude computer generated views?  Given my (albeit
limited) experience with PSA stereo exhibitions, I just can't believe that
that is the intent.  I would be disappointed, if I learned this were true,
but then I would adhere to the rule.  I've just never seen the evidence
(until now), that the intent of such a rule is to exclude computer
generated views.

Even Dave Kesner, in plugging the Cascade EDI section (entries submitted,
judged, and exhibited via the internet) to Tom Deering, appears to think
that CG views are okay - unless he has misunderstood Tom's rhetorical
question to Bob Maxey, "name one competition for computer generated stereo
views."

Since I am doing mostly photography these days, maybe I shouldn't worry
about it so much... but I do feel that this is an important issue for which
we need a clear policy in the PSA stereo exhibitions.  Herewith I will
re-state my hope, that until a separate category is started for CG work, it
continue to be allowed into exhibitions of _stereo images_.

Thank you,

Boris


- Not content with ignorance of the past,
- humanity seeks the counsel of oracles.
-
-                                     J.P.V.D.Balsdon, _Romans & Aliens_

Boris Starosta, manager               boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Dynamic Symmetry, LLC                 http://www.starosta.com
usa - 804 979 3930                    http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase