Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Would you also say that movies with extensive CG effects are something other than a movie?
Does a movie have to be shot as a dry documentary with no effect to be a real "movie"?
|
If it were a documentary, then no, I wouldn't like it if it used CG to "enhance" reality. Any more than I like photojournalism shots to include elements that weren't really there.
I don't understand why people get so upset at those (including, sometimes, me), who like a photograph that claims to be real to actually be real.
The OP has stated repeatedly that he still likes it as a piece of art. Me too, actually. |
I just question the notion that some people seem to have that a "real" photograph must be from one exposure and that anything that deviates from that is something else, but not photography. It's inane.
I never saw anything in the original link that indicated that the image was "real" (whatever that means).
What about documentaries that use re-creations?
What is it that makes a photograph "real"? By it's very nature, the only reality in a photograph is that it exists. The image in the photograph is not some piece of the real subject. All photographs are fakes and lies, it's the nature of the medium.
Message edited by author 2007-10-27 20:50:23. |
