William,
I'll need some time to get a resource. There was, several years ago, a
centennial of something (photography, Brady, wars, etc.), and there was an
article in a history magazine that detailed the process where Brady arranged
scenes to suit. After all, this wasn't WWII, photos took time to take. I'll
try to get some time next week to look some more, but I remember that the
gist of the article was that quite a few people knew at the time, soldiers,
assistants, etc.
I'll repeat again. While the process may have mechanical intervention, the
simple act of composition can influence the viewer's impression. From the
simplest thing, like making someone look fatter/thinner or making someone
look like a part of a public group when they are not, to more complex issues
of lighting and more complex composition, the camera has lied almost from
birth.
As to the art/not art discussion, I think that the fact that a person with a
good eye can take a fine, artistic photo easily, without the years of
traning of a fine painter, is more the basis of the non-photographer's
complaint. The complaint that photos are not art are equally valid as the
thought that only an oil painting is worth collecting.
Bill Pearce
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|