freewolf

<p>I knew I should have done more research before jumping into this $2000 hobby startup of mine... Who knew cameras could be so cheap!</p>

<p>Excellent photos here, thanks for sharing, Linda...</p>

<p>Robert, I really haven't been trying to win, just to converse. Do well!</p>

<p>Howdy David... Hey, if this ain't enough for you, there's another one going on close by! Come check it out... Loads of fun, guaranteed.</p>

<p>Fred, it may not even be necessary to distinguish what is or is not photography. I don't necessarily think so, actually. Knowing that the field we refer to as photography does encompass, among all other things, a portion or division (whatever) that MUST for all intents and purposes be of a "photorealistic" nature, however, puts these definitions in the lexicon of photography itself. It may almost to amount to discrimination AGAINST those whose specialty relies on the use and understanding of such definitions when we insist that their argument is pointless and the words don't really mean what they think. Maybe, too, it would help if we determine whether our discussion deals with the language of the technical production of photographs or the language of the creation of art (or how much of each). The important thing here is communication, not unfair or provocative discrimination. The less we (as a group) talk past each other, the more enlightened any of us are likely to become.</p>

<p>(PS... Fred, are you sure we haven't crossed over from another thread...? Heck, let the mod sort it out!)</p>

<p>Hi Fred -- it's been quite a while since I've read Wittgenstein, so I guess this is as good a time as any to brush up! Thanks, and I understand your points well. Please refer to the second paragraph of my last post as to why I think that, in the case of photography (since it IS the underlying topic here), there is value in and (at least in some very important venues) huge importance in clear definition. I agree with you in the general sense that evolution of terms and their definitions is inevitable and largely constructive. However, replacing any definition with, or morphing it into, an abstract construct that is totally open to individual, subjective interpretation is useless in terms of meaningful communication. It's a balancing act between two powerful forces, neither of which alone will provide any real answers.</p>

<p>A post-post script (please to forgive!)...</p>

<p>Any artist who took Intro to the Arts 101 has been made aware that the appeal of surrealism, fantasy illustration, etc., is based in illusion, paradox, perceptual experimentation, and/or fancy, AND its often unexpected variance from visual reality or physical possibility. That is not a value judgment, it's an observation. I'm a big Escher fan, and I see no need to quit liking him simply because my own creative tastes aren't always guided by visual play and bending the "rules". Likewise, I see no threat to my enjoyment of his work in the fact that he has not portrayed things photorealistically. The appeal is in that there is a difference between the two, and our enjoyment is in the discrimination of that difference.</p>

<p>Photography importantly encompasses endeavors both purely artistic and purely documentary, so distinctions are extremely important -- not to box anybody in or discriminate AGAINST, but to distinguish the intent of the maker of the work. If this were not a significant issue, courts of law and news publishers would see no need to make such distinctions. In this sense, it's important to discriminate BETWEEN to two processes. If one discriminates AGAINST one or the other, it's either an issue of personal taste (when viewing) or downright ignorance (when setting policy).</p>

<p>A postscript brought to mind by Daniel (thank you)...</p>

<p>Is it possible that a much larger "battle" is being waged here between those who view reality as subjective and all meaning as relativistic and those who view reality as... well, real? And further, aren't the subjectivists just as guilty of boxing everything up into neat little "objective" categories of their own when accusing their questioners of being wrong? If so, this battle has been waged for millenia without resolve and is fruitless here. I submit that there's plenty of playground between the two views for us all to have fun.</p>

<p>Craig, you've missed my point entirely, and I think the answer to why may lie in what Fred said just previously. Nobody needs to be saved from PS -- it is an important tool and I use it too. I'll ask this question of Fred, just to clarify: why must we assume that making distinctions must always be with the intention of inflicting some kind of harm? My mother taught me very early in life to be able to discriminate between hot and cold burners on a stove -- it would have been patently silly for her to extend that to mean that there should be no hot burners, or I'd have spent my life eating cold cereal or raw chicken and dumplin's. There is no doubt that discrimination as a general act has been used in specific circumstances to produce bad results. The same holds true for photography and photoshopping as well. But I for one, and most more level-headed folks in general agreement with me, will not ever label them as bad things. My mother's stove was a good one, very much so, and especially when the burner was hot and the dumplin's were fluffing up on the bubbly broth.</p>

<p>It's unfortunate that so many people have been led to believe that discrimination leads inherently to subjugation and is therefor always wrong. And the fact is, the act of discrimination is one of the primary mechanisms of assuring survival of any species with sense organs and even only a rudimentary "fight or flight" response capability. The political use of the word has bastardized it, and I feel the same is occurring here at some level with the words "photography" and "manipulation". Further, this misunderstanding (based on blurry definitions or outright misuse of words) has engendered a needless and (mostly) unwarranted sense of paranoia and potential persecution that is way out of proportion to the issues being discussed here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Kevin, as a self-confessed newcomer to photography, you seem awfully obsessed with defining and confining it. Do you do this with your other pursuits (music and fishing, listed on you bio)? I would think someone with a background in other creative arts and enjoyable hobbies would better comprehend the futility of trying to put everything into neat boxes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, let's get it straight first... I am not doing the defining -- the fine folks at Oxford/Webster's/<em>et al</em> have already done that for us. Nor is my interest in confining. It is in differentiating in order to use the tools at hand appropriately as I see fit in my endeavors. I'd rather swing a 24 oz. hammer with a handle constructed of wood than one constructed of gum rubber, that's all. And since other much more knowledgeable folks have already given us the "neat boxes" of definition, I can and will do with these neat boxes what I deem important in my expression, even stepping outside them. But no matter how I far outside them we choose to step, the neat boxes still serve as a structural framework within which us language-delimited beings can describe and converse about what we do.</p>

<p>Feargal, while you and I apparently agree on much of this issue, and while I'm as distressed as you are that nitpicking and deflection have been used to introduce trajectories I find unproductive, I'll have to agree that the name-calling is no more productive. I respect your input and appreciate your moral support in the argument, and in a barroom conversation on the subject I may even use the word "idiot" a few times, but as OP I'd request that you tone it down. It does no more to further the discussion than invective from the "other side" (I for one would like to maintain that we ARE all photographers here, whether or not we agree on terminology or technique).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What is your definition of blues music? Does that definition encompass the work of all the great artists who have sung and played the blues? Do you think those artists needed to know and agree to such a definition in order to develop into great artists?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, thanks for continuing the conversation and posing another more personal angle on the subject. I don't know if you're psychic, or if you deduced from my residence in Mississippi, but I am a huge blues fan. I enjoy any form of blues -- Delta blues, slide-guitar blues, electric blues, basic 12-bar blues, blues/rock, andonandon -- immensely. I feel no need to define the blues, as Alan Lomax (and many others musicologists much more qualified than myself) have done an admirable job of doing so already. Without a dissertation on this thread of what comprises "blues music", some very quick and basic research will inform you that there are a number and variety of very specific musical characteristics involved. Inasmuch as the likes of Clapton, Led Zeppelin, SRV, or any other blues-influenced artists are concerned, some have played quite a lot of "straight" blues, and none has to my knowledge taken offense when their other music was described as blues-influenced. One excellent illustration of hybridization of the blues can be found in a recent collaberation between R. L. Burnside and Kid Rock, both of whom are very happy to call it a hybridization, not "the blues". Indeed, it is my experience with music that causes me such amazement when I see the vehement responses from photo-illustrators when their work is referred to as somehow not "straight" photography. It really blows my mind, and SEEMS to be an unnecessary overcompensation for perceived slights that largely, for me, aren't intended.<br>

You do, however, raise an excellent point in your last question. The definition of "the blues" was not necessarily derived from those musical pioneers who actually created the form, but was largely (at least in an academic sense) derived from observation by musicologists of the characteristics of the music that they made. And as the music changes, so may the definitions. By and large, though, folks such as Eric Clapton have been happy and proud to say that their non-"straight" blues music is blues-<strong>influenced</strong>, and are actually very concerned about preserving the original form as an almost sacred icon. I don't see this attitude much in these discussions about photography, and I'm really at a loss to explain why.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> There will be no firm answer to the debate. No winners. If we're lucky, some food for thought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />MaryBall... There is no need for a firm answer, but if, as I hope, there has been food for thought, it's possible we could all come out winners. I really only would like to be able to participate in less vitriolic discussions about the topic. As Robert has just said, understanding each other is my point. However, unlike Robert, I think it's a futile discussion if we can all assign our own meanings to the words...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>we need to try to understand the meaning behind each others' words rather than to quibble over definitions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert... I'm a bit confused as to your point here. What is the definition of "meaning" as you are using it? Likewise, what is the meaning of "definition"... We don't have to quibble. Rather than spend so much time trying to figure out what the other guy means when using a common word or phrase, why don't we just use them as defined and have a great discussion. The root of this seems still to be that offense is taken, whether intended or not, when one uses a word by its given definition and another doesn't like that definition and so makes up his own. I recommend that if you don't like the definitions, petition the lexicographers and linguists to have them changed. If not, why not live comfortably with the terms that DO describe what one is doing? </p>

<p>Is there something holy about being a photographer, or something evil about being a photo-illustrator, that I don't know about? I'm really scratching my head over this one. Perhaps it's because the amount of invective that "straight" photographers have heaped on crummy photo-illustrators has caused a sense of "guilt by association" prejudice perceived by even the better photo-illustrators. But if that's the case, there have been enough crummy photographers to make ANYBODY shy away from that label!</p>

<p>Lex, in referring to "the hybrid use of photography and fabricated art", what distinction are you making between the two? Your implication seems to be that it is no longer "pure" photography -- it's been hybridized with something altogether different. I spent fifteen years raising, breeding, and having as companions wolf-malamute "hybrid" dogs. Not once did I even consider calling them wolves (even the ones above 90% genetic hybrid), nor did I feel offended when others would not call them wolves. A wolf is a canid and a malamute is a canid, as photography and digital illustration are both visual arts. However, clearly they are not one and the same. The fact that a photographer used a photograph in the creation of a digital illustration does not make him less a photographer, but it does make his creation something other than a photograph. Unfortunately, much (QUALIFIER --> but certainly NOT all) such creations end up looking like a wolf crossed with, say, a Yorkshire terrier. The worst end up looking like a wolf crossed with an iguana.</p>

<p>As an anthropologist and musician, I am acutely (if sometimes painfully) aware of "memes and ... hip-hop culture". And as an anthropologist, I have no problem identifying many aspects of culture and the trends therein that I find disturbing. When we become a culture that glorifies crap, we become a crap culture. I'm not convinced, as the Madison Avenue shucksters would have us believe, that deviating from cultural norms is inherently always positive or that great eye-candy packaging itself is worth the price of buying the enclosed garbage. Does it make me an unhip old fogey? Perhaps in some eyes it does... so be it. Sadly, I see an undereducated and easily-manipulated population growing in size, willing to fall for just about anything as long as it looks flashy and has lots of tinkly bells and tin whistles. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book used in the subjugation of populations, and I for one see this argument in photography as but one small symptom of a much larger issue. The argument is not that surrealism, fantasy, illusion, and such are "wrong" or "bad" in and of themselves... it is that to intentionally confuse them with authenticity and honesty is not only dead wrong, it is dangerous. I suspect that, at the root of it all, this is why those individuals and organizations cited by Daniel feel as they do.</p>

<p>Bernie, if this were a forum for art patrons you'd possibly have a valid point. As it is a forum for photographers, particularly with the stated ambition of being the best peer-to-peer educational site for photographers, your point loses its steam. Obviously, many of us care about the points raised by Patrick, Allan, myself, <em>et al</em>. To some of us, photography is much more a personal experience and is enhanced by the discipline to which Allan refers. Not all of us think in terms of what "art patrons" are concerned about... on the other hand, I don't know too many "art patrons" who are much interested in skydiving kittens.</p>

<p>Of course there is more to photography than adjusting camera settings, lens selection, finding that perfect vantage point, capturing that perfect light, etc. etc., and image manipulation will to some degree always be a part of producing the final result. But no amount of photoshopping can replace the discipline involved in trying to get the best capture in-camera as a starting point.</p>

<p>You so tazy, Alfalfa...</p>

<p>Am I late for the Photographer's Anonymous meeting? Where're the donuts & coffee?</p>

<p>God, I need a cigarette...</p>

<p>Daniel... What you say has merit, as we are revealing (presumably) who we are to strangers in an otherwise pretty anonymous venue and in a fairly limiting medium. I'm sure others feel that their "very being", as you say, is being exposed or questioned or challenged as well, so discomfort on all sides may be expected. However, I hope it's been clear that I'm not challenging anybody's creative ethic or enterprise (although I know some are, also on all sides). Sincere dialog may be a bit difficult with a keyboard and a screen, but I find it worth the effort.</p>

<p>Luca... very good observations all, and thanks. I would only add (from my own experience, and I expect very common to most of us), that like extreme photoshopping, simply using a camera is easy to do poorly! I'm not from as far away as 51 Pegasi, but I'm an alien to serious photography, enough so that I find these definitions useful in learning the craft. And while it seems to me that the essence of photography <strong>begins</strong> (but certainly doesn't end) with mastery of the camera, then differentiating the processes, however arbitrary it may be, allows me (as the beginner) to emphasize the camera and its capabilities and limitations first and foremost. The rest will come in its time. The definitions assist in this process... I don't intend any more than the PS afficionado to let them limit me. I'll let my own aesthetic judgment do that. Again, thank you for responding.</p>

<p>Luca, I appreciate your response, but I'm left once again to reminding you that the definitions I chose are not "mine" -- they are those put forth (not verbatim, but in essence) by every major dictionary of the English language that I checked. I would hesitate to say the OED puts forth definitions that are unfit for use in discussing this topic -- they do the research, and it is not limited to lexicographers and linguists. </p>

<p>I also understand and appreciate your comments re:"what a human being is/is not" (although I think this is a bit of an apples/oranges argument). While I understand completely that the boundaries engendered by definitions can and should be constructively stretched (I'm a musician -- name another field that has stretched boundaries any further), such stretching alone does not alter the definitions as they are now. What changes them (besides brute force, I suppose) is consensus. Until the consensus indicates otherwise, the definitions I have are the ones in place at this moment. Again, I see this as the only way to avoid degeneration of the conversation into a meaningless shouting match.</p>

<p>PS -- No forgiveness given, but only because none is necessary. I thank you for constructively engaging in this dialog!</p>

<p>Jennifer... I won't respond further to people who neglect salient portions of the dialog. See the definition I copied, or any other (for that matter), for the word "photomanipulation". The camera may see the rock in the foreground of an image "differently" than my eye does, but the rock is still there, and it is still a rock. The grass may a bit more or less green (my camera may only see it in B/W), but it is still grass. None of the "my eye saw a different photon than the camera sensor did" quibbling is helpful, as it is irrelevent to the definitions cited, which have yet, by the way, to be replaced by ones more palatable to those who wish to make up their own.</p>

<p>Lynn, you're right... It's very tiresome being told by those who know better than I what the ONLY reason for this, that, or the other is. Some people make photographs, and some people like to know a bit more and dig a bit deeper into what they're doing and why, beyond the manipulation of whatever machine(s) they use. And, every one of us is quite free to forgo participation in discussions we find tiresome.</p>

<p>Daniel, again thanks... I surely hope that the attitudes we confront in these forums is not representative of photographers as a whole. I'm rather surprised, to be honest... I really thought this was a site devoted to education and development of photographers and not just another collection of internet squabblers. I do appreciate knowing that I'm not the only one who is at least a bit disappointed by these little turf wars.</p>

<p>Mike, if you haven't noticed, I am attempting to engage constructively with YOU (among others who don't "agree with me" or with definitions provided by, but not developed by, me). It also remains that a large number of people who share my present view (see note below) have also spent decades doing as you have said. Hell, I haven't even gotten as far as taking a summer course... I'm not trying to be authoritative here, I'm trying to learn. Unfortunately for your "cause", most of the cogent and thoughtful arguments I've found are not coming from those who take offense at a neophyte's questions and comments, and thus I'm inclined to take your cause, experience, thoughts, and opinions much less seriously. This may be important, because more thoughtful and less judgmental responses just might "open" one's eyes.</p>

<p>(Note: my present view is NOT that there is anything wrong with any form of post-processing, as some would try to skew the argument... it is that there is a distinction between a relatively faithful capture of a real scene and an image that has been manipulated to distort, however artistically and deftly, the content of the scene captured, and that this distinction is an important one both for art and for documentation. It's really not that complicated an issue all in all.)</p>

<p>Hansen, please understand that some of us are not necessarily complaining (although I admit I have, in moments of exasperation) -- we're simply looking for clarification or understanding as to what photography and its processes and products mean to us. I think Matt has come very close to one good answer to your question. In a sense it applies very well to me, and I suspect to a few others...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...the only people really obsessing about it are the ones who are, themselves, in a period of intense learning or self-examination on the subject, and they are paying more attention to the tools and the process than they are on the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matt, I'm not so sure that I'd agree that these are the ONLY people "obsessing". In my case, being new to photography (but not new at all to the arts in general), it is important to me to clarify such issues in determining how I express my own creativity in this medium. Certainly I'm interested in the results -- greater understanding of the various tools can only help me achieve better results (both wielding a camera and poring over a keyboard). Thank you for providing a context for those who've been doing this for so long that they've perhaps forgotten what it's like to be at the "bottom rung" of the learning ladder.<br>

However, I've seen plenty of comments from VERY experienced photographers in related threads that indicate that this question weighs heavy in their minds as well, whose results do not indicate undue obsession with the tools and process. To some, this subject is much more than a semantic game, it carries philosophical and aesthetic import as well. I simply add this as a proposed <em>caveat</em> to your general (yet perceptive) observation. FWIW, yours are among the few contributions that keep me coming back to these threads, as they are usually very well-considered and largely non-judgmental, and for me they do tend to help clarify. (No offense to others of like nature -- Matt's is just one voice that has stood out in my mind).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...it's absurd to have a discussion about the meanings of certain terms if people have to agree on the meanings of those terms before the discussion even begins...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, it was (past tense) a discussion about the <strong>implications</strong> of certain terms given meanings assigned to those words by language experts (I chose wikipedia due to its thoroughness and number of added references -- I could just as easily have chosen the Oxford English Dictionary, which is THE reference on the English language, and arrived at very much the same definitions). The fact that you and others would deflect this into an argument about the definitions themselves (as if you have a more authoritative voice in the matter than the publishers of OED <em>et al</em>) implies a discomfort with dealing directly with those implications. For those who believe that all photography is one big lie anyhow, the discomfort is no less apparent, just a great deal more cynical.</p>

<p>Rubo, thanks also to you for contributing another well-considered angle to the discussion. Context is all important, and your comments point clearly to the fact that photography is not meant solely to be a form of art, but also a form of documentation, the inaccuracy of which can indeed be very harmful in effect.</p>

<p>Luca, I'm very surprised that any person with a mathematical education, particularly with application to physics, would argue that precision in definition is not critical to discussion, even when the confusion of lack of precision is deemed by some to be harmless. Additionally, I'd be glad to discuss any of these issues using new definitions, if and when they are updated -- until then, these are the definitions we have.</p>

<p>I can only surmise from much of this discussion that not only are we dealing with fuzzy definitions (fuzzy only because they depend on the whims of those using the words), but fuzzy reality. Those who revel in fantasy and illusion are free to do so (as I do from time to time myself) -- however, this revel does not remove reality from the equation. The delicious little acid trip always ends and the user has to face tedious reality once again. No amount of denial will change this. So revel on, brother, have a nice trip, hope you arrive home safely. Ta ta and <em>bon voyage...</em></p>

<p>PS to Mr. Bergman... Another good point that does actually address the sufficiency or insufficency of the definitions being discussed. I was waiting to see who else would be bothered by this seeming ommission, as it jumped right out at me as well. Would any of us argue that a photograph consists of some kind of output for public viewing? In exploring this, are we led to the crux of the issue, which seems to be which methods are used in producing the output? This kind of question actually gets us somewhere. Thank you.</p>

<p>M. Wakslicht... thank you for providing an example of the invective I find so distracting. I doubt seriously any of the contributors to this thread would agree that your humble OP hates photoshop yadayada based on the evidence at hand... You and they would be terribly wrong. PS is wonderful stuff, I've sunk my several hundred into it and LR2 and use them every day. Presumed mindreading and unqualified psychoanalysis do not address the issues and questions I've proposed.</p>

<p>J. Spirer... Creativity cannot be killed by any boxes, and nobody is arguing against creativity here, and nobody is attacking photographers -- I would suggest you defend yourself from the attacks besieging you from the likes of Webster's and the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. It's a simple question of words, definitions, and effective human communication. And... if you really don't care, there's certainly no cause to feel attacked.</p>

<p>M. Dixon... I did not claim any of the definitions I cited as my own. A search of any major dictionary will result in definitions remarkably similar to those I cited, none of which were authored by me. I don't claim expertise, and I don't demand or require diddly squat of anybody... It was my hope that discussing the terms and their definitions as accepted by experts of our language, if not also of our profession/pastime (whichever applies), would provide a way to speak <em>with</em> rather than beyond each other. My premise is that there are specific words, terms, and definitions for the things that we do. I drew no conclusions other than those based on said terms and their definitions as put forth by references to our language.</p>

<p>Mr. Penland... THANK YOU for posting a serious, to-the-point response. Your questions re: in-camera manipulation and its implications in this discussion do seem to force us to consider the adequacy of these definitions in approaching such issues. However, you'll note that nothing in those definitions (or any others I've read) indicates that camera settings and their effects produce anything other than a photograph... A slow shutter speed allows the camera to produce an image of what was actually in the frame during the exposure -- nothing added, nothing removed. Likewise for the other examples.</p>

<p>Mr. Taylor... Nobody would say that because a lepidopteran is called a butterfly means that it must be a stick of Land O' Lakes Lightly Salted with wings, any more than my waving a lit sparkler around on the fourth of July makes a photograph in the air. It's a term, not a literal description.</p>

<p>Mr. Wilkins... I don't make exactly the same distinction. A photograph that has been manipulated (per the above definition of "photomanipulation") is not any less a real photograph... but it does make it a manipulated photograph, and therefore a less accurate rendition of a real scene, that's all.</p>

<p>Mr. Perpendicularity... Because it is tedious to you does not mean it must be to everybody else. You want tedious, take a look at the Philosophy forum! I'm glad you at least found a nifty link here that otherwise you may have missed forever.</p>

<p>Mr. Gillette... Oddly, I don't find anybody making demands here. The closest I do find is that many <strong>seem</strong> to be demanding the right to assign their own meanings to commonly held words in the English language that have fairly specific definitions, and it is precisely at that point that productive communication breaks down.</p>

<p>I've spun my wheels a bit too long in this mud. The only thing getting less muddy about it is the evidence that anybody, even photographers in their little sacrosanct corner of the Arts, is capable of avoiding honest discussion by accusation of supposed intentions of others and obfuscation when the wind blows their cozy little nest around a bit. I find it sad but typical.</p>

<p>Actually, Lex, I'm not concerned about whether we all agree. I'm concerned that issues such as this one (and we all know of plenty of others), which are apparently of interest to individuals on BOTH/ALL sides of any given issue, never seem to get far before they become needless shouting matches and get shut down. I see the primary reason for this in the observation that definitions to words we all use are apparently not held in consensus, sometimes even remotely so. We talk past each other rather than with each other, as a result, and nothing can be meaningfully explored because we're all speaking different languages, as it were. I don't really believe that only issues "of import" are worthy of being discussed intelligently and thus of having a useful language for discussion. I'd just like to see one forum thread on ANY contentious subject that actually makes some attempt to explore the issue instead of trash the "opposition", and I only see that happening if we all use the same words to say at least roughly the same things.</p>

<p>Luis, thank you for attempting to understand my point. I'm not really interested in enslaving anything, though -- just wishing (perhaps pointlessly) that some of these discussions could actually enlighten rather than serve as our daily barroom brawl.</p>

<p>Robert, thank you for the bitter medicine of reality! I find it unfortunate but probably true that the antagonists have little propensity to agree on definitions. I suppose that would spoil the fight... </p>

<p>For those who don't care... that's perfectly ok. I sometimes wish I didn't. Thanks for your 2c as well.</p>

<p>To clarify... what bothers me in this and similar discussions is the belief that one can define words any way one wishes. Words mean specific things. If we begin haphazardly altering definitions to suit our tastes and support our arguments, we end up with another teetering Tower of "Babble" that Josh is destined to shut down for lack of productive dialog. I would just like to see a discussion on this that is constructive in nature. I'm not defending or attacking any particular approach to photographic expression, I'm just defending the accurate use of language to communicate, hopefully constructively, about an apparently contentious issue.</p>

<p>Again, I made no judgments whatsoever. I simply have adhered to definitions of words (pick any authoritative text on words and their definitions, you don't have to settle for wiki). Where in the above is any value judgment made? I fail to see the reason for your "hah"...</p>

<p>Completely missing the point, all of the above... I made no judgments whatsoever, nor do I care what you or any other photographer does. It doesn't make a hill of beans to me or the rest of the world. What I do care about is how misuse of language or failure to make distinctions of definition cloud the issues being discussed to the point that it turns into what ALL of the above have immediately determined to be an argument against something.</p>

<p>Again, is there any <em>thoughtful</em> discourse to be had on this subject?</p>