Do you beleive in anyone's photos anymore???

I just got through Malcolm's link that he provided and I feel it's a very good read.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... -is-it-art - See more at: http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 1#p2439151

Aside from the content there are a lot of reference links to a lot of the early photographers, many I have never heard of, but very, very interesting.

I can't believe I read this whole thread.  :)

Now that this discussion has taken on a life of it's own, it has made me think.   I have to think like most photographers do, on how and where we fit in this puzzle called photography.  What is our intention with our photography, will it be to document, or to express?

Then I stopped and thought about what photography really was.  Is it inherently a reality or representation?  Is it a tree, or a rock or a cloud shaped like an animal?

Photography as reality.  Hmm.  I'm going with no.  It is not reality.  I think it can be used to document reality, and even have a scientific purpose. But aside from the paper or electrons they are made out of, photographs are not reality. They will always be processed by the viewer and interpreted, only then will it be translated into some meaning. Think of it from your dogs point of view.  When they see that photograph of your parents, what do they see?  Your parents, or a piece of paper.

So it was when I picked up my first camera.  I didn't have to think of where I fit in with this puzzle.  I never intended to present my images as reality. I always intended to use it as a creative tool. From the Brownie, to the 110, to the Polaroid instant, to the 35mm to the digital point and shoot to the DSLR.  The end result would always be a creative reality.  A staged family photo, a long shuttered waterfall, a polarized sky, a stylized street shot.

I had hoped that people saw it the same way as I do. "I want to believe." To quote the X-files.  I quickly realized that the image was not reality but a representation of my vision.  And to that philosophy described it as art.

There is a philosophy in the dramatic arts that ask viewers for "A willing suspension of disbelief."  Even back to the early Greek theater, they set up a reality in the introduction, asked the audience to join them and suppose it was real for the duration of the performance. They asked the audience to accept their imagination as reality, and suspend their disbelief.   They know that it's not real.  But they want to believe.

Okay, fine.  We really do know photographs are not real.  But are they a representation of something that is plausible?  Is the image unaltered from the original capture.  Real or not real.  Did the Great Pyramids really look like that?  Does that head really belong on that model?  Does that cloned in plane image really deserve a prize from Nikon? Do I believe this image?

We are being duped everyday.  The politicians, the sales people, the marketing people.  They are constantly trying to implant their own reality into ours.  We are reeling trying to separate the truth from the lies.  They have set up two different camps,  reality versus fantasy.  This may be cross roads that photography has arrived at.  Judging at the length of the discussion we have some things to work out as we progress forward in time.

Why shouldn't all photography be considered art, and never reality?   Photography is unique in that it has two different connotations that people have such a hard time separating (maybe due to marketing):  Reality from Art.   Does the painting ever propose to be a real scene? Does the flute ever expect you to believe it's a real bird's song?  Does the sculpture want you to believe it's alive?  Photography has become considered reality and art.  There is an imaginary bridge that makes you want to believe Willy Wonka's factory is real.  

But we are becoming jaded. We are constantly asked to believe in something we know is not real.  Ever since Santa Clause, we have been lied to.  And we're tired of it.  We have lost our imagination.  We are doubters, and haters.

The way I deal with the existential situation is put my feet fully in the 'photography as an expressionistic vision' camp. I will never ask you to believe that my images are reality.   You may feel that people put you down.  I've been asked many times at art fairs and walks  "Did it really look like that?"  My answer will always be no.  I took the image out of the camera and manipulated it to a romantic vision of my memory of the scene.  Rose colored glasses.  Imagination, or fantasy.  Is it plausible?  Is  it beautiful?  Is it art?  Is it inspiring?  Is it moving?  Well that's for the viewer to answer, and my hope the answer will be yes.  Only then will I feel I have achieved my intention. If every photographer could put their feet in one square, maybe we wouldn't be battling these demons. They need to clearly state what truth they want us to believe. Likewise I will never take a photograph and accept it as reality, always with a grain of salt.  I been known to say: "I believe nothing I hear, and half of what I see."

Alain Briot: "If you find one of my photographs not digitally manipulated, I'll gladly refund your money."

We may now return to our regularly scheduled dead horse beating....

Think of it from your dogs point of view. When they see that photograph of your parents, what do they see? Your parents, or a piece of paper.

Couldn't disagree with anything you said. I know that took more than a minute to write up and thank you for your time.. 

BUT....The dead horse is busy somewhere else and won't be able to show up for quite a while yet!...(hopefully)

pleverington wrote:Just wondering if others believe anybody's pictures anymore to be a depiction of reality..  Not just here on this site...everywhere ....all and any source.  

Paul, your recent comments show humility, class, and a respect for others, and I really appreciate that - thank you!

I thought that after 5 pages it might be good to revisit the initial question that you asked, so I quoted it above.

Earlier in the thread, in response to your original question, I said that yes, I do see many, many photos that I believe to be a basic visual representation of the way the scene or subject really looked at the time the photo was taken.  This is a viewpoint that you certainly disagree with, as you have said that you basically don't believe photos anymore.

I think that perhaps you are missing a lot of content when you make your assessment of the believability of todays photos.  Millions of people post photos to their Facebook page on a daily basis.  Millions of people post photos to their flickr photo stream.  Most - yes, most - of these people do not use photoshop or instagram or any editing tools at all.  In fact, when I think of most of my friends and family that are on Facebook, I only know of a few people, out of hundreds, that have ever used any type of photo editing program.  And, quite frankly, they do not have the photographic skills to take pictures that are an intentional misrepresentation of reality.  Nor is it their intent to do so. 

I would dare say that the reason that most people take photos is to record a memory of a loved one or a memory of a special time; for example:

- the kids sitting around the Christmas tree with their gifts

- the kids playing in the sand at the beach on vacation

- Uncle Joe and Aunt Mary when they came to visit and were sitting outside on the deck

- Mount Rushmore, as seen on summer vacation

- the teenagers standing in front of the house before heading off to junior prom

These types of photos represent the vast majority of all photos taken, and most of the people taking these photos and posting them publicly do not use photoshop, instagram, or any other editing program.  Nor do these photographers have any intention of presenting a scene any differently than the way it really looked to them.  

These facts leave me a bit puzzled as to why you find it difficult to believe any photos these days.......especially when you specifically said, "everywhere.....any and all source."

The way I see it, if you go purely by the percentages of all photos taken and all photos posted to any and all sources, most photos are believable, inasmuch that they basically depict the scene in a way that is consistent with the way it really looked at the time it was photographed.
 

On what page of the "The Book of Life" does it state that all nature photography must represent reality to the fullest, and if you don't follow this rule you will be imprisoned for life? In addition to photography, I have an art background having been self employed in that field for 40 years now. No one ever told me that I shouldn't use Cobalt Blue (or any other color) coloring in my paintings or art work. I chose all the colors I wanted in my work. I see photography as a art form also, and therefore I feel as though I can manipulate the images anyway I chose. If someone thinks I over-saturated, or the image had bad composition, or anything else,  that's their opinion and they don't have to like what I did. I'm O.K. with that. If, on the other hand, if I was skillful enough to post-process an image that looks perfectly believable and people like it, I have done my job.  In today's world, post-processing is where it's at, and you won't be a successful photographer without it. A RAW image is just a combination of 0's and 1's -  what we do with those numbers makes all the difference in the world in photography! I, for the most part, can detect when an image has been overworked or "cooked" and I just shy away from looking at that photographer's work. Of course I'm sure I've been wrong in my assessments sometimes. 

Tim Zurowski wrote:

pleverington wrote: My question is very simply do you and others believe what you seeing is an actual depiction of the truth anymore,

No I don't, and I could care less. Photography is Art, and Art is freedom of expression. There are no rules and everyone should be free to explore their own vision of Art as they see fit, without people placing rules or limitations upon them.

oh my..  thank heavens for a simple reply.   Photography is a another art form.  to succeed it needs an emotional response.  if it provides that, it is successful.  

Mark Picard wrote:

On what page of the "The Book of Life" does it state that all nature photography must represent reality to the fullest, and if you don't follow this rule you will be imprisoned for life? In addition to photography, I have an art background having been self employed in that field for 40 years now. No one ever told me that I shouldn't use Cobalt Blue (or any other color) coloring in my paintings or art work. I chose all the colors I wanted in my work. I see photography as a art form also, and therefore I feel as though I can manipulate the images anyway I chose.

Hi Mark...none..there is no page or anything anywhere I would say that inhibits you in any fashion from doing what you want using any medium you choose..

If someone thinks I over-saturated, or the image had bad composition, or anything else,  that's their opinion and they don't have to like what I did. I'm O.K. with that.

I think this is where my dilemma is coming from... As a viewer, and from that perspective alone, I find most digital images done too far. Others may not see that, but it seems that  way to me. And me personally I am totally fine with all that if that's what people want to do, there's no problem about anything...However...that being said, I  find myself not giving such images much of my attention any more and thought what a shame that was. Like a very pretty girl wearing way too much makeup. To my eye, such a girl would look so fresh and clean and natural if she just didn't use all that makeup...But my personal thoughts have nothing to do at all with anything other than what I find personally pleasing. Of course I understand that is totally subjective...All I ever asked here was did others in their own subjectivity also find lets say too many digital images nowadays over the top with augments, or too far with the PS work especially when it comes to images that supposedly are "as shot" nature and wildlife images. What people want to do or have the right to do is not in question or judgement and has nothing to do with my question, but for some reasons I have been unsuccessful in conveying  that..

I think if you could for a minute look at it this way. If I were to ask "How many people here like Picasso"  because ..say... I didn't, but I wanted to know if I was maybe missing something by asking everyone else, and then say if 80% said they love his work...well I would then be compelled to examine my own thinking and also give Picasso's art work another consideration. On the other hand if most people said uuccckkkk...hate his weird stuff! That would then tell me I'm not alone. I hope sincerely that example succeeds in helping perhaps you or someone understand why I asked the original question. But to be honest I'm ready to give up I think...

Mark you know I have always loved your commentary and you have a great portfolio that certainly shows passion and a lot of hard work...But could you give a guy a fair shake on this one and understand the true context of my original question..?

Thank you for your time....

Tom Reichner wrote:

pleverington wrote:Just wondering if others believe anybody's pictures anymore to be a depiction of reality..  Not just here on this site...everywhere ....all and any source.  

Paul, your recent comments show humility, class, and a respect for others, and I really appreciate that - thank you!

I thought that after 5 pages it might be good to revisit the initial question that you asked, so I quoted it above.

Earlier in the thread, in response to your original question, I said that yes, I do see many, many photos that I believe to be a basic visual representation of the way the scene or subject really looked at the time the photo was taken.  This is a viewpoint that you certainly disagree with, as you have said that you basically don't believe photos anymore.

I think that perhaps you are missing a lot of content when you make your assessment of the believability of todays photos.  Millions of people post photos to their Facebook page on a daily basis.  Millions of people post photos to their flickr photo stream.  Most - yes, most - of these people do not use photoshop or instagram or any editing tools at all.  In fact, when I think of most of my friends and family that are on Facebook, I only know of a few people, out of hundreds, that have ever used any type of photo editing program.  And, quite frankly, they do not have the photographic skills to take pictures that are an intentional misrepresentation of reality.  Nor is it their intent to do so. 

I would dare say that the reason that most people take photos is to record a memory of a loved one or a memory of a special time; for example:

- the kids sitting around the Christmas tree with their gifts

- the kids playing in the sand at the beach on vacation

- Uncle Joe and Aunt Mary when they came to visit and were sitting outside on the deck

- Mount Rushmore, as seen on summer vacation

- the teenagers standing in front of the house before heading off to junior prom

These types of photos represent the vast majority of all photos taken, and most of the people taking these photos and posting them publicly do not use photoshop, instagram, or any other editing program.  Nor do these photographers have any intention of presenting a scene any differently than the way it really looked to them.  

These facts leave me a bit puzzled as to why you find it difficult to believe any photos these days.......especially when you specifically said, "everywhere.....any and all source."

The way I see it, if you go purely by the percentages of all photos taken and all photos posted to any and all sources, most photos are believable, inasmuch that they basically depict the scene in a way that is consistent with the way it really looked at the time it was photographed.
 

Thanks Tom and thanks for more thoughts.

 I guess I'm doing a lot of generalizing, too much generalizing, when I said all kinds of pictures in all kinds of places.

I think it would be fair to say the images of things, especially things I shoot most like nature and wildlife, and then also pass themselves off as pretty much an image of what was really in front of the camera at the time the shutter was tripped are the kind of image I'm mostly talking about. Too many of these images are over the top lets say with PS adjustments to the point, at least for me, it is very noticeable and disturbing. Their look just doesn't seem to "jive" if you remember that one. So after that, the image just looses most of it's usefulness and does not excite me much any more.. That's very generalized you see as some of course have other incredible attributes such as composition or unbelievable subject material that can carry the day. 

To answer your question why I don't find a lot of images believable, it's because maybe the blue sky is not real to me, no sky is ever that blue!, or the sunset colors are way over saturated, rainbows that are too saturated and solid looking than anyone previous in all of earth's history, the contrast is way too much, and a plethora of other possible things.

Part of the problem for me I'm sure is I have a trained eye and can spot the PS work and I spent a great deal of my life seeing the natural world outside without a camera. So I suppose it's fair to say those experiences have my minds eye rather programmed to accept things that then look correct and reject things that do not. So when I see an overdone PS job on especially nature type imagery it rather shakes my sensibilities. Sometimes the real over the top ones go further and insult my sensibilities and even my intelligence.

Are there any nature images anymore that aren't dragged through PS first? Nature is so subtle. When occasionally I find an image that shows off very sweet gentle natural contrast and color transitions... it's a treat. Some subjects like flowers I would think this to be a huge benefit for the final presentation for one example. Landscapes very much too...Anyways Tom  I'm not saying PS isn't a great tool. I'm just feeling that it's just to abused and overused in many of the images I see. And those images mentally I rather most the time reject..

Do you ever feel that way?

I answered "no", but I think that needs a little clarification.   Paul, your question is awkward for me to answer.  Ultimately, I do not think I have answered it.  But this answer addresses what I think you are looking for.


Impact
If the image does not have inherent impact, if its content does not stir me emotionally,  my brain is bored with it.

On the other hand, if an image's content intensely stirs any of my emotions (if it has impact) then it captures my brain instantly.

Moose images
An example above would be a moose image.  There are moose images and then, there are great moose images.  Mark Picard has become probably the top moose photographer anywhere.  He put his time in.  So in this case, yes, I do believe in Picard images.

But if he was to show me an average moose image that has been worked over pretty good in PS.....my brain would be bored. But here is the thing....Mark has never posted an average moose image.

So

If he shows an image of a huge bull prancing across shallow waters (and yes, I do recall that very image of his right now!), then that image grabs my brain and I just do not tire of looking at it.  In fact, I never forget it!  In this example of this big bull prancing across shallow waters......it could be illustrated in the Picture Control option of "Flat" and it would have that same great impact to my brain.  

You see Mark, you can say what you want about color and all the rest, but all the images I have seen you post here are images with IMPACT!  They are stunning!  There is the bull portrait in the fresh snow at close range.  I think you gave this guy a name.   It just sticks in your brain.  LITERALLY, I can see the look in his eyes right now.   He is facing at a right angle to you, but his eyes are on you.   I have not seen that image for maybe a year or more....but it is imbedded in my brain.  that is what a great image does.  It is not about any manipulation at all.   Then there are all the cows in the snow in that northern Maine field...and on and on.  You put in the time so that you have so many super moose images.    

None of them are great because of anything at all that is done in post processing.  Again, all those moose images could be shown in FLAT, and they would have the same impact.  In fact (and this is just me), I think they have more impact in FLAT.  Not sure though.

So, if I am guessing where you were going with this Paul....NO, I do not trust images today.   Too much manipulation.  By brain is tired of it.   An image either has it when the shutter is released or it does not have it.  For me, it is the content.

Robert King

pleverington wrote: 
Too many of these images are over the top lets say with PS adjustments to the point, at least for me, it is very noticeable and disturbing. Their look just doesn't seem to "jive" if you remember that one.  So after that, the image just looses most of it's usefulness and does not excite me much any more. 

To answer your question why I don't find a lot of images believable, it's because maybe the blue sky is not real to me, no sky is ever that blue!, or the sunset colors are way over saturated, rainbows that are too saturated and solid looking than anyone previous in all of earth's history, the contrast is way too much, and a plethora of other possible things.

........when I see an overdone PS job on especially nature type imagery it rather shakes my sensibilities. Sometimes the real over the top ones go further and insult my sensibilities and even my intelligence.

Are there any nature images anymore that aren't dragged through PS first? Nature is so subtle. When occasionally I find an image that shows off very sweet gentle natural contrast and color transitions... it's a treat.

....Anyways Tom  I'm not saying PS isn't a great tool. I'm just feeling that it's just to abused and overused in many of the images I see. And those images mentally I rather most the time reject..

Do you ever feel that way?

Yes, Paul, I often do feel that way.  However, I think that maybe my threshold for such things might be greater than yours.  
I think this because you have made comments that seem to say that nobody's images look believable or realistic anymore, and, while I believe that there are a lot of images that appear to be unbelievable, or "cooked" to use your word, I also see many, many, many images that are, to my eye, believable and realistic.
 

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:I answered "no", but I think that needs a little clarification.   Paul, your question is awkward for me to answer.  Ultimately, I do not think I have answered it.  But this answer addresses what I think you are looking for.


Impact
If the image does not have inherent impact, if its content does not stir me emotionally,  my brain is bored with it.

On the other hand, if an image's content intensely stirs any of my emotions (if it has impact) then it captures my brain instantly.

Moose images
An example above would be a moose image.  There are moose images and then, there are great moose images.  Mark Picard has become probably the top moose photographer anywhere.  He put his time in.  So in this case, yes, I do believe in Picard images.

But if he was to show me an average moose image that has been worked over pretty good in PS.....my brain would be bored. But here is the thing....Mark has never posted an average moose image.

So

If he shows an image of a huge bull prancing across shallow waters (and yes, I do recall that very image of his right now!), then that image grabs my brain and I just do not tire of looking at it.  In fact, I never forget it!  In this example of this big bull prancing across shallow waters......it could be illustrated in the Picture Control option of "Flat" and it would have that same great impact to my brain.  

You see Mark, you can say what you want about color and all the rest, but all the images I have seen you post here are images with IMPACT!  They are stunning!  There is the bull portrait in the fresh snow at close range.  I think you gave this guy a name.   It just sticks in your brain.  LITERALLY, I can see the look in his eyes right now.   He is facing at a right angle to you, but his eyes are on you.   I have not seen that image for maybe a year or more....but it is imbedded in my brain.  that is what a great image does.  It is not about any manipulation at all.   Then there are all the cows in the snow in that northern Maine field...and on and on.  You put in the time so that you have so many super moose images.    

None of them are great because of anything at all that is done in post processing.  Again, all those moose images could be shown in FLAT, and they would have the same impact.  In fact (and this is just me), I think they have more impact in FLAT.  Not sure though.




Robert King

Robert I'll bet Mark's hit counter on is website is a blur right now! Your points are incredibly spot on...and honest...and so addresses what I was asking...thank you so much...

I did generalize on what kind of image a lot where I could have done a better job here maybe being more specific.

Personally an image that evokes a long lasting emotional impact is my favorite kind. By that I don't mean I had a brief emotional moment then it is forever gone.. I mean the kind of image I can just keep looking at over and over and over again. Like you say some of Marks moose pics stay indelibly engraved in your mind. They don't need a bit of PS work or at least only a little. (That saves Mark a lotttttt of work too). For me, if such an  image goes way too far with the adjustments so that the work done becomes noticeable and unnatural looking, that becomes a distraction, the amount of which depending how over the top they are. And that can to a degree or another hurt the image. For me often a lot..too much even.. I wouldn't think anything like that should get in the way of the emotional strength of the image.

None of them are great because of anything at all that is done in post processing.  Again, all those moose images could be shown in FLAT, and they would have the same impact.  In fact (and this is just me), I think they have more impact in FLAT.  Not sure though.

 I'm sure.. I mean the picture doesn't need to be flat as in flat..But certainly doesn't need to be wildly out of sorts with saturation, false colors, contrast, and on either as those things overdone hurt the image at least for me.

A thought occurred to me this morning. Maybe go on various popular websites and even though the images are great, look for the obvious things that give it an unnatural look by taking PS adjustments too far, and then ask yourself did the image really need all that?? You probably couldn't do it to your own images due to the inherent bias..(It's so much easier to critique others stuff!) Just tootle around on the net and see if after a while you just start getting bored and worn out with all the excessive PS work...This is what is happening to me.

I didn't want to respond to DCHAN because he seemed looking for argument and I am all out of that these days, but he did ask if I have a definition of the word art.. Fair enough I actually do.

It's not the dictionary definition.
And I think I struggled for a definition for a few years as far as how to express the meaning without adding subjectiveness to it and just using other words. And maybe most important be brief..

I think I realized finally that art, be it photography, painting, music, poetry, dance or anything other medium is a way to talk to each other without using words. I think that we live more for the emotional experience of life and use the intellect to get us there so being able talk without words on a deeper level is critical to our joy in life by getting input, or stimulus, or kicks, or whatever you want to call it from our own experiences but also art.. I think we live for the experience of being alive simply put.. And I also think words do so fail us as far as a universal tool for communication. For example I have read that despite the use of words people cue off of body language more than anything else to ascertain what really is going on.. Like when I told my mom I didn't do it!! But she always knew..

So words, as good as they are, are so incomplete when it comes to stirring the emotions. That's where I figure art comes in. And those communications enabled from art forms are on a set of frequencies that correspond to our deepest thoughts, feelings, minds, IOW's..our subconscious. Art is a vehicle that enables my subconscious, if say I have seen something very wonderful, to be communicated to another's sub conscious so that they can experience the same thing too.

So depending how how well that art does that job determines how good the art is.

To keep it simple I just say "Art an interface between the conscious and subconscious minds"..

Like a computer's keyboard that connects a person... to his computer screen...

Maybe someone can come up with a better way of putting it, please do if you have it, but that's my definition so far of the meaning of the word "art"

https://www.google.com/search?q=fall+co ... 8&bih=1186

Does it get old?

pleverington wrote:

DChan wrote: Now it means you do believe in someone's photo. Just like many of us do. Guess there's hope  

Oh is that where you wanted to go...Well Is it relevant??

Of course it's relevant. It shows your position after all, which is just like many of us.

pleverington wrote:I didn't want to respond to DCHAN because he seemed looking for argument and I am all out of that these days,

And your challenge to other people opinions is not? Great, Evasive, defensive. Sounds familiar?

Discussions involve arguments. I'm using that word as they use it in logic. You started this thread and you have been arguing yourself. Double standard?

but he did ask if I have a definition of the word art.. Fair enough I actually do.

It's not the dictionary definition.
And I think I struggled for a definition for a few years as far as how to express the meaning without adding subjectiveness to it and just using other words.

So, subjectiveness is inevitable. And you asked Tom an for a definition without subjectiveness?

[snip]

To keep it simple I just say "Art an interface between the conscious and subconscious minds"..

Since you agreed that art subjectiveness is a part of deciding what is art or not, who is to decide if my photograph is art or not? You, or me? If I take a landscape photograph, who is to say I am doing it to represent the nature and not something else?

If I'm making art, why can't I do whatever I want with my photographs? If I'm making art, why can't I use Photoshop to achieve my purposes? If I do successfully complete an art piece with Photoshop? Why then, as you said it, Photoshop is not art?

You asked the question, we answered. You were not happy with our answers and you even challenged some of our thoughts. So it seems fair to me that you should allow other to ask you to clarify yours.

Ever read Plato?

DChan wrote:

pleverington wrote:I didn't want to respond to DCHAN because he seemed looking for argument and I am all out of that these days,

And your challenge to other people opinions is not? Great, Evasive, defensive. Sounds familiar?

Discussions involve arguments. I'm using that word as they use it in logic. You started this thread and you have been arguing yourself. Double standard?

but he did ask if I have a definition of the word art.. Fair enough I actually do.

It's not the dictionary definition.
And I think I struggled for a definition for a few years as far as how to express the meaning without adding subjectiveness to it and just using other words.

So, subjectiveness is inevitable. And you asked Tom an for a definition without subjectiveness?

[snip]

To keep it simple I just say "Art an interface between the conscious and subconscious minds"..

Since you agreed that art subjectiveness is a part of deciding what is art or not, who is to decide if my photograph is art or not? You, or me? If I take a landscape photograph, who is to say I am doing it to represent the nature and not something else?

If I'm making art, why can't I do whatever I want with my photographs? If I'm making art, why can't I use Photoshop to achieve my purposes? If I do successfully complete an art piece with Photoshop? Why then, as you said it, Photoshop is not art?

You asked the question, we answered. You were not happy with our answers and you even challenged some of our thoughts. So it seems fair to me that you should allow other to ask you to clarify yours.

Ever read Plato?

Uh....huh.............................................................................................................................................................................................................

DChan wrote:

pleverington wrote:

DChan wrote: Now it means you do believe in someone's photo. Just like many of us do. Guess there's hope  

Oh is that where you wanted to go...Well Is it relevant??

Of course it's relevant. It shows your position after all, which is just like many of us.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

There is this thing called string  theory..
Strings are beyond imagination small...
They say that if a hydrogen atom was the size of our solar system, a string would be smaller than a molecule.
And that's how small a string is..
And that's how much I care what people want to do with their images.
But how much, I, as a viewer, would so prefer to believe the images I see I would say would be equal to the size of the universe.

Can I say it any plainer?

I just modified the original post question by adding 4 words that I thought would better clarify the question. It seemed to me my original words were causing folks to think I was a proponent of and needed to see images following exactly  what was in front of the camera lens. That being said, the following dialog in the post should have cleared up my intent for the question, but none the less I  did add a little more descriptive wording to the question. I did not remove anything...
Just letting everyone know....

More un-believable imagery...


https://www.google.com/search?q=nature+ ... 6AqSFKk%3D