Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>
> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
> experience don't bother...
>
> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>
> Mick Hazelgrove

I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.

  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic looking
in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a definate
challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
This can be most satisfying.

  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history favors
the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
tha an image of a light bulb.

  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
in the same body of work.

Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
things it escapes me.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message