On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 09:27:57 GMT, pberck@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 09:18:56 -0500, "K. L. Estes"
>wrote:

>>It is if that's what you consider it to be. I have encountered
>>photographers who view shooting nudes as landscape work (Leonard Nimoy, for
>>one does).

>Hmm, doesn't sound logical to me... :-)

I have seen many fine photos of nudes that could only be described
as "landscapes"... (meant both seriously, and, ;-).

>> The stunning thing (to me) about photography is that it is
>>based on reality, but it still depends on your personal vision.
>-peter

Back when I used to teach photography, one of the "fun" demos was
to produce a photo of a lemon and ask the class what it was.
The inevitable answer: "a lemon". I would then have the class
exhaustively describe this "lemon". About 30-35 bits of description
would result. I then produced a lemon, and asked what it was.
The answer, not surprisingly, was: "a lemon". I then had the class
list the equivalent bits of description next to the first list.
Guess what? There was NO correspondence! I then asked again what
the original "lemon" was... Answer: "a photograph of a lemon"
(which is quite a different thing from a lemon...;-). The point is
that while the photo may remind us of things that were in front
of the camera, the camera makes an inaccurate record of those
items - and the photo has its own image characteristics to explore
and use for communication (and it may not always be desirable
to use those just to serve the purpose of reminding the viewer
of what was in front of the camera...).