......thanks -- great article ! --- really relates back to my previous query on the future of photography -- I'm on the verge of buying my first digital camera - but it's so hard to know wheteher to bite or wait! --- I think I'll at least wait until after the PMA show at the end of the month!

...it may be that in the future many of the technologies that produced art will just co-exist - kept alive by pockets of enthusiasts --- 78 records are still collected -old vinyl & vhs videos will be kept alive by collectors -- I'll even bet there are 8-track people out there keeping the flame held high ! ( why - I'm not quite sure ) --- so I have no doubts that all manor of this centuries cameras and their end products will always exist somewhere - and become exclusive by their rarity and unique characteristics.....good art will survive ---- even 'duck photos' I suppose !

"Remember...anything that your mind can think of has to be possible, or you would not be able to think it." .......hmmm - well- how about the possibility of a hurricane swirling thru a field full of airplane parts and , just by chance, assembling a 747 plane?? ......sorry Doug -- just kidding --- Doug

A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE........Kodak Gold 100 asa

...hmmmm - I like those milk churn things, Pat!....they remind me of something....can't quite place it.....

.......I probably have about 500 images and photos on my hard drive....and I would imagine I take less than 2000 film photos a year ---most of them hit the trash can --- so I would guess I also retain about 500 4x6 prints ---I would think 30,000 photos would be daunting to sort through - but I guess some people are collectors......I still believe less is more.

...I would imagine the resolution is rather low - but perhaps things have changed -- I am familiar with the Kodak Photo CD ---which gives you a choice of about 5 resolutions - you can put about 100 images on it -- and the highest res would print out quite nice on larger paper sizes.

............on flatbeds -- scans generally take a couple of days to complete --( you can do the laundry -- go to work - visit Cleveland --and still have time to watch your favorite DVD movies and take out the garbage before it finishes ) -- of course your computer may blow up from the strain ----( you then have a giant paperweight )--then you've got a HUGE file that sucks the life out of your computer --- you then take that gigantic file and knock it down to 300dpi to print your fuzzy old wedding photo.......you should have the whole batch done by Christmas ( not this one -- try 2008 ) ....

hmmmmm -- from this photo ( as the former psychiatrist on your mothership - before being demoted back to to plumber ) -- I deduce that you are a wanna be serial killer -- practicing your craft with imitation body parts ---( you failed this test - I'm sorry to say ) -- but hope springs eternal as you say you have purchased a larger freezer ( I would recommend the walk in type ) - best of luck with your new career -- I shall, of course, cancel all trips to your 'Middle Earth' stand in of a country.....* salute! * -- oh high and exhalted head Water Buffalo!

.........Well - yes -- Jerry Uelsman's surreal work would be considered "photography" by most - & he works exclusively in a traditional darkroom --- anyway - of course - there is no dividing line -- one area gradually melts into the other -- with the purists of 'straight' -unmanipulated photography ( which doesn't really exist) --always on guard to sheppard offending images out the door ( if they had the power ).......my point here is that the actual scene and the photo of the scene are two different things - with filters - f-stops and speeds, etc. already shaping and changing what the lens sees.....so - it's ALL manipulated....just a matter of degree ---- but , of course - this has all been here said before .....many times

I think Damia quoted this - "I do believe it was Cynlee who said that if the image is made up of photography and no other images (stock, painted, etc,) then it's still photography " ----hmmmmmmm -- by that criteria - almost all of my 2D work could be in the photography gallery ( since it they were all manipulated from my own photos....but I don't think that would be accepted -- ----and I don't think there is ANY definitive definition of Surrealism...every book I've read on the subject has a different slant on it ---- it just kind of came out of DADA & metaphysical art ---- and then split up into different avenues..... but one generally knows it when he sees it and it's often NOT pretty - and sometimes reflects certain 'realities' of life better than the images we THINK reflect reality ---- just some opinions.

...well - I wouldn't know surrealism if it hit me in the head -- but I can tell you -- it will always only find a small-select audience -- mostly because the mainstream generally wants pretty things -uplifting beautiful images that are not 'wierd' looking and conform to their concepts of how the world 'should' look --- Norman Rockwell will always beat out Man Ray ---always has -always will - surreal work challenges the viewer to 'think' - to work with the image --and a LOT of people are uncomfortable with this -- either because they feel they don't 'get' it -- or that it's just BS masquerading as 'art' ---SO --- you have search to find the people who like this area --- who 'click' with it because they are in the same head space ---they are out there though - but it's like finding needles in a haystack......this photo site is very 'MAINSTREAM' --ie: 'NORMAL' --- it reflects the world in general --------- but - then , I think your work has always attracted a lot of attention -- because of it's quality and your unique humour -- and 'cause people wouldn't think of tangling with your intellect -- they'd get fried and they know it! ---------

I'm HAPPY for you PAT !......that first photo is a real dazzler -- getting you off on the right foot! cheers , Doug

.....talk to DeviousMoose -- I'm outta this thread! ciao ! , Douglas.