First, thank you for taking the time to respond. I can tell by the comments that you put some effort into the reply.
Either you feel I deserve some kind of patronizing and dismissive retort, or you are evading while being confused about what it is you’re trying to evade.
Anyway, I hope the retort was good for you. While it did score points on the smug scale, it wanted so badly for substance that the delivery was, well, kinda under-exposed. Heh.
You’re usually a rational guy and so I’ll re-state the question. Are you ready? Here we go…
The question is, in your opinion, when exactly does “interpretation” become “composite” to use your terms.
Is it when you put a ND filter in front of the lens? Is it when you convert the image to B&W? Is it when you use an adjustment layer? When? To put the same question another way: When exactly, in your opinion, has an image become a composite - something that it wasn’t, when it was first recorded?
I'm saying it’s a verrrrrrry slippery slope, and in fact, if one is logical, the process or “composite” starts somewhere between the point of composition and the time the image is worked on in ACR, PS or whatever the equivalent sw of choice may be.
You opened the door. If you don’t want to respond, that’s okay. Some find it easier to tap dance and patronize than to make an honest reply to a reasonable question.
> And [if] you want to engage in a semantic hairsplitting, the likes of "what is reality" or "what the definition of 'is' is", I suggest you study the following philosophical piece first:
Golly, well played, sir! I couldn’t agree more. Ya know, I spent 8 of my 10 years in college at a state university. Sure it was only a public school, but in my time there I earned an embarrassment of sheep skins. Some of those degrees were in fields that in part studied the fellas you mentioned and many others, over many years and in great depth. By about the end of my time at the U my career path was leaning towards teaching a college kids a field called intellectual history.
But I digress. I believe I'm up to your stated level of qualifications. If you feel up to chatting about “is” I'm sure your account would be as entertaining as your post above.
But, sigh, I have to do my own face palm at this point, and hold it there for too a long moment. Because, you see, your little rant amounted to another deflection and is not the topic at hand.
Really, I'm after Slabodian’s opinion on when an image is an interpretation and when it is a composite. If you can do that without further song and dance or going all weak in the knees that would actually be useful to the conversation at hand.
I’ll be happy to discuss the other topics as time permits.