"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:44:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Is this a picture?
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth...almeesters.jpg

No - it's a cigar box cover.

ROTF.

Some other classic pictures:

http://thefineartcompany.co.uk/Bestsellers/C365.jpg

http://www.thevelvetstore.com/Mercha...01/ve038-1.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...es-Posters.jpg

Alotta Fagina wrote:


Miami is not a red blob. It wasn't even a red blob during the "Scarface"
era. So if what you pointed to falls under the heading of "visual
representation", then it is a ****ty representation.

Not that I'd expect different from you.

If you would not call this a "picture" what would you call it?

I definitely not a liberal, so politics has nothing to do with it, but
this is a visual representation of the "light pollution" in the US.
Hence it is a "picture". One may argue that "light pollution" is not a
problem, but the expression "light pollution" is a standard term for
light that reduces your ability to see the stars and the universe. It
is very important to astronomers.

Would you call this painting a "picture"?

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Number..._i1106615_.htm

The definition "picture" includes abstract paintings.

I can't figure out if you really don't understand the definition of
"picture' or you are just tweaking Bassy. Since you find Bass such a
idiot why don't you filter him? To argue over the standard definition
"picture" really makes you look foolish instead of Bass.

Tom Francis wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:44:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Is this a picture?
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth...almeesters.jpg

No - it's a cigar box cover.



BTW: This thread is hilarious thanks to a couple of key players who
take things too seriously! I hope they keep it up as I am having a
great time reading their replies.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
Alotta Fagina wrote:


Miami is not a red blob. It wasn't even a red blob during the "Scarface"
era. So if what you pointed to falls under the heading of "visual
representation", then it is a ****ty representation.

Not that I'd expect different from you.

If you would not call this a "picture" what would you call it?

I definitely not a liberal, so politics has nothing to do with it, but
this is a visual representation of the "light pollution" in the US. Hence
it is a "picture". One may argue that "light pollution" is not a problem,
but the expression "light pollution" is a standard term for light that
reduces your ability to see the stars and the universe. It is very
important to astronomers.

Would you call this painting a "picture"?

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Number..._i1106615_.htm

The definition "picture" includes abstract paintings.

I can't figure out if you really don't understand the definition of
"picture' or you are just tweaking Bassy. Since you find Bass such a
idiot why don't you filter him? To argue over the standard definition
"picture" really makes you look foolish instead of Bass.

It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a picture, like
a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out repeatedly, even the most
accurate photograph is merely an interpretation, just like an oil painting.

basskisser wrote:
Tom Francis wrote:

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:44:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Is this a picture?
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth...almeesters.jpg

No - it's a cigar box cover.


Smoking the cheap one's eh?!


Tom smokes cheap ones....no wonder they stink!

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
Alotta Fagina wrote:

Miami is not a red blob. It wasn't even a red blob during the "Scarface"
era. So if what you pointed to falls under the heading of "visual
representation", then it is a ****ty representation.

Not that I'd expect different from you.
If you would not call this a "picture" what would you call it?

I definitely not a liberal, so politics has nothing to do with it, but
this is a visual representation of the "light pollution" in the US. Hence
it is a "picture". One may argue that "light pollution" is not a problem,
but the expression "light pollution" is a standard term for light that
reduces your ability to see the stars and the universe. It is very
important to astronomers.

Would you call this painting a "picture"?

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Number..._i1106615_.htm

The definition "picture" includes abstract paintings.

I can't figure out if you really don't understand the definition of
"picture' or you are just tweaking Bassy. Since you find Bass such a
idiot why don't you filter him? To argue over the standard definition
"picture" really makes you look foolish instead of Bass.

It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a picture, like
a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out repeatedly, even the most
accurate photograph is merely an interpretation, just like an oil painting.


Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
achieve the result he wanted.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..


It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a picture,
like a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out repeatedly, even
the most accurate photograph is merely an interpretation, just like an
oil painting.
Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
achieve the result he wanted.

Really?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..


It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a picture,
like a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out repeatedly, even
the most accurate photograph is merely an interpretation, just like an
oil painting.
Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
achieve the result he wanted.

Really?


I am sure you already know this, but others may not :
Ansel Adams and Fred Archer are credited with creating the zone system, a
technique which allows photographers to translate the light they see into
specific densities on negatives and paper, thus giving them better control
over finished photographs. Adams also pioneered the idea of visualization
(which he often called 'previsualization', though he later acknowledged
that
term to be a redundancy) of the finished print based upon the measured
light
values in the scene being photographed.
The zone system is a unique approach to film exposure and development
invented
by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer in 1939 or 1940. The zone system provides
photographers
with a systematic method of precisely defining the relationship between
the way they
see the photographic subject and the results they achieve in their
finished works.
In a sense, the zone system plays the same role that color management
does for
digital photographers. It allows for a direct correlation between the
visual world
and the final photographic print."

from Wikipedia.

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a
picture, like a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out
repeatedly, even the most accurate photograph is merely an
interpretation, just like an oil painting.


Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
achieve the result he wanted.

But he wasn't able to prevent researchers from determining the exact date
and time at which "Autumn Moon" was taken.

So what? Was it his goal to prevent researchers from making that
determination?

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:02:50 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

Try this one:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...s_dmsp_big.jpg
Mark E. Williams