[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/6/2014 12:06 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:26:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's
"realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
representation.

So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the
two may be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave,
"a good representation of the subject" is a matter of which
characteristics one chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really
shouldn't have to go into detail to get that point across.

I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have
been more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound
recordings. This began to change only in the '50s.

Although you say you get my point, you persist in the notion that a 2D
representation of 3D space can somehow be accurate, which is not possible
unless one disregards the 3rd dimension, and that is a biggie. With audio,
both capture and playback is working in 3D space. I agree with Scott that
trying to compare photography and audio in this way is not very useful, so
I'll stop here.


Research photogrammetry

Why? That is not the missing link that can solve the fundamental problem
at hand.

--
best regards,

Neil