i had a pm from an editor of burn with some photos of the exhibition. it seems that all the photos are ”real”. i believe (now) that are real, no photoshop, my photo-eyes tell me this.
sorry paul, sorry to all.

i love photograph and i am very angry when ”images” take place from her, and we call them ”photographs”. i have explain it. i want to forget the half of the 14 comments i wrote. i was wrong.
yes paul, burn has his own rules. i must stay only in photos, ”photos” in my opinion.
no problem of me with all kind of arts. i leave you as i begun..
”this is real art !
of course it is not ”photography” but something else.”

sorry again, and i hope my english text passes (at least) my meaning.

yes, for your question. if we are talking about nature who has created this photos i have problem with this presentation if it is full of photoshop and nature is only advertisement. where are the ”originals” to admire them (and nature)?
if we are talking about human interference, what is the benefit of the text? these are very good without text, without the ”help” of nature (because there are not real products of nature)

the second image is so good for me. i repeat, the whole work is very good for me.

listen paul, we are not talking here alone, they are reading us.
let people decide whose opinion is ”valid as a photo”.
let people decide what ”photo” means and what ”image” means.
i think you agree that these two, are not the same.

(dont ask me questions please, dont tell me about my value, tell your opinion, i wanted dont come back)
cheers, dimitris from greece.

Does the fact that photoshop was probably involved in these images trouble you?

once again, sorry for my english, you must learn greek :-)

I think when it comes down to one’s own work one can or should write their own rules. Now if the reasons and meanings in taking a photo are thoroughly honest everything in my rule book right now at this present moment are valid as a photo. Although I’m sure someone round here will remind me of some concept which isn’t valid as a photo.

every image that comes from a camera ”is” photograph, but (i say).. it is not a ”photograph”. for example..
1. if i paint a photo with water colours, perhaps i will create an image-art but the photo, stops to be a ”photograph”.
2. if i put some things in front of me and i take a photo, i have a photostat of my work, of my artistic project, not a ”photograph”.
3. if i take a photo of a manuscript poem, i am carrying information with the help of my camera
etcetera..

if we forget the moment in time, all the images (except paintings) are photographs.
I think is unfair..

i have no problem of any kind of art but..
to know ”photograph”, is to love photograph :-)

(i know that i am not polite, but i know also that i am not subservient)

No worries, stay with us and keep on posting comments round here on Burn :)!

i’m very sorry, i wanted to forgive me all of you.
excuse me because i didn’t understand.
wrong place for me..

The theme is whatever I feel like just as it should be exactly the same for you. I wasn’t comparing these images with Eggleston’s photos I was only comparing my blasé reaction to this essay with the same feeling/reaction some feel towards Eggleston’s work.

if the rules of burn are only like-dislike (like facebook), tell me.

either nature either photoshop, the first photographs are ”photographs”. these are hybrids, good work (real art) but hybrids, not ”true” photographs.

No need to apologize for your English, it’s great. Keep at it, you’ll be better than us native speakers in no time. It’s the thought that counts most.

i repeat, as ”work” is very very good for me.
and i wanted a no-politic answer. do you believe that photo number 18, has created from nature?
(sorry for my english)