The flooded mansion photo

Zip

Zip

Soldato
Joined
26 Jun 2005
Posts
20,224
Location
Australia
My girl friend is after the photographer that took a photo of a flooded mansion.

I have no idea what the photo looks like so i cant help too much.
It wasnt natrually flooded but just flooded to take an arty photo so im guessing its inside the building.

The guy that took the photos has done shoot on a pirate ship or something like that aswell.


Sorry for being so vague but thats all i can get out of my girlfriend:p

Does anyone know of the guy that took the photos or of the photos them selves?
 
Never mind it was David Lachapelle

She just found him then, and it was a Cathedral not a mansion

artwork_images_424157556_283427_david-lachapelle.jpg
 
Last edited:
Therefore, it's not a photo.
No, its not a photo.
It's a picture, not a photo.

Not sure if you guys are being conservative or anal about it, or there's something so uniquely different about this to all the other manipulated photographs from the last century that it cannot be called a photograph. At what point does photo-manipulation cause a photograph to cease being a 'photograph'? Dodging and burning?

Is a hand-coloured photo from the late 1800s still a photograph, or does the introduction of false elements mean it's no longer 'true'? Man Ray's surrealist work, for example, not photographs?
 
Back
Top Bottom