The flooded mansion photo

Zip · 31 Oct 2007 at 03:30

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

Does anyone know of the guy that took the photos or of the photos them selves?

Zip · 31 Oct 2007 at 03:40

Never mind it was David Lachapelle

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

Neoni · 31 Oct 2007 at 03:50

random.

Monkey Puzzle · 31 Oct 2007 at 04:08

Looks like 'Pimp-my-Jumanji' to me.

Heofz · 31 Oct 2007 at 04:10

a french dave chappelle?

Mr_White · 31 Oct 2007 at 04:52

That's not a photo.

MinDBlanK · 31 Oct 2007 at 05:14

Did they also break the wall just for the pic? hehe

Zip · 31 Oct 2007 at 05:24

Mr_White said:
That's not a photo.

I was just told to go find the "photo" so i gave the best description i could

Augmented · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:25

Mr_White said:
That's not a photo.

It is. Well, more accurately it's many photographs, since it's a CGI composite/photo-montage.

Mr_White · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:31

Augmented said:
It is. Well, more accurately it's many photographs, since it's a CGI composite/photo-montage.

Therefore, it's not a photo.

Augmented · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:45

Mr_White said:
Therefore, it's not a photo.

Ok. It's a one sandwich/two sandwiches thing.

Tom0 · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:48

No, its not a photo.

Confused · 31 Oct 2007 at 11:06

It's a picture, not a photo.

Augmented · 31 Oct 2007 at 11:18

Mr_White said:
Therefore, it's not a photo.

Tom0 said:
No, its not a photo.

ConfusedTA said:
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?

DannyDan · 31 Oct 2007 at 11:51

Thats a photograph?

Looks very much like a painting to me

edit: ah it's hand coloured. that explains it.