Re: 493 on April 1 (revised): As a photo , as a phraudo

Johnson Barr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Closer, Joe -
>
> But still no cigar.  Like I said above, it is a
> BEAUTIFUL photograph.   But per Earl's
> original coinage of the term, IMHO a suc-
> cessful Phraud-O-Graph it is not.   (See
> paragraph #2 . . . at [ngdiscussion.net].)


Well, Willie -

Technically you are correct, of course, but IMHO you're being way too restrictive.  That's probably Earl's fault, though, as his definition was pretty narrow:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . the perfect "phraud-o-graph" (just made that up)
> where there's absolutely no difference between
> an image {taken today} and the image taken in
> 1940-whatever.

What about recent photos taken in Como that look more like the 1930s, or from the WW&F that are even closer to 1900?  And there are huge numbers of D&RGW photos from the 1950s and well into the 1960s that are 'The Real Thing', not "Phraud-O-Graphs"®.*  So I sure wouldn't limit the term to attempts to bring back 1940-whatever but to duplicate just about any historic photo with a modern re-creation of the scene.  Some are MUCH better than others, but VERY few are undetectable.

- El Abuelo Histœrico, Greengo y Curmudgeoño de los Locomoturas Viejos y Verdes,
aka Der Grossväterlich DünkelOlivGrünDampfKesselMantelLiebHabender

*  SFAIK, Earl didn't actually register "Phraud-O-Graph" (capitalized or not) as a trademark (™), but always I try to give him the benefit as IMHO the term is pure genius.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2021 08:00PM by Russo Loco.