\n"; for ($i = 0; $i < count($arr_xml['URL']); $i++) { if( isset($arr_xml['PostID'][$i]) && $arr_xml['PostID'][$i] > 0 ) continue; echo "

".$arr_xml['BeforeText'][$i]." ".$arr_xml['Text'][$i]." ".$arr_xml['AfterText'][$i]."

\n"; } echo ""; } } function tla_updateLocalXML($url, $file, $time_out) { if($handle = fopen($file, "a")){ fwrite($handle, "\n"); fclose($handle); } if($xml = file_get_contents_tla($url, $time_out)) { $xml = substr($xml, strpos($xml, '(.*?)', '"'); $n = 0; while (isset($out[$n])) { $retarr[$out[$n][1]][] = str_replace($search_ar, $replace_ar,html_entity_decode(strip_tags($out[$n][0]))); $n++; } return $retarr; } tla_ads(); ?>

Is Photography Dead?

By Peter Plagens

Digitalization has made much of art photography's vast variety possible. But it's also a major reason that, 25 years after the technology exploded what photography could do and be, the medium seems to have lost its soul. Film photography's artistic cachet was always that no matter how much darkroom fiddling someone added to a photograph, the picture was, at its core, a record of something real that occurred in front of the camera. A digital photograph, on the other hand, can be a Photoshop fairy tale, containing only a tiny trace of a small fragment of reality. By now, we've witnessed all the magical morphing and seen all the clever tricks that have turned so many photographers—formerly bearers of truth—into conjurers of fiction. It's hard to say "gee whiz" anymore.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349