Some recent postings (my own included) in ESS brought up the subject of overlap among galleries. We have a mix of galleries based on subject matter (ESS, M&N, Avian, etc.) and galleries based on technique (Photo Art, Macro, Series etc.)
It's obvious that there's some amount of overlap - the same subject matter can be captured and processed using multiple techniques, and the same technique can be applied to multiple subject types.
As ESS moderator I've been pretty liberal about allowing for multiple interpretations and techniques as long as the subject matter is appropriate for the gallery, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't out of line with the general thinking on this matter.
Do you think there are cases where the use of a specific technique trumps the subject matter in determining where an image should be posted (or vice versa)?
More importantly - when such issues arise, do you feel it's appropriate to impose a choice of gallery on the poster rather than let them post where they feel it is most appropriate for the feedback they wish to receive?
To me, I feel that it should be the PHOGRAPHERS choice as to where they post, and not be dictated to by anyone. If they want good feedback, and they are in the wrong forum to get it, they will find out real fast by people telling them in their replies. I'm guessing that most people will soon find out which is the right one to post in when they start getting the feedback they want.
Posted by Bill Chambers on March 7, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Just my opinion mind you, but I feel that images which have been subjects of more "invasive" post processing (ortonizing, artistic filters, etc.) are better suited in a technique gallery rather than a subject gallery. Having said that however, I feel the choice of gallery should be left up to the poster as much as possible, except for very obvious mismatches. How's that for talking out of both sides of my mouth? I guess what I'm saying is too make the guidelines well known, but let the poster make the call if it's close.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 7, 2006 at 12:05 PM
To me this is an ongoing theme. There are galleries with guidelines. I personally don't care what you allow as moderator in a given gallery. I do think that to get the EP for the week, that it should comply with the stated guidelines for the forum, tho. Being liberal is nice, but if things are allowed that do not fall within the guidelines, it becomes inconsistant as to what the posting guidelines actually are.
Speaking for ESS, it seems pretty self-policing in that the poster is repeatedly reminded when the viewer/commentor thinks that the image is in the wrong forum!
The situations I was referring to are where an image can fall within the guidelines of 2 different galleries (e.g. for ESS the only guidelines are "Landscapes, seascapes and celestial images with no recognizable "hand of man." - nothing about technique and post-processing, for Photo Art the guidelines are "Digitally manipulated or multiple exposure images that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature." - nothing about subject matter).
The problem with trying to resolve these situations is where to draw the line. We have some posters who routinely use techniques like edge-blurring, exposure blending, Orton effects etc. Is there really a way to determine which should be acceptable and which are not?
I vote for letting the photographer decide. For the specific case of technique vs subject, it seems like if someone ispecifically wants feedback on a given technique then it makes sense to post in one of the technique galleries. But if the photographer is perfectly comfortable with their technique (whatever it may be) and wants to go out and make landscapes or avians or whatever using it, then it seems like it's the finished product that matters and it should be fine to put that in ESS or M/N, etc..
So... this question made me wonder: why exactly are some techniques considered taboo in the subject galleries? Is it because viewers think that the image would get more help in a technique gallery? (If so, I daresay we're all perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves what sort of help we require.) Or is it because viewers think some techniques are repugnant and don't want to be offended by the sight of them? Or what are the other reasons?
Posted by Josh Anderson on March 7, 2006 at 12:27 PM
I think you guys/gals (moderators) have done an excellent job. I do think some recent images posted in the ESS Gallery probably would be better suited in the Photo Art Gallery. However I think some people get used to a certain crowd (gallery with particular members) and like to post images within that crowd to get critiqued.
I know a lot of people contribute to a variety of gallerys, but most (not all) seem to prefer one over the others.
I do the same as J.E. All I ever pick on is the ALL PHOTOS anyway so why even have seperate forums. Those forum titles could just be used as photo "subjects" to post all together.
I have wondered many times how many people ever really go through each seperate forum, or actually just show the whole group from the ALL PHOTOS pick. If hardly anyone is ever using them seperatley, then why even have them seperate?
One large total group might also allow peolpe to learn things that they would miss in a forum they usually never go to.
I never use the ALL PHOTOS. Until recently I didn't even know it existed. Having separate forums saves me a lot of time by allowing me to view only those areas in which I'm interested. Do I miss some great shots in other forms? Sure, but that's my choice. Every so often, when time allows, I look through the other forums, but it would be a hassle to HAVE to pick and choose just to find the images I'm interested in.
BILL - I never knew about the ALL PHOHOS either at first, but as soon as I found it, that's all I use. For one thing, it brings up ALL of the most recent posts for every forum so there is no more jumping all around from one to the other. I also look at the images that are most interesting, and not just what is in a certain subject area. What you do is good in a way, but one of the major things I also look for other than the good images, are IDEAS, and you can't get new ideas if you don't look at all of the posts. So skipping forums would miss all of the possible ideas that might be in them.
I tend to agree with the others here who have stated that its best to leave the choice up to the poster. However, having said that, I still feel that when someone is particularly asking for feedback on technique (ortonization, digital painting, series related grouping, etc.) those posts should be placed in the forums intended for that purpose.
Regading the other issue of having separate forums, I think its a good idea to leave things as they are. For folks who want to view all images, Jim already provides a way via the "All Photos" link. Now just because that link exists doesn't mean to all of us have to use it. I spend 90% of my time in the ESS gallery, because that is what interests me the most (at least for now).
Paul,
You bring up a good point, and I certainly can't argue with it. My contention is just that I don't want to be forced into that mode by only having the one choice. I agree with your IDEAS thought, and use the forums for that purpose as well, but since I have no real interest in macros, etc. I would rather spend what little time I have to study those things are more suited to my tastes. Once a week or so I'l check out a few of the other forums just to keep abreast, but 90% of my particpation remains in just ESS.
"All photos" is good when I have time. Otherwise I just pick the galleries I like most - ESS and M&N along with Series every once in a while. In fact, ESS is the home page of my browser. I think separate galleries are very useful, especially given the amount of images being posted per day. Also, there seem to be a LOT of people who are active only in one or two galleries (like me, if I`d be _active_ ...my comment to post ratio is not as good as I`d like to...)
As to the original point - I believe in letting the photographer decide but... if the image really is no more than a gimmicky new PS trick or a plug to a post in any of the other subject forums... I think the "self-policing" MG mentioned does its trick pretty fast. The problem comes with non-standard ways of seeing... Well, practically only forum newbies comment on Hobson images about "vignetting" since Mark has established this style long ago with god knows how many "ku#x" posts. Now consider a photographer who is new to the forum and who as well employs an unusual/off-beat style. How many times does he/she have to get comments about technically "correcting" against the different look before we`ll accept that it is a personal choice rather than a shortcoming in skill? Mark H. isn`t easily intimidated by forum "standards" but what if someone is?
I think anyone who has frequented this site for a long time will at some point get tired of the technical mambo-jambo. Fitting or not fitting a gallery theme is just that. As a photographer, I don`t really care if my shot is Man&Nature, ESS or Photo Art - I want to know if it _works_ - what thoughts/feelings it evokes and why (not). I trust our moderators` decisions about gallery rules and normally try not to whine about it.
Bill - I never said, nor meant that it should be changed. I only brought up some of that because I had wondered in the past how many people use the ALL PHOTOS as opposed to the seperate forums, and I had no idea of the percentages of which is used most often. I mostly use the AP cause they all interest me and i can get ideas from all over the place then, and ideas are what create new images. Being stuck in one or two places seems to me to be very limiting, and you don't get anywhere by having limits.
I've been following several of the galleries rather closely these days. Recently, I've not see anything very significant that seems out of line. I guess I'll go back to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. I will comment on just one thing. I think that photos that have been digitally altered beyond color correction (or tasteful enhancement) and other tuning, where the digital alteration becomes obvious and perhaps un-natural or includes cutting and pasting into an image belong in the photo art gallery. I know that this line is not totally black and white, but would suggest that it is there somewhere and perhaps up to the moderator. I've posted several images recently into the photo art gallery and don't think it is any less viable than any of the other galleries, but is a distinction that I would support.
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 7, 2006 at 7:22 PM
As much as possible, I'm for letting the photographe make the decision on an image that fits more than one category. When we start getting a pattern of mismatches, then a moderator should mention it and try to correct it. I mean, I can see a close up photo of a tiny frog going into both the fauna and the macro forum, but putting a coyote in the avian forum is an obvious mismatch.
I believe that if the post processing uses artistic effects to alter the supposed reality of an image, such as "ortonizing", painterly effects, ect. I would like to see it in photo art. The image for me is then an artistic rendition based on a photograph. If digital effects such as blending, stitching, ect are used, that do not intentionally alter the assumed reality (or close to it) of an image, and in some cases make the image closer to what was actually seen - such as HDR or blending - then those images should be accepted in any other category excluding PhotoArt. That's where I draw the line. If we're going to have seperate categories, we might as well try to use them. Admitedly though, It would be very difficult to specificly define exactly what belongs in any category. So there's an "all photos" page huh?....wow - that helps.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 9, 2006 at 12:02 AM
I personally think if hand of man can't be shown in ESS, than neither should contrived processing where images show beyond what is considered within the realms of natural camera capture. I think Mr. Hobson's vingetting effect is probably the outside comfort zone, in that traditional filters or even some cameras can produce a similar effect. Similarly a B&W conversion, as that would be no different than switching types of film.
If there is anything overly transformative to the underlying image, especially if that 'gives away' the photographers "artistic" aspirations, then it should go in Photo Art. Where there is room to fudge for this and that, then I'd like to see Man & Nature combined in to ESS, or maybe if it's only 10% man - can it still qualify. And speaking of including those beautiful barn shots....
Rules applied selectively or randomly are "guidelines", not rules.
Just my almost totally out of the loop, left field opinions, that aren't worth two burnt wooden nickels,
Lots of GREAT input in this thread!! I'm very much in agreement with Marc Adamus in seperating "enhancement" from "effect". And too feel that the poster should be able to decide which forum to post in. Folks will certainly, in a nice and polite manner as always, let the poster know that maybe next time a similar image might be better posted in a different forum.
Discussion
25 repliesSome recent postings (my own included) in ESS brought up the subject of overlap among galleries. We have a mix of galleries based on subject matter (ESS, M&N, Avian, etc.) and galleries based on technique (Photo Art, Macro, Series etc.)
It's obvious that there's some amount of overlap - the same subject matter can be captured and processed using multiple techniques, and the same technique can be applied to multiple subject types.
As ESS moderator I've been pretty liberal about allowing for multiple interpretations and techniques as long as the subject matter is appropriate for the gallery, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't out of line with the general thinking on this matter.
Do you think there are cases where the use of a specific technique trumps the subject matter in determining where an image should be posted (or vice versa)?
More importantly - when such issues arise, do you feel it's appropriate to impose a choice of gallery on the poster rather than let them post where they feel it is most appropriate for the feedback they wish to receive?
Thanks,
Guy
Maybe I need to get out of All Photos more often.
I think there will always be a bit of overlap, and I think the moderators have done an outstanding job handling this.
The situations I was referring to are where an image can fall within the guidelines of 2 different galleries (e.g. for ESS the only guidelines are "Landscapes, seascapes and celestial images with no recognizable "hand of man." - nothing about technique and post-processing, for Photo Art the guidelines are "Digitally manipulated or multiple exposure images that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature." - nothing about subject matter).
The problem with trying to resolve these situations is where to draw the line. We have some posters who routinely use techniques like edge-blurring, exposure blending, Orton effects etc. Is there really a way to determine which should be acceptable and which are not?
Guy
So... this question made me wonder: why exactly are some techniques considered taboo in the subject galleries? Is it because viewers think that the image would get more help in a technique gallery? (If so, I daresay we're all perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves what sort of help we require.) Or is it because viewers think some techniques are repugnant and don't want to be offended by the sight of them? Or what are the other reasons?
I know a lot of people contribute to a variety of gallerys, but most (not all) seem to prefer one over the others.
I have wondered many times how many people ever really go through each seperate forum, or actually just show the whole group from the ALL PHOTOS pick. If hardly anyone is ever using them seperatley, then why even have them seperate?
One large total group might also allow peolpe to learn things that they would miss in a forum they usually never go to.
I tend to agree with the others here who have stated that its best to leave the choice up to the poster. However, having said that, I still feel that when someone is particularly asking for feedback on technique (ortonization, digital painting, series related grouping, etc.) those posts should be placed in the forums intended for that purpose.
Regading the other issue of having separate forums, I think its a good idea to leave things as they are. For folks who want to view all images, Jim already provides a way via the "All Photos" link. Now just because that link exists doesn't mean to all of us have to use it. I spend 90% of my time in the ESS gallery, because that is what interests me the most (at least for now).
You bring up a good point, and I certainly can't argue with it. My contention is just that I don't want to be forced into that mode by only having the one choice. I agree with your IDEAS thought, and use the forums for that purpose as well, but since I have no real interest in macros, etc. I would rather spend what little time I have to study those things are more suited to my tastes. Once a week or so I'l check out a few of the other forums just to keep abreast, but 90% of my particpation remains in just ESS.
As to the original point - I believe in letting the photographer decide but... if the image really is no more than a gimmicky new PS trick or a plug to a post in any of the other subject forums... I think the "self-policing" MG mentioned does its trick pretty fast. The problem comes with non-standard ways of seeing... Well, practically only forum newbies comment on Hobson images about "vignetting" since Mark has established this style long ago with god knows how many "ku#x" posts. Now consider a photographer who is new to the forum and who as well employs an unusual/off-beat style. How many times does he/she have to get comments about technically "correcting" against the different look before we`ll accept that it is a personal choice rather than a shortcoming in skill? Mark H. isn`t easily intimidated by forum "standards" but what if someone is?
I think anyone who has frequented this site for a long time will at some point get tired of the technical mambo-jambo. Fitting or not fitting a gallery theme is just that. As a photographer, I don`t really care if my shot is Man&Nature, ESS or Photo Art - I want to know if it _works_ - what thoughts/feelings it evokes and why (not). I trust our moderators` decisions about gallery rules and normally try not to whine about it.
Sorry for the rambling, must have been the
We will always have the choice of viewing individual galleries or all photos together. This is a unique NPN feature that will not change!
Kent in SD
If there is anything overly transformative to the underlying image, especially if that 'gives away' the photographers "artistic" aspirations, then it should go in Photo Art. Where there is room to fudge for this and that, then I'd like to see Man & Nature combined in to ESS, or maybe if it's only 10% man - can it still qualify. And speaking of including those beautiful barn shots....
Rules applied selectively or randomly are "guidelines", not rules.
Just my almost totally out of the loop, left field opinions, that aren't worth two burnt wooden nickels,
Let grace and forgiveness reign!!