I'm working on a leaf, and I didn't want to move it, so I decided to photograph it where it was and make a solid color background for it. This would seem to me to make it photo art, except that I've seen many images in Flora where flowers, grasses, seeds have been photographed against paper or other backgrounds, usually inside, I think. How does one determine whether an image is flora or photo art? The leaf itself is unchanged other than normal postprocessing. Thanks.
Posted by Lon Overacker on December 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM
Barbara,
I would defer to the Flora moderators, but will offer my opinion about this. There are two things going on here that may help your decision. From the Posting guidelines,
"Photo Art and Series - Digitally manipulated or multiple exposure images that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature. Also a series of photos taken in succession. "
And:
"Please review the following gallery theme descriptions and place your image in the appropriate gallery;"
Technically I would consider your description a composite of some kind and so more appropriate might, could, or should be Photo Art. However, there isn't anything really that "disqualifies" the image from being in Flora. Even the definition of Flora:
"Flora Gallery - Plants and flowers. Staged, set-up, or studio shots must be stated as such. " I would think "studio" could be equated to a PhotoShop studio?
In the end, the mods will move the image if they don't think it's appropriate.
Thanks, Lon. So maybe it's physical manipulation is Flora and digital manipulation is Photo Art.
Posted by Lon Overacker on December 3, 2010 at 6:47 PM
Barbara,
IMHO, I would think of it in terms of the kind of manipulation, if any (that quickly gets down a rat hole as to what defines "manipulation.")
Rather I would consider your intent. Is your intent to produce an artsy piece of work that is really more about your creativity and process than it is about the subject? Or is your intent to showcase the plant or flower, regardless of in-studio setup or if you moved the plant/leaf or whatever? In other words do you want to show off the leaf and perhaps just remove the cluttered background? Or do you want to create a water color that happens to have leaves in it?
Hope that makes sense. But I would contact Bill Fach in Flora if you're still unsure.
Yes, showing the leaf and removing the cluttered background is exactly what I wanted to do. The leaf is the only thing I care about in this one.
Posted by Bill Fach on December 3, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Barbara: I hope Pat weighs in on this as he has addressed the same topic in other threads quite eloquently. I must tell you that in over 3 years as moderator I've only moved a handful of images to Photo Art. I would like to tell you I have an objective standard but I really don't. Even in capture the use of filters, zooming during exposure, etc. are all ways of rendering the subject unnaturally. I usually draw the line if there is a significant digital manipulation of the main subject (I don't consider conversions to B&W out of bounds). David Kelly just posted a gerbera against a highly modified BG but the subject is unaltered so it stays where he posted it. As for your specific idea I think it's fine as long as you state how you got to the finished presentation. Of course hefty cash donations to the Flora Moderator support fund help in the decision making process >=))>
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 3, 2010 at 7:56 PM
Of course hefty cash donations to the Flora Moderator support fund help in the decision making process >=))>
I posted it in Flora, and Bill and Pat can see what they think, and I'll follow from what they do with this one. Thank you!
Posted by David W. Kelly on December 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Bill the checks in the mail. Barbara I think you put the image in the right gallery IMHO. Beautiful work as I stated in a comment.
Posted by Pat Sampson on December 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Barbara, Bill,
Sorry to get here late on this - a database conversion at work has eaten most of my time the last two days. (smile)
I've been thinking about the Flora/Photo Art gallery classification criteria some myself over the last couple of months and here's where I've ended up.
Good photography, with the exception of some documentary photography, is art, at least as I understand the term. The photographer employs line, color, shape, texture and value in her/his creations as does any other visual artist working in a two dimensional medium. Also, the best work is emotionally engaging and intellectually stimulating as in any art. Consequently, it doesn't seem to me that I can use the "Art" in "Photo Art" to classify images. Most of the best images that appear in Flora or any of the galleries are art per the criteria I cite. A casual examination of the images in Weekly Picks for the past several years will bear this out.
So, I actually ended up exactly where Lon did. If your intent is to enhance a flora image using digital emulations of traditional dark room techniques or more modern techniques such as HDR, then by all means feel free to post the image in Flora. This includes significant digital alterations to the image, so long as stated. However, if you're creating an image that contains flora but where that content is incidental to the overall artistic intent of the image, then you should post it in Photo Art. Also, if your image involves the use of non standard multiple layer techniques and PS plugins, then you will be better served by posting the image in Photo Art in that you will most likely receive more helpful suggestions and comments there.
Bill, David,
I'm assuming you two are pretty much in agreement in that this is mostly just a recap of comments I've made over the last two months. If not, please jump in and let me know.
Discussion
10 repliesI would defer to the Flora moderators, but will offer my opinion about this. There are two things going on here that may help your decision. From the Posting guidelines,
"Photo Art and Series - Digitally manipulated or multiple exposure images that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature. Also a series of photos taken in succession. "
And:
"Please review the following gallery theme descriptions and place your image in the appropriate gallery;"
Technically I would consider your description a composite of some kind and so more appropriate might, could, or should be Photo Art. However, there isn't anything really that "disqualifies" the image from being in Flora. Even the definition of Flora:
"Flora Gallery - Plants and flowers. Staged, set-up, or studio shots must be stated as such. " I would think "studio" could be equated to a PhotoShop studio?
In the end, the mods will move the image if they don't think it's appropriate.
Hope this helps.
Lon
IMHO, I would think of it in terms of the kind of manipulation, if any (that quickly gets down a rat hole as to what defines "manipulation.")
Rather I would consider your intent. Is your intent to produce an artsy piece of work that is really more about your creativity and process than it is about the subject? Or is your intent to showcase the plant or flower, regardless of in-studio setup or if you moved the plant/leaf or whatever? In other words do you want to show off the leaf and perhaps just remove the cluttered background? Or do you want to create a water color that happens to have leaves in it?
Hope that makes sense. But I would contact Bill Fach in Flora if you're still unsure.
Lon
I posted it in Flora, and Bill and Pat can see what they think, and I'll follow from what they do with this one. Thank you!
Sorry to get here late on this - a database conversion at work has eaten most of my time the last two days. (smile)
I've been thinking about the Flora/Photo Art gallery classification criteria some myself over the last couple of months and here's where I've ended up.
Good photography, with the exception of some documentary photography, is art, at least as I understand the term. The photographer employs line, color, shape, texture and value in her/his creations as does any other visual artist working in a two dimensional medium. Also, the best work is emotionally engaging and intellectually stimulating as in any art. Consequently, it doesn't seem to me that I can use the "Art" in "Photo Art" to classify images. Most of the best images that appear in Flora or any of the galleries are art per the criteria I cite. A casual examination of the images in Weekly Picks for the past several years will bear this out.
So, I actually ended up exactly where Lon did. If your intent is to enhance a flora image using digital emulations of traditional dark room techniques or more modern techniques such as HDR, then by all means feel free to post the image in Flora. This includes significant digital alterations to the image, so long as stated. However, if you're creating an image that contains flora but where that content is incidental to the overall artistic intent of the image, then you should post it in Photo Art. Also, if your image involves the use of non standard multiple layer techniques and PS plugins, then you will be better served by posting the image in Photo Art in that you will most likely receive more helpful suggestions and comments there.
Bill, David,
I'm assuming you two are pretty much in agreement in that this is mostly just a recap of comments I've made over the last two months. If not, please jump in and let me know.
pat