This post is mostly in response to Harley's "Over the top colours" post. His comments (and Lon's) comments got me thinking - this might be a dumb idea, but I'll just throw it out there...
If we have a gallery which features "extreme" digital manipulation (Photo Art), why not have a gallery at the opposite extreme for those who perceive themselves to be "purists" - kind of a "Nature Au Naturel" concept. The idea would be that the images would be mostly "as captured" and adjusted only very minimally. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of guidelines that tell the poster that the image should have only very minor adjustments (such as minor sharpening, no excessive saturation, etc.). Subject matter could be virtually anything that would be found in the "other" galleries - so it could be landscapes, wildlife, birds, flowers/vegetation, close-ups, etc...
I'm aware that there would be no true way to police it, but that's the case in ALL the galleries anyway (as was discussed in Harley's post). I know a number of photographers that have strong views against any kind of digital manipulation and this would give them a home - and their images would be "judged" against other "as captured" shots, rather than images that have been pushed pretty darned far...
Anyway...just a thought...I'm not married to the idea but thought I'd throw it out there...
Cheers...
Brad
PS: The proposed title of this gallery has nothing to do with nude subjects or the photographer shooting while "in the raw", so to speak.
Honestly, Brad, I think a new gallery would serve only to confuse the issue. Additionally, it would be difficult to moderate.
I believe the best course of action is for the moderators of their respective galleries to discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to what is considered Photo Art. The next step would be to post their criteria so that everyone is on the same page.
Thanks for the feedback. Like I said, I'm not at all married to the idea. But I don't see how your arguments against the gallery I'm suggesting don't apply equally to the Photo Art gallery.
In terms of what is considered Photo Art vs. the alternate (and I have no clue what to call the alternate - "Not Photo Art?" "Closer to As Shot?"). Coming to a consensus on that could be one major exercise in frustration and futility - any definition and/or guideline is bound to be arbitrary and open to challenge - after all it's a total "slippery slope" situation. And it doesn't involve just post-processing issues - from the moment we choose a lens, alter shutter speed and/or aperture we've begun the process of "manipulating" and/or "interpreting" the scene. Just where the boundary into Photo Art is crossed is virtually impossible to define or build a guideline for...
Discussion
2 repliesIf we have a gallery which features "extreme" digital manipulation (Photo Art), why not have a gallery at the opposite extreme for those who perceive themselves to be "purists" - kind of a "Nature Au Naturel" concept. The idea would be that the images would be mostly "as captured" and adjusted only very minimally. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of guidelines that tell the poster that the image should have only very minor adjustments (such as minor sharpening, no excessive saturation, etc.). Subject matter could be virtually anything that would be found in the "other" galleries - so it could be landscapes, wildlife, birds, flowers/vegetation, close-ups, etc...
I'm aware that there would be no true way to police it, but that's the case in ALL the galleries anyway (as was discussed in Harley's post). I know a number of photographers that have strong views against any kind of digital manipulation and this would give them a home - and their images would be "judged" against other "as captured" shots, rather than images that have been pushed pretty darned far...
Anyway...just a thought...I'm not married to the idea but thought I'd throw it out there...
Cheers...
Brad
PS: The proposed title of this gallery has nothing to do with nude subjects or the photographer shooting while "in the raw", so to speak.
I believe the best course of action is for the moderators of their respective galleries to discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to what is considered Photo Art. The next step would be to post their criteria so that everyone is on the same page.
--P
Thanks for the feedback. Like I said, I'm not at all married to the idea. But I don't see how your arguments against the gallery I'm suggesting don't apply equally to the Photo Art gallery.
In terms of what is considered Photo Art vs. the alternate (and I have no clue what to call the alternate - "Not Photo Art?" "Closer to As Shot?"). Coming to a consensus on that could be one major exercise in frustration and futility - any definition and/or guideline is bound to be arbitrary and open to challenge - after all it's a total "slippery slope" situation. And it doesn't involve just post-processing issues - from the moment we choose a lens, alter shutter speed and/or aperture we've begun the process of "manipulating" and/or "interpreting" the scene. Just where the boundary into Photo Art is crossed is virtually impossible to define or build a guideline for...
Cheers...
Brad