Where to Post

My last comment on the image "Path to Fall" explains my thought process of why I posted it in landscape. New England's subtle landscapes lend themselves to be painterly and do not have the drama of landscapes in other areas of the country. This is a typicial fall scene in CT and only had minor refinements. If more NPN members would view "all photos" in their daily routine they would see some extremely beautiful images that are just over the "line" of being completely in-camera. I post in PA when a branch or a blade of grass crosses my subject has been removed. Why is HDR for correction of exposure or detail OK when it requires multiple images, or stitched images not Photo Art. To me photo art is a composite and these techniques are also composites, or it is changed in some way to make it unrealistic to the original photo.

This is the reason I found it difficult to post recently. The direction of my photography has grown in a realistic, but artistic, direction. This limits what I can post drastically. I believe this is one reason why fewer images are being posted... they don't fit the pure "nature" definition.

I know this is a heavily discussed problem. I'm not sure there can be a resolution, unless another category to post is created. Any thoughts?

I post in PA when a branch or a blade of grass crosses my subject has been removed. Why is HDR for correction of exposure or detail OK when it requires multiple images, or stitched images not Photo Art.

Patricia, I think there is a bit of manipulation line fuzziness at times, but simply cloning items out of a scene such as you've mentioned does not make a photo a PA image IMO. If so, then all my images are PA images and not general Landscape. Overall, I think MANY images in Landscape see these basic changes without any disclosures. As far as HDR and stitching I would beg off to moderators call on that type of mods being more PA. But, again, in those cases I see those posted in Landscape and some do give disclosure on those changes.
My thoughts, and I could be totally wrong, PA images are "juiced" and have free reign on manipulation.

Your image in question, in my opinion, fits in the landscape category. Most of the photos in PA are heavily manipulated and, though often very striking and beautiful, are not a realistic representation of something found in nature. I agree with you that your image is a reasonable depiction of reality. I couldn't agree more that viewers of NPN should go to the "All Photos" gallery and view all the recent posts. I would also suggest that some limited "hand of man" be permitted in landscape or maybe do away with Man and Nature entirely. Changes need to be made to increase involvement in NPN, as has been discussed thoroughly in recent threads.

I think unfortunately some forms of manipulation by the "big boys" have been justified for allowance in Landscape, while minor changes by lesser names or lesser landscapes get the boot to PA or M&N or whatever.

There's one landscape photographer in particular who posts outrageous stuff (beautiful, no doubt - but heavily manipulated well beyond camera and even basic multiple exposures). The guy then fills the comment section with 5-10 comments justifying why it is "natural" what he did or why it shouldn't be considered PA or whatever. And guess what, it brings in views and the crap gets to stay.

Of course the line will always be fuzzy - but an image like yours shouldn't be kicked out because of those changes in my opinion. Not when you have photographers taking multiple exposures, at DIFFERENT times with DIFFERENT lenses and blending them together, then flipping the image and HDR'ing it saying "oh, you weren't there, it TOTALLY looked like that"

/endrant

A very interesting topic ! For me, a photograph is an artefact rather than a document, often wrapped in ambiguity and always reflecting the perspective of the photographer.

Since the early days of the medium photographs have been much manipulated in the darkroom, and now on the computer. I have no problem with that for landscapes, bird shots or whatever, providing the intention is to present the subject in the best way possible in line with the photographer's vision. Where ( as with special lens effects, for example ) there is distortion of the subject in the interests of a more abstract visual effect, then, yes, you have what we may term ` Photo Art '.

I see many images in the Photo Art Gallery which I would be perfectly happy to see in the subject galleries. I see far fewer in the subject galleries which I feel might need to be moved to Photo Art.

And, of course, the categories can never be fixed to everyone's satisfaction and there will always be images which could be posted in different galleries !!!!

I think this topic bears further discussion. If we are to follow present gallery guidelines, I think Patricia's fine image belongs in photo art, which "is intended for digitally manipulated or multiple exposure photos that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature." I realize that maybe her image is not any more "digitally manipulated" than most here, but it has been digitally manipulated, and it is, at least to me, "intended as [an] obvious artistic rendition[ ] of nature." It therefore belongs in PA, IMO. However, I realize that others may disagree, and there will always be line drawing issues. Unlike the U.S. Supreme court defining obscenity, I don't always know it when I see it.

However, adhering to the gallery guidelines has become inconsistent, to say the least. I often see flora and landscape images that meet the PA criteria, but are posted in the wrong forum and are allowed to stay. An image was posted in macro last week that belonged in PA, but I did not move it because I don't want to be perceived as the only moderator stickler.

As I mentioned in a thread I started a couple weeks ago in the discussion forum, images that belong in M&N under the present criteria are often posted intentionally in the wrong forum. Even if it is later moved, it will have received more views and comments than had the image been correctly posted to begin with. This is even more so if an image like Patricia's (which is a fine image and deserving of many views and comments) is posted in Landscape versus PA.

Then there is the digital manipulation issue raised by Luke. I agree that we see images heavily digitally manipulated to the point where they are clearly "intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature" posted and allowed to remain in Landscape (and perhaps even awarded a WP), but if it contains a path or distant fence, it gets moved to M&N.

I also don't understand how a close up of a leaf, rock, or flora (e.g., an agave) is a "landscape."

I'll again suggest that it might be time to revisit, or at least clarify, some of the galleries and gallery criteria, as well as whether the guidelines should be enforced (and, if so, how) or made strictly voluntary.

I think it’s stealing…
When a person posts a composite or otherwise in the Landscape gallery, especially without disclosure.

Everyone knows the rules.

How can one comment on a photo when they don’t even know what they are looking at?

It’s like commenting with the wool pulled over one’s eyes. What a terrible waste of time for the people participating, especially the ones who have shared their precious time and thoughts. What an insult to the viewers and commenters. What an insult to all of us.

We have rules. No need to change them or make new ones.

We the people make the difference. We the people need to call out the questionable photos and ask the mods to do the same.

Indeed NPN is a cut above the flashy/glossy sites where anything goes. Let’s not water down what sets us apart.
If it becomes known that NPN is not a place to post a lie, then fewer of them will see the light of our monitors.

That being said, I think most folks agree that digital manipulation in order to make the photo look more like how the eye saw it, or overcome the limitations of the camera is acceptable to post in Landscape. In fact this is the opposite of photo art.

There is a post in PA from 12/29 by Kathy Barnhart of a nice sunset and seascape. She used a Color Efex filter on the photo and so she felt it belonged in PA. It has received significantly fewer views than photos in Landscape posted on the same date.

My question is why is it okay to take a photo of the ocean at 1 sec to get a nice smooth look to the water and post this in landscape? This is not how nature looks, nor is it how the photographer saw it. It is purely a form of photo manipulation. I'm not arguing for such a photo to be in PA, but rather that we not be so dogmatic and allow some leeway in what is posted in landscape.

It's always a grey area/fuzzy line when it comes to these decisions. It's a superb photo that IMO works well in the PA gallery, but based on some of the other photos currently posted in Landscape, could certainly belong there as well.

I think the best advice is to post it where YOU think it belongs and if moved, don't hesitate to ask why. At the end of the day, our mission is to support our members in their photographic/artistic endeavors while trying to maintain guidelines to keep it equitable for all.

Jim, well said. I made a decision to post in landscape and the moderators had a perfect right to move it to Photo Art. In my humble opinion PA is not a "lesser" category at all and it is up to those who post there to make it the best on the web. Just would like to see more views and comments in that category from the rest of the NPN family.

Damn Jim,
What a Politician you have become, well said and very middle of the road, I am impressed. I recently had a Photo Art image moved to Avian, was not sure of the criteria that the image lacked other than the opinion of the moderator and after all, that is ultimately what it boils down to is trying to please the moderator's opinion. I am not trying to be disrespectful by any means, just a truthful statement IMO and part of the discontent within the community no matter what you think. I have great respect for all the moderators, the time and effort they contribute and their collective body of work but,I would not want the job, you cannot please all the people all the time has never been more true than for a Moderator.

Patricia - as there are many folks that find it difficult to decide what gallery to post in, there are many people all over the world finding it difficult to believe in what they see and hear... There in, lies the problem.

You've just posted an image you're happy with... you like how it looks, but there are other folks that will take offense. "This doesn't belong here!"... "wrong category"...."this isn't photography".

As the world becomes more uncertain, the need for unbending rules becomes more important. It is a function of human nature wanting to control a small portion of the world that is controllable. All this in a world, as a whole, that is becoming out of control.

Imagery is a crucial part of our species. It conveys dreams, social structure, and an agreed upon reality. If the image messes with "reality" you'll get push-back. This is what my work is about, calling into question what one is viewing. My personal rules about images are;

If you make an image that is a composite and is totally believable, tell people it is a composite. We are being tricked and lied to constantly... don't add to the problem. The word "photoshop", has a negative and cynical meaning to the population at large. It's not because photoshop gives them beauty, it's because photoshop is being used to change reality and manipulate the viewer's perception.

If you make an image that is a composite and is totally unbelievable, you need not explain. Let the viewer decide their own meaning.

If you take an image and then run it through software that transforms the image more than just exposure, contrast, and saturation and changes the nature or presentation of the image, it is no longer photography, but a photographic illustration. I feel the image you're referring to falls into this category and I would welcome it in the Photo Art Gallery as it is a very beautiful image.

LOL @ Mike! No, I'm not running for office.

Sometimes, there are no wrong or right answers. Discussions like this one are good, even if they add little clarity. It's all so subjective....

Discussions like this have been going on since the beginning of photography. In my mind, a major underlying factor is the perception that a photograph "captures" reality. There however is a large body of scientific study (in psychology of perception) that makes it clear that every one of us sees the world differently and no camera can ever capture that. As an example, the human retina (especially our color vision, the rods) is only able to capture about 2 - 3 stops of dynamic range. However because our irises are constantly and rapidly opening and closing as we scan a scene, our brain records closer to 10 stops. The best digital cameras now capture 6+ stops and film was typically capable of capturing 4 - 5 stops of dynamic range. In addition our constantly changing focus allows us to "see" everything from front to back as sharp. Given what the human eye/brain combo is capable of, I don't see any reason to call a composite either for dof, dynamic range, or for a wider view photoart. It's allowing us to compensate for limitations in what the camera captures to better fit how our human vision works (and it was all done in the dark room previously, again with some admitting it and others not). When it comes to adding Orton effects, for example, the line between "vision" and "art" becomes much more challenging and each of us is likely to draw the line differently. For me, Patricia's lovely image is right on the line, I had no problem viewing it in landscape because there's plenty of "real detail" albeit with a clear subtle glow and softness that reminds me of smearing vasoline on lens (or filter) in non-digital days.

It's obvious from this thread that there is no hard boundary when it comes to posting in any particular gallery. As one of the five moderators in the landscape and M&N galleries we sometimes have to make decisions on whether or not to move images. In this particular case it was a group decision with three of five mods agreeing to move. The consensus was that the applied effect was strong enough that the image reached the tipping point over the imaginary line. Once again this point is a moving target and totally subjective so it's no surprise that there are differing opinions. We will always strive for consistency but having five mods with differing tastes and sensibilities makes it a tougher task. The upside is that there is also nice diversity in weekly picks and no particular style will dominate. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

David

Many times there is no concrete "right or wrong" answer in moving an image. This was certainly the case in moving Patricia's image. It was right on the edge of being in a couple of galleries, either M&N or PA, but due to the obvious path in the image, it really wasn't appropriate in Landscape. In the end, a majority of the Mods determined PA was the place it best fit and I moved it there. I would be just as happy to have it in M&N.

Luke, I would really like an example of where we Mods have shown favoritism to "big" names. If we have I feel it was unintentional. We sincerely try our best to be fair and "blind" to whose images we move. We have certainly made numerous people, both big names and not so big names, mad and upset with with us for moving images sometimes. That's just part of the job. If we've missed someone who, in your opinion, should have been moved, please let me know or give an example. You can email me privately if you would prefer.

Bill, I agree with the moderators' decision to move Patricia's image to the Photo Art Gallery. IMO it is a beautiful piece of Photo Art. It is good to know that the moderators consult with each other when there could be differing opinions on whether an image should or should not be moved.

I do not understand, however, why the gorgeous Agave image that won the 2014 1st HM in the Landscape Gallery was permitted to stay in that Gallery. It does not fit the description of the Landscape Gallery ("photos of natural landscapes, seascapes and celestial images showing no evidence of hand of man") and perfectly fits the description of the Flora Gallery ("photos of plants and flowers").

Bill - I'm referring to something that was happening awhile ago. Admittedly I haven't spent much time on NPN in the past year, so maybe it is no longer an issue. I'll poke around and see if the poster I'm thinking of has done this in recent time or not. Thanks for reaching out

Bill - the last post they have in their gallery is from 10/13 so I guess I think the problem took care of itself and looking through a few months worth of posts it seems like a good set of names and good set of images.

Thanks Luke.

Carol - what you mention about the Agave plant is another tough call. While it would have certainly fit in Flora, it can also be considered an intimate landscape. I shoot a lot of those myself and many times I'm conflicted about where to post them. So far, there has been no consistency in my personal intimate landscape posts. I have even posted the same image in both places at the same time before. It's just one of those personal calls and we generally let those slide. If the shooter shot it as a intimate landscape it should be in Landscape, if they shot as a flora, it should be posted in Flora; the problem being, only THEY know what their intention was. It's seldom a black & white issue.

How about a category of "Enhanced Nature Imagery" for any images that are now placed in the regular categories but have been enhanced in some way, i.e. removal of branch, multiple images, composite, change of sky, a software effect, changes it from a straight photo into the artist's personal vision of the scene. Must begin as a nature shot and its manipulation explained to the membership when posted. Heavily manipulated images and obvious manipulation would be placed in Photo Art. Floral could stay the same. Strict guidelines would be enforced in the regular nature categories. Its success would be contingent upon the honesty and integrity of our members.

I was one of the mods who thought Patricia's image should stay in Landscape. Bill mentioned the path then I thought maybe M&N but living in New England I have seen forest scenes with what looks like paths but are really created by flowing water that later dry up and get covered with leaves and other forest debris (the wet lands behind my previous home in Sudbury, MA). I was on the fence about that and could have gone either way. Again, disclosure is important in our decisions. Cleaning up debris (branches, garbage, dust spots, etc.) is not Photo Art. We all do it. Photo Art on the other hand to me is a composite image made up of different components from several scenes or taken at different times combined to produce a single image.

There is also always a discussion about motion blur images or "Vaseline blur images created in camera amongst us mods. I am OK with them and have posted several in Landscape but others are not in agreement. As David and Bill mentioned we always amicably discuss the non-black-and-white decisions to move an image. We (us mods) have moved images of big names for very obvious reasons - roads, fences, paths, houses and have had to deal with their displeasure but those decisions were certainly, undeniably B&W decisions. Heavy use of the Orton effect, HDR, excessive Photoshop, Nik, DxO fall into the subjective category. Where do we draw the line? What about B&W? Personally, I think rules may need to be clarified or redefined in my opinion for consistency in decisions.

In closing, David summed it up well........ "Once again this point is a moving target and totally subjective so it's no surprise that there are differing opinions. We will always strive for consistency but having five mods with differing tastes and sensibilities makes it a tougher task. The upside is that there is also nice diversity in weekly picks and no particular style will dominate." Which in my opinion is a good thing.

Eva said, "In closing, David summed it up well........ 'Once again this point is a moving target and totally subjective so it's no surprise that there are differing opinions. We will always strive for consistency but having five mods with differing tastes and sensibilities makes it a tougher task. The upside is that there is also nice diversity in weekly picks and no particular style will dominate.' Which in my opinion is a good thing."

Eva, but I respectfully disagree. Maybe this fosters diversity within the landscape gallery, but I think it leads to viewers, posters, and commenters remaining "landscape gallery centric," ignoring the other galleries where their images are far more appropriate. Viewing NPN as a whole, I think it discourages diversity in both posts and comments.

Bill said, "Carol - what you mention about the Agave plant is another tough call. While it would have certainly fit in Flora, it can also be considered an intimate landscape."

Bill, I respectfully disagree. Even so-called "intimate" landscapes should contain some aspect of, well, land. Per Webster's, a landscape is "a picture that shows a natural scene of land or the countryside." A close up of an agave, leaf, etc., is not a landscape or even an intimate landscape. While I realize there will always be line drawing issues, I think adherence to the written guidelines is inconsistent. As noted by Bill, if an image is a landscape but contains a worn path, it gets moved to M&N, but if it is not a landscape to begin with, like the agave image, it can stay.

In his response to Patricia on where her image belonged, Jim said: "...but based on some of the other photos currently posted in Landscape, could certainly belong there as well." Setting aside the path issue, I take it that Jim is saying that what controls are not just the written guidelines, but the evolving practice at NPN on where people post images and what is allowed by the moderators. I think this is what David also referenced with his comment about what is allowed being "a moving target." I think this approach will encourage members to stretch the guidelines and post where they want. Maybe there is nothing wrong with that at all. I just think some members get frustrated when some guidelines are strictly enforced while others seem to be relaxed.

Personally, I think that if an image can be posted in more than one gallery, then the poster may choose where to post, but if it does not meet the written guidelines, it should be moved regardless of current practice. The posting guidelines say to post "in the appropriate gallery" based on the guidelines. If a guideline should be revised based on what is currently being posted, or what a gallery should contain (for example, to permit landscape images to contain some hand of man), or for the sake of clarity, then let's revise it. To this end, I have sent Jim a private email suggesting revisions to the macro & close up guidelines so they are more consistent with what is actually routinely posted in that gallery.

Again, just my .02. I may be making more of this than necessary, and it may be a non-issue to most.

I was the one who posed the question among the moderating group regarding Patricia's photo. Regardless of the actual techniques used, it looked to me like a photo art image. I totally agree that what constitutes landscape photography is a moving target. I have been shooting landscapes for almost 10 years now and we are seeing a big change in the approach to the genre. Very much in vogue at the moment is the RAW file being used like a canvas with what is captured by the camera an outline onto which colour and light is painted on. This is becoming the norm in the genre. Those who are skilled at it can turn a blue sky landscape into a blazing sunset with alpen glow while making it all look very natural. On the other hand one can capture in-camera landscapes which look surreal and unrealistic. These are the difficulties I see facing trying to define what is landscape photography now. However, this is a NATURE photography forum and I think that the landscapes that are posted to the forum should be a fairly faithful representation of reality with some artistic licence.

I agree with Scott's issue with intimate landscapes which don't actually include any landscapes. That needs to be clarified.

I have been trying to just read the responses without responding, but Kah Kit's suggestion that this is not a natural landscape is just wrong. Connecticut is a state where woodland blocks the views, sunsets, sunrises, mountains, valleys and the scene in the image is completely normal. The weak curved birch trees are also normal. You don't see stands of white birch with straight trunks until a little further north where it is also colder. This is NATURE/REALITY in my neck of the woods! That is why there are so few landscape images posted from this area. We have plenty of woods and stones, but not the dramatic scenes you usually see on this site. There was a comment on the picture implying that an in-camera affect (probably fish-eye) was applied in-camera. That is also false. If I use those effects I freely disclose that in the commentary under the picture. Besides, Levels and sharpening, the only software effect used was NIK's Glamour Glow.

I didn't even consider the rough pathway when I placed it landscape, my mistake. It should have been moved to M&N because of that alone. So I am not objecting to the move at all. I love Photo Art and have plenty of images I intend to proudly post there, but I will continue to post CT's landscape in Landscape if that is the category where it belongs.

Actually I did not at all imply this is not a natural landscape Patricia; where did I say that? I hardly touched upon your photo as an example, rather made some general statements about the current state of landscape photography. With regard to your particular image I thought that the processing and use of glow crossed the line for me into photo art territory. As mentioned it was not a unanimous decision, but a close vote to move the photo to photo art.