As the digital world expands it has become more challenging to know where to post images. Post processing to an extreme extent used to be my dividing line for posting in the regular forums vs. photo art. Now I find that there are creative modes contained in-camera that I use often. Where do you draw the line... can I use the macro feature, infrared, fisheye or illustration modes that are in-camera and still post in the regular forums. All of us do some post processing, but why are some acceptable and others not. The illustration mode in the Sony camera brings the most doubt to where to post. My recent "Dahlias" post has brought the question to the forefront for me. It is a straight shot but with an artistic feel. What are your thoughts and where do you draw the line?
Posted by scott lanz on January 18, 2017 at 9:47 PM
Patricia, the gallery posting guidelines for Photo Art reads:
"The Photo Art and Series photo critique gallery is intended for digitally manipulated or multiple exposure photos that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature." (emphasis in original).
To me, this is a "digitally manipulated photo that is meant to be an obvious artistic rendition of nature." Therefore, it fits squarley in the Photo Art gallery description. I don't think it matters whether the manipulation took place in camera or in post processing. Now, whether it can also be posted in flora is a different question, and perhaps the question you are asking. Personally, I think it belongs in Photo Art, but that's obviously up to the moderators.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 19, 2017 at 6:43 AM
Gorgeous image! To me, definitely "Photo Art" - in-camera or not, this is quite "manipulated".
Having said that, the Flora Gallery seems much less rigid, and I know in the past, I have posted Flora images that had been filtered mildly-moderately with Topaz or even Fractalius and it was ok.
Maybe guidelines are stricter now, and they probably should be as more and more cool filters are available.
To me, this should be headed for a WP in Photo Art.
Sandy
Posted by Ian Wolfenden on January 19, 2017 at 12:36 PM
Patricia : a difficult and interesting question. As far as definitions go I think the site's Photo Art definition, based on technical factors, is perhaps the best way to do it but it still leaves room for doubt given, as you mention, the incredible variety of effects now available digitally.
I tend to go on the feel of an image - does it seem essentially documentary ( however much one appreciates the style of the image ) or does it seem primarily to aspire to the condition of painting. This image looks to me like a fine book illustration, and I would think Photo Art was the place for it on that count. But there have to be quite a number of images which could go either in Photo Art or in a relevant subject-oriented gallery.
Discussion
4 replies"The Photo Art and Series photo critique gallery is intended for digitally manipulated or multiple exposure photos that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature." (emphasis in original).
To me, this is a "digitally manipulated photo that is meant to be an obvious artistic rendition of nature." Therefore, it fits squarley in the Photo Art gallery description. I don't think it matters whether the manipulation took place in camera or in post processing. Now, whether it can also be posted in flora is a different question, and perhaps the question you are asking. Personally, I think it belongs in Photo Art, but that's obviously up to the moderators.
Nice image, BTW!
Having said that, the Flora Gallery seems much less rigid, and I know in the past, I have posted Flora images that had been filtered mildly-moderately with Topaz or even Fractalius and it was ok.
Maybe guidelines are stricter now, and they probably should be as more and more cool filters are available.
To me, this should be headed for a WP in Photo Art.
Sandy
I tend to go on the feel of an image - does it seem essentially documentary ( however much one appreciates the style of the image ) or does it seem primarily to aspire to the condition of painting. This image looks to me like a fine book illustration, and I would think Photo Art was the place for it on that count. But there have to be quite a number of images which could go either in Photo Art or in a relevant subject-oriented gallery.