Elephants hiding behind black glasses - the so called "superior originality" of manipulated images

See what I mean, Chubbs? You are soooo behind the times:

 

http://www.analisisfotografia.uji.es/root/analisis/imagejem/0372(3).jpg

 

--Lannie

I can understand that there might be a resource problem if the TRP lists would have to be calculated for all the categories. However, I think there is already an unnecessarily dense array of criteria based on the time within which the ratings have been given. If you halve the choices in that list, you can add the unmanipulated check box as a search criteria without increasing resource demand at all. At least that's what I would imagine, if the culprit is the number of searches you can store or run in the background. For example, if the searches were 1 week, 1 month, 1 year and all, and then these in combination with unmanipulated checked or not, this should not be a big problem. I also don't quite understand why there needs to be so many sorting criteria "views,highest of day", separate sums and averages etc. It's all what you consider important. I really don't think the knowledge of when something was rated highly needs to be so densely spaced.

 

Also, you can let us know how much money you'd need to upgrade the system to have enough room for the mani/unmani criteria, and then we can perhaps figure out something. Ultimately, I don't think the database of images needs to be all that big either, for example there are loads of people with a hundred of images or more in their portfolio. I think a portfolio of 25 images should easily be sufficient to display one's best work.

 

Also, the number of images displayed in the mani/unmani lists doent't necessarily need to be so long. Perhaps shorter lists would serve.

I have to admit I don't know how the queries grow in time and space if you add an attribute. Maybe it is indeed significantly slower. Certainly adding that attribute on the select line doesn't take much space or time. :-) Perhaps Brian can give us some data about that.

Chubbs, you need to think about doing some truly fine, fine art that is also startlingly original, like pictures of naked women or something, something no one else has ever thought of doing:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3771748

 

--Lannie

The point isn't that we want to see OUR pictures on the TRP. I don't care about that. It's about seeing traditional reasonably straight photography instead of wading through countless PS filter creations.

<br><b>Chubbsie My Hero!</b></br>

 

<br><img src="http://pics1.homestead.com/files/knight.gif"></br>

I think that the domain reasonablystraightphoto.net is available.

 

Go for it!

Thanks Bailey, I have a day job and lots of other things to do.

:^)))

Where does it stop?

Only photoshop with Paintshop or The Gimp allowed?

All digitaly altered pictures verboten?

What about star filters and such?

 

I have a 8x12 print haning on my wall, I shot ordinary Tri-X in a Contax RTS with Sonnar 135/2.8 and a Softar filter.

A very skilled printer saw my pic and gave me a print for my birthday. He used a tilted enlarger, a staining developer, cropped, dodged and burned and selenium toned the baryt paper.

Believe me, my pictures looks very boring compared to the result from the darkroom of a real B/W wizard.

If you think it's unmanipulated, check the box. We're not kids that need external prodding/rules/enforcers to do what's right.

"We're not kids that need external prodding/rules/enforcers to do what's right."

 

Well said, Santiago! These self appointed critics really spoil the photo.net!

Tienes razon, Santiago, por lo menos con respecto de que no somos ninyos, pero necesitamos algo.

 

--Lannie

<i>I have to admit I don't know how the queries grow in time and space if you add an attribute. Maybe it is indeed significantly slower. Certainly adding that attribute on the select line doesn't take much space or time. :-) Perhaps Brian can give us some data about that.</i><p> Think blizzard - Photo.net has a very large data base. One solution to this often repeated complaint is a site for photo.net and a site for say oh Art.net or photoArt.net (phartnet?). To make it viable there is, of course, advertising and you need to sign up for an account on each server if you want to play on both and have the privledges of both. Photo.net could have searches by camera, etc. to rate and critique. PhotoArt.net could have searches by filter. Its impossible to run both on one site, with this size of a data base. There are sites for analog cameras and sites for digital and sites for toy cameras. There are probably sites for that spy camera in your shoe. Photo.net is a great amalgamation of everything. Even idiot smiley animations and other crap. It's a slice of the world of photography as it evolves in all its aspects. And its great fun. Let's let it run. Who else tolerates posts like this one?</p>

Thanks for that, Meehan! Your post IS truly enjoyable!

Again, if your fun is to see everything amalgamated, you can do that in what I'm proposing. But those who want to see only this or only that can then do it as well.

 

Why do people who like to use PS insist so much to have PS and photography mixed together de facto on the site ? This is what I would really like to understand. I use PS, but I don't have any problem to have my PS works in a PS section. How could I mind ? Why would I mind ? Why do you mind ?

I would take it further. A section for images recorded on super saturated films like Velvia, a section for PS creations, a section for images that used PS, a section for digital captures, a section for B/W captures and one for PS converted B/W images originally made on super saturated films like Velvia or digitally and so on.

 

Why restrict the definition to artifacts added by PS to a captured image

as *manipulated*?

Somewhere up this thread John Crosley made an excellent point, which was that in the world of photography magazines and exhibits, you'll find thousands of photos that wouldn't even warrant a rating on Pnet.

 

If you attend a photographic exhibit, you'll see wonderful photos that are "real" photos - unmanipulated photos. Photos done only on film. Originality on Pnet would be 1. People make lots of money selling calendar photos, post card photos, and magazine photos that would get 1/2 ratings on Pnet. I take a lot of "post card" type photos. I like them. They are not original and do not fare well in the Pnet competition. "Originality" on Pnet is "I haven't seen that before," or "I wonder how he/she did that?" And I guess that's as valid a definition as any.

 

And originality is only half the rating. A macro of a bug on Pnet will get higher marks for "aesthetics" than a very delicate landscape or flower photo. Now what kind of aesthetics are there in a bug?

 

Yes, I think it would be nice to have galleries of "non-over-manipulated photos," but in the larger view, most photographers on photonet will never get a POW and never get to the top rated page, no matter how hard we complain about it. So find a few friends, share some photos, and have a good time. Cheers.

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/cheekymonkeyspice/fanclub.gif">

"A person was basically complaining about the fact that his photographs of nature were real photographs but low-rated, whereas a so called 'nature' picture computer-generated with the now famous flood filter was getting sky-high ratings"

 

I repeat again, I don't care so much about my ratings, I upload the photos that I like, see this for instance:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3563408

 

It was obvious it would get terrible ratings. I don't care.

 

BUT I AGREE TOTALLY WITH YOU IN THIS:

 

"What needs to be done is just this: SEPARATE MANIPULATED IMAGES AND STRAIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY. Don't let them 'compete' for visibility in the TRPs"

Vivek, the thing is that using Velvia or IR film or whatever is still photography by the dictionary definition. Using Velvia doesn't change the forms and shapes in the photo in any substantial way, it just renders the colours in a certain way. I think adding objects from one photo or drawing to another with PS is different (and it doesn't satisfy the definition of what photography is).

Now that Ikkla answered your question, may I just remind you that we already live on photo.net with some EXISTING standard definition of what is called "manipulated" ? All I suggest is that we continue to live with it, but SEPARATE both sides. This is not the time and place to discuss an already accepted definition.

 

And now that you've got our answer, can we have yours, or do you always reply to questions with questions...? :-) (Just teasing)

I never posted any photos on PN, and I probably never will. However, I often browse through the TRPs, partly out of curiosity, partly because I want inspiration from other photographers. If I see a thumbnail I really like, my first thought is: Amazing ? could I have shot a picture like that? And how did he/she do it? I may be naﶥ or maybe it?s poor eyesight, but it sometimes takes me several minutes of clicking (and reading) before I realize that a photo has been manipulated. If the photo I?m looking at has indeed been manipulated, I immediately loose interest. Why? Because I don?t use PS, and if manipulation is part of the reason why the photo stands out, what can I learn from it? Next to nothing.

 

So for me (and others like me), it would be a GREAT improvement (and quite a time saver) if it was possible to separate manipulated and manipulated photos in the search.