Photoshop VS Photography

<blockquote>

<p>Nobody has offered anything in the way of answers to either of these questions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kevin - As to your first question, I still believe that the answer lies in the same rational that fires the controversy over race relations: Distinction means discrimination means unfair discrimination means suffering for the distinguished. The answer to your second question seems to me intuitively obvious: The vehement oppostion to such a filter by the photoshoppers as expressed in this thread would equate to their reduced participation which would result in a financial loss by site management.</p>

<p>My comments are offered with the qualification that I cannot claim membership in the "pro-alteration camp". The way I use the term, by the way, the example you provided (like this thread itself) is very interesting and required obvious skill and vision but has little to do with photography. </p>

<p>Daniel and Robert, thank you for your responses. Judging from the sheer volume of digital graphic art on this site (and the predictable mutual admiration society it seems to have engendered), I'm very tempted to believe, as you say, that politics and money are at the root of this issue. However, I sure would like to hear some feedback on my questions from people who consider themselves "pro-alteration" (for the purposes of this discussion).</p>

<p>Robert, with respect to variations in taste, I'd have to say that the example I linked to seems poorly composed and executed, and certainly not the masterpiece that the fawning reviewers touted it to be.</p>

<p>I find it rather pathetic that the desire to focus one's photographic <strong>education</strong> (being, supposedly, the primary purpose of this site) on in-camera fundamentals raises such a lather in some people, and that these people quickly make unqualified (and unqualifiable) judgments as to one's aims, intentions, artistic ability, and psychological status in response to this simple desire.</p>

<p>It would be also interesting to hear some straightforward answers from this site's admin as to why the site definitions regarding manipulation serve no purpose other than to occupy a few KB of web space, and why the definition can't be used (as other variables are used) for selective filtering and viewing of images. Until it is addressed, the credibility of this site's stated aim, "...striv(ing) to be the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers...", is highly questionable.</p>

<p>As a beginning photographer, I have been put off by the apparent circle-jerk mentality of the rating and critique system and the apparent sway that the photoshop crowd has over site content and policy. Without intelligent responses from a few fellow members to some of my questions, I would not have bothered blowing money on a membership. Lacking any obvious sign that site management wishes to acknowledge a problem perceived by more than a few members, it's doubtful whether they'll get my money next year. It would be a shame to see a site with real potential to benefit photographers turn into just another cheap computer graphics club.</p>

<p><em> "<em>manipulated works bring viewers and advertising money to the site</em> " is probably the most absurd conspiracy statement</em></p>

<p>Why, then is there no filter corresponding to the unmanipulated check box? It isn't difficult to program, I would expect it'd take a programmer an hour's work to implement it and test the UI thoroughly. I may have made a mistake in assuming it's the management doesn't implement it because of fear off loss of attention from the flashy but shallow digital art. Perhaps the managements' reluctance to implement the often requested filter can be explained in another way, however, I am unable to figure out what it could be. Don't give that "who defines what manipulation is" - it doesn't really matter where the line goes. It's the excessively over-the-line images (usually done in poor taste, too) which everyone can see are manipulated that I don't wish to see. Any definition would filter them out, and although I do dodging and burning myself to some images, I accept the definition as it is as a perfectly valid way of distinguishing manipulated images. No argument, just implement the filter and I can start using the gallery without feeling sick.</p>

<p>The general public sees a considerable distinction between images that have objects added to or removed from. There<em> are</em> those who see no distinction - so why not just allow them to use the site as it is? Options for everyone. What I predict would happen from the implementation of the filter is that the discussions on manipulation would largely disappear since everyone can use the site as they want to, more or less and see images that they're interested in.</p>

<p>I think the problem is simply that digital artists want their images to be considered as photographs instead of digital art. They're trying to misrepresent their work and claim that there is no difference although most people do see a difference. If a selection filter were implemented, these digital artists would lose the audience of those who are interested in photography but not excessively manipulated digital art. Is this what photo.net is afraid of? Upsetting a bunch of well connected digital artists? Tell us Josh! There must be a good reason for not implementing such an often requested filter, a reason that is not commercial interest since you dismissed my suggestion about that.</p>

<p>Ilkka, so to make sure i understand your point, you are considering dodging & burning as the same manipulaiton as the excessively over-the-line images?</p>

<p>I dont have a problem having 2 distinct check box or difination like photographs / digital art..but are you not able to see the difference yourself? Or i must ask..do you (all who keep bringing this topic) consider dodge / burn /sharpen / as adigita art or as a normal darkroom process?<br>

none of the *purist*have answer that neither : )</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find it rather pathetic that the desire to focus one's photographic <strong>education</strong> (being, supposedly, the primary purpose of this site) on in-camera fundamentals raises such a lather in some people,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one is interfering with your ability to focus your photographic education whereever you want. Want to know to what extent a photo you like has been manipulated? Leave a comment or send a message to the photographer asking about it. The information you gain from that sort of dialogue will be more meaningful than any arbitrary definitions you think photo.net should apply to the images here.</p>

<p>The Casual Conversations forum is a place for people to chat about photography and, often, to rehash yet again issues that have already been explored. It's not a place where administrators will come and explain site policy just because someone demands they should. While some of the moderators keep an eye on this forum to keep it from spinning out of control, most admins don't even read these threads.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the apparent sway that the photoshop crowd has over site content and policy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of discussions on this site about operating a camera, choosing a camera, proper exposure, lighting techniques and equipment, techniques for shooting portraits/documentary/wedding, business advice, film developing and printing, and a host of other photographic issues. Discussions about putting a different head on someone's body or making other drastic alterations to a photo's content are relatively very, very few. If you are unable to benefit from that knowledge base, what's stopping you? The site certainly doesn't prevent you from accessing all that information.</p>

<p>Are heavily-manipulated photos popular with the thousands of people who like to give out ratings? Yes, they are. Does photo.net require that people give those kinds of images high ratings? No. Does photo.net prevent people from giving high ratings to "unmanipulated" photos? No.</p>

<p>I will also add;</p>

<p>Do you really need a high rating to continue produce images? As i know your are at Photo.net..not in a change your life contest?</p>

<p>is it me or it seem that too many people shoot to win something. I just images because i like to. And i dont ask to critique them because i dont really care personally, not that i wont benefit of it, good explanation is always good..but im not waiting for it to grab images when i saw them : )</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice way to skirt around Ilkka's question Mike.</p>

<p>Do you want me to send you quotes from emails I have exchanged with movers and shakers in the photo world that consider this site to be negligent in the way that it represents photography and the definition there of to the general public? If not casual conversations, where else do people who want this filter engage the idea of it publicly on this site?<br /> <br /> I can only speak for my self when it comes to what I want out of my image viewing experience on Photo.net, but I simply do not want to see CGI / Illustration when I come to "photo".net, I want to see photography. I also do not want my work, my name or my reputation as a professional photographer related in any way to this Photoshop / CGI craze. I am not a purist, I am a photographer.<br /> <br /> So for once, will one of you come clean here and actually tell us WHY you will not enable the feature of being able to further utilize the checkbox system to filter out at least some of the computer graphics?<br /> <br /> We are your members, we have our work on this site and we want to happily pay you for a membership for years to come. But how can you expect us to do that if you won't even consider this request?<br /> <br /> WTF?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>>>> Do you want me to send you quotes from emails I have exchanged with movers and shakers in the photo world that consider this site to be negligent in the way that it represents photography and the definition there of to the general public?</p>

<p>Movers and shakers in the photo world? Heh...</p>

<p>Now I'm feeling really bummed that I don't have similar contacts. But hold on, I can ring my buddy Bob Frank and get his opinion...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps the managements' reluctance to implement the often requested filter can be explained in another way, however, I am unable to figure out what it could be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Except for, you know, the 500 other things that have to be done around here all the time. The "to-do" list is a mile long. Get in line. I know that your pet issue is the most important thing ever, but so is everybody else's. Not everything is a big conspiracy theory to downgrade your personal view of the photography world. Some things just get pushed aside because they are triaged for things that affect more users or affect the site or affect our ability to move forward in the future. That's just life.</p>

<p>And with that, I'm closing this thread. It has reached as logical of a conclusion as will ever be reached on this subject (which is to say "none"). I'm sure you all will have a chance in the very near future to argue about it again, so don't feel too bad. If you wish to argue about photo.net policy or attack those of us who run the place, you will have to do it via email with me. The forums aren't the place for that sort of thing.</p>

<p>Thanks for playing everyone. Go shoot some photos.</p>