Jump to content

Elimination of the digital alterations category


Should the digital alterations category been eliminated in pn 2.0>  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the digital alterations category been eliminated in pn 2.0>

    • absolutely yes
      3
    • no
      15


Recommended Posts

It was explained to me by Glenn Palm that the digital alterations category was removed and that photo manipulations should go into the abstract category. Has there been a strong resistance to photo-manipulations by a vocal group that I’m unaware of. Several very strong artists have migrated from photo.net to places like deviantart.com. I am wondering if photo.net wants to stick with straight photography (mild adjustments to the image) which would be a shame for me at least having been a photo.net member for 14 years. I’m in the minority though and i understand that but I do not see why a digital alterations category cannot be re-added and the lack of it is a shame imo.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I think it was great that, in the past, PN offered and supported a "digital alterations" category and would also like to see it reinstated. Though I'm not a big fan of a lot of heavily digitally altered photos (not because I have anything against the process but because I very often don't like the results), I think it's a genre of the future and is important to recognize in today's photographic world. While some digitally-altered photos are done to make abstracts, most are not, so identifying digital alterations with abstracts strikes me as odd. There are plenty of digitally altered landscapes, portraits, and nature photos. A lot of digital alteration is done to photos that would still nicely fit into those original categories of landscape, portrait, and nature, etc. But there are so many instances where digital alteration is the much more overriding theme than the particular subject matter and I think it's a very key classification in today's world. I don't think one has to necessarily like digitally altered photos in order to recognize their place in photography as well as their popularity and I join you in hoping they'll be given a forum on PN. Edited by Norma Desmond
  • Like 5
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even know there was a Digital Alterations forum category all these ten or so years I've been a paying member.

 

I assumed from what that name implies (and I could be misinterpreting it) was covered in "Digital Darkroom" forum.

 

Digital Illustration & Compositing defines it better than "Abstract". So even though I voted against Digital Alterations reinstatement, I'ld vote for a new category whose name better defines it and separates it from Abstract IMO. Digital Photo Illustration & Compositing is even better but it might be too long a title.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto to David's and Fred's comments. Most the abstracts I see aren't digital alterations, and most the digital alterations I see aren't abstracts. Tim does have a point about the name, though--might be an interesting discussion about where the line that separates enthusiastic post-processing from digital alterations is.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else got lost in the move to PN 2.0. is the category restrictions for posting in No Words to keep folks from posting non-related photos. No more "Abstract", "Architecture", "Pictorial", etc. categories. Several times in PN 1.0 my image's were removed because they thinly (I'm assuming) related to the category.

 

Or maybe I haven't found the option nested somewhere in the new interface since I haven't started a new topic in No Words, yet.

 

Not trying to be off topic. It's just not that important enough to me to start a whole new thread on it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My latest image got removed from abstract and placed into funny category. I think the category “funny” is just nondescript and is a user based decision. And the image is not an abstract but i was told to place photo manipulations there. Other sites have a “photo-manipulations” category which would probably make sense for photo.net to adopt. Sorry but my image does not belong in the “funny” category even though 1 person with the authority to move it around, says so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least half a dozen folks who specialize in and execute dramatic and remarkable digital / surreal photos David, Ben, come to mind at once, apologies to several others whose names I can't recall at this moment. To me these images are representative of a unique photographic art form well beyond simple (or even more complex) digital manipulation or the results heavy editing via any of the numerous digital tools. I believe they are deserving of their own category -- possibly Digitally Surreal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I think it was great that, in the past, PN offered and supported a "digital alterations" category and would also like to see it reinstated. Though I'm not a big fan of a lot of heavily digitally altered photos (not because I have anything against the process but because I very often don't like the results), I think it's a genre of the future and is important to recognize in today's photographic world. While some digitally-altered photos are done to make abstracts, most are not, so identifying digital alterations with abstracts strikes me as odd. There are plenty of digitally altered landscapes, portraits, and nature photos. A lot of digital alteration is done to photos that would still nicely fit into those original categories of landscape, portrait, and nature, etc. But there are so many instances where digital alteration is the much more overriding theme than the particular subject matter and I think it's a very key classification in today's world. I don't think one has to necessarily like digitally altered photos in order to recognize their place in photography as well as their popularity and I join you in hoping they'll be given a forum on PN.

I do hope they reinstate the category. The message I got was that it held little interest in the grand new look and focus for photo.net. I hope I’m wrong but someone was making the decisions which categories to keep and those to get rid of. Thanks for your thoughtful words Fred.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even know there was a Digital Alterations forum category all these ten or so years I've been a paying member.

 

I assumed from what that name implies (and I could be misinterpreting it) was covered in "Digital Darkroom" forum.

 

Digital Illustration & Compositing defines it better than "Abstract". So even though I voted against Digital Alterations reinstatement, I'ld vote for a new category whose name better defines it and separates it from Abstract IMO. Digital Photo Illustration & Compositing is even better but it might be too long a title.

 

Yes, it could be better defined. Like I said, other websites use the category photo-manipulations. Along the lines about what Fred mentions, those images that are specifically designed to take advantage of the digital alteration process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto to David's and Fred's comments. Most the abstracts I see aren't digital alterations, and most the digital alterations I see aren't abstracts. Tim does have a point about the name, though--might be an interesting discussion about where the line that separates enthusiastic post-processing from digital alterations is.

 

Some abstracts are created in the digital darkroom and I can understand that being used as the primary purpose to create an abstract but like you said the majority of digital alterations would be erroneously classified as abstracts and might even concern those photographers that focus on abstract work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least half a dozen folks who specialize in and execute dramatic and remarkable digital / surreal photos David, Ben, come to mind at once, apologies to several others whose names I can't recall at this moment. To me these images are representative of a unique photographic art form well beyond simple (or even more complex) digital manipulation or the results heavy editing via any of the numerous digital tools. I believe they are deserving of their own category -- possibly Digitally Surreal?

Thanks Sandy...i’ve been fortunate to have Ben Goosens as a coach for some of my images and I hope we all stay here but various artists that do this type of work migrated a while ago. Ben still posts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else got lost in the move to PN 2.0. is the category restrictions for posting in No Words to keep folks from posting non-related photos. No more "Abstract", "Architecture", "Pictorial", etc. categories. Several times in PN 1.0 my image's were removed because they thinly (I'm assuming) related to the category.

 

Or maybe I haven't found the option nested somewhere in the new interface since I haven't started a new topic in No Words, yet.

 

Not trying to be off topic. It's just not that important enough to me to start a whole new thread on it.

I think the more pn knows about these things, the better off the community will be. Ultimately, the work is being done by people either paid very little or volunteers I believe. I would imagine there will be some changes if people are vocal about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David and other digital artists are being treated with disrespect here. Not saying any intention to but that is how it is. We all deserve the right to be able to present our work in a way we feel is appropriate. Digital art is a modern genre of photography as widely recognised and must be given its rightful place here.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David and other digital artists are being treated with disrespect here. Not saying any intention to but that is how it is. We all deserve the right to be able to present our work in a way we feel is appropriate. Digital art is a modern genre of photography as widely recognised and must be given its rightful place here.

thanks Tony...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that’s Jackie Robinson...i’ll switch back to my mug soon...

 

This makes no sense at all. You can't be Jackie Robinson because he is dead. I also think that he was a Baptist. But these are indeed strange days for PN... :rolleyes:

 "I See Things..."

The FotoFora Community Experience [Link]

A new community for creative photographers.  Come join us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How on Earth did anyone come up with the notion that digital alterations and abstract were synonymous?

 

That's a fine question. I had to sit through several seminar courses taught by MFA scalawags--they were quite clear on the difference! :p

 

I note that more than a few of your images qualify for the 'abstract' category. As someone noted, we enter murky territory with what is being done with many images--I am very fond of transformations possible with layers, masks, and the magic possible with the Nik Collection! Of late (the past 9 months or so) I am finding that the bulk of what I am producing for 'art' and some for subsequent sale are firmly encamped in the surreal category. I wish that I could upload them to my portfolio--but I dare not mess with anything there until this ship rights itself... :confused:

 

Photographers continue to produce outstanding images without serious manipulation of the 'apparent' reality of an image--the capabilities of post processing and in-house large format printing have given me serious cause to reevaluate setting up my wet chemistry world again--as in "why bother." More importantly--and I say this not to deprecate or denigrate any image--certain genres have just plain become hackneyed and routine even though the images themselves are quite outstanding. As the old chestnut goes, "familiarity breeds contempt" or in this matter--boredom.

 

The opportunity to take an image and propel it past its obvious two dimensional slice of reality into something that not that long ago was the secure province of illustrators and artists working in conventional media (oil, watercolor, etcetera) is nothing less than a door to creative expression on a new and unique level. One may choose to portray the vision to paper either as 'surreal' or 'abstract' but they are hardly the same thing--nor do they evoke the same sorts of cognitive response and identification. Yet both fit under the broader rubric of 'digital manipulations.'

 

What to do, what to do? It would be nice to see the category back. But we really need to understand that PN is not being reborn as a better venue for old farts, itinerant photographic philosophers, or technical students of photography. The signpost is just ahead...we have entered the "Smart Phone Zone." Time to swipe, not gripe! :eek:

 "I See Things..."

The FotoFora Community Experience [Link]

A new community for creative photographers.  Come join us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a fine question. I had to sit through several seminar courses taught by MFA scalawags--they were quite clear on the difference! :p

 

I note that more than a few of your images qualify for the 'abstract' category. As someone noted, we enter murky territory with what is being done with many images--I am very fond of transformations possible with layers, masks, and the magic possible with the Nik Collection! Of late (the past 9 months or so) I am finding that the bulk of what I am producing for 'art' and some for subsequent sale are firmly encamped in the surreal category. I wish that I could upload them to my portfolio--but I dare not mess with anything there until this ship rights itself... :confused:

 

Photographers continue to produce outstanding images without serious manipulation of the 'apparent' reality of an image--the capabilities of post processing and in-house large format printing have given me serious cause to reevaluate setting up my wet chemistry world again--as in "why bother." More importantly--and I say this not to deprecate or denigrate any image--certain genres have just plain become hackneyed and routine even though the images themselves are quite outstanding. As the old chestnut goes, "familiarity breeds contempt" or in this matter--boredom.

 

The opportunity to take an image and propel it past its obvious two dimensional slice of reality into something that not that long ago was the secure province of illustrators and artists working in conventional media (oil, watercolor, etcetera) is nothing less than a door to creative expression on a new and unique level. One may choose to portray the vision to paper either as 'surreal' or 'abstract' but they are hardly the same thing--nor do they evoke the same sorts of cognitive response and identification. Yet both fit under the broader rubric of 'digital manipulations.'

 

What to do, what to do? It would be nice to see the category back. But we really need to understand that PN is not being reborn as a better venue for old farts, itinerant photographic philosophers, or technical students of photography. The signpost is just ahead...we have entered the "Smart Phone Zone." Time to swipe, not gripe! :eek:

 

Sometimes it’s good to question the status quo. Sometimes people, organizations, politicians etc., need to be questioned. If not, our world could become very boring and stagnant. In this case, one might call it valuable feedback while another would consider it heresy. I say, “let them eat cake”. Maybe that makes me a liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any reason why Photo.net would deny any category as long as it's photo-related and not illegal in some way. There definitely should be a digital alterations category. If somebody isn't interested in it they can simply not engage with it. As already noted here, limiting categories of participation can send otherwise happy PN members elsewhere.
David H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My God! This is really not worth the endless debate. Just put the category back. It shouldn't have been removed in the first place. David's work is not what I consider "abstract". Just put the damn category back and be done with it. There are bigger fish to fry - speed, navigation issues with most of the galleries and such an assortment of glitches that we could open a Glitch store. .
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...