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

In another thread, 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.

 

My first question is this: why does it not seem to bother the editor

of photo.net, that cheap PS tricks are featured on the top-pages of a

PHOTO site ?

 

As all old-timers know, I am using PS, and even using it A LOT

myself - probably too much, at times. So, obviously, I am not here to

grind an axe against the software itself or about the usage of it.

 

BUT... I just think that there are on PN hips of cheap PS tricks that

get sky high ratings. That's perhaps ok, why not ?! People are

entitled to like what they will - even though it drives me wild in

some cases...:-)

 

BUT... What really started to bother me about 2 or 3 years ago on PN,

became much worse lately... I get the feeling that the ORIGINALITY

rating, at this point, gives an edge to manipulated images.

 

I tested something recently. I uploaded a photo that wasn't

manipulated at all: a photo I was quite happy with. A simple and a

little kinky photo of a model staring in a camera. As I deleted it, I

think it had an originality rating of 4 something. I have let an hour

pass, and then I have uploaded the same picture, this time very

heavily manipulated - with heavy textures and all sorts of filters.

 

Don't get me wrong, I liked my manipulation version as well, and

perhaps liked it much better than the original; BUT how could it be

judged so much more original after the manipulation than

before...?! :-)

 

Secondly, I have yet to understand how indeed a flood filter

manipulation can still be called original at all ?! How many hundreds

of those have we seen here at PN ?

 

Next question will be: WHY ? Meaning: HOW does a cheap PS trick get

top-rated in originality ?! Here's my answer: a heavily manipulated

image always shows SOMETHING WE DO NOT SEE IN REALITY. So, if we

never see it, it's got to be rare, and rare means original and

clever, don't you think ?! :-)

 

(Bill asked: "How do elephants ever manage to hide ?" "Dunno, said

Joe". "Well, they normally hide behind black glasses, said

Bill !" "Na, said Joe, you're a joker, man !" "Well, said Bill, have

you ever seen an elephant wearing black glasses ?" "No, said

Joe." "See, said Bill, that shows... If you haven't seen them, that's

precisely because they were well hidden"... :-))

 

Same here at photo.net: if you can't see it in real life, it means it

works. :-)) The new culture seems to be that what's unreal is

original. Which also means that a straight photo of a face that would

be a very nice and well thought out portrait will merely be

considered as "just another mug shot". Now, just take the flood

filter, and apply it to the face, or just twirl the fella's nose, and

there you earn yourself the title of "Photo.net genius".

 

I say: I love PS, but I love photography too ! Please allow

photonetters to see these straight and simple but well done mugshots

that tell a real story. Please allow us to see also seascapes where

the water isn't plastic.

 

What needs to be done is just this: SEPARATE MANIPULATED IMAGES AND

STRAIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY. Don't let them "compete" for visibility in the

TRPs.

 

There should be one TRP for heavily PSed works, and another TRP for

straight photographs. The criteria to judge PS works and those to

judge straight photographs are not and can't be the same - as the

Editor of PNet said many times.

 

So, why have these two genres compete for visibility ? Can't we see

both - but in separate places of the same site, so that people

relearn how to compare apples with apples and oranges with

oranges....?

As an exemple; can we post a picture here, let's see...:-)<div></div>

Problem:

 

Define manipulated, there are as many opinions on what constitutes manipulation as there are photographers.

 

 

A better idea would be to catogorize photos as photo illustration or photograph. With the definition of photo illustration being defined by the photo.net elves. IMO

And - regards to Lex J. -, the winner is..........<div></div>

There you go: I have defined a "heavy" manipulation... :-)

Hide those dead horses. They're in for another beating...

 

Some people seem to keep missing Brian's comments that the TRP isn't a competition. It's a list of the images people seem to like best. If they like "dogs playing poker" and "clowns on velvet" paintings, then that's what they'll "vote" for.

 

Having "manipulated" and "unmanipulated" TRP's is a brillient idea - assuming you want to start endless arguments about what constitues manipulation and whether people are cheating by claiming their manipulated images are non-manipulated.

 

I can hardly wait...

I absolutely agree with you Marc about the need to separate the manipulated from the unmanipulated in the gallery.

 

The current definition documented for the unmanipulated check box is perfectly satisfactory. However, I believe that the people who run photo.net want it to be like a tabloid - great sales numbers, no taste or ethics.

As if... Bob, please... This is just unacceptable: "Some people seem to keep missing Brian's comments that the TRP isn't a competition".

 

What you and Brian seem to be missing, from day one, is that people who post pictures here would do so to have these pictures seen, and to have a few comments. If you're on page 99 with a fantastic spider shot, or nature shot, or portrait, or what ever, you'll likely get less than 2 comments. Then tell me, why would you post pictures here ?

 

And besides that, what about this very fact, that the criteria to judge both genres are simply different ?

And as ILKKA said, "The current definition documented for the unmanipulated check box is perfectly satisfactory".

 

Nobody complained about it so far. Why would you get complaints about it later ?!

J Autey above said that defining manipulated would be problematic. My comment was in response to that.

Bob, dividing the gallery would have no effect on the debate on whether someone is being honest in their presentation of an image. Even now, almost every single POW choice gets a hot debate about how it was or wasn't manipulated. Why would this change?

 

You just want to avoid doing it because you are afraid that people would become more interested in the photograph gallery instead of the photoshop gallery, and as a result the garish manipulations would run out of favor, reducing the tabloid sales.

ILKKA

I'm glad you've read the photo.net definition, but I'm betting most haven't-most don't care. Defining something a photo illustration is something that I believe we all know when we see it, well, most of us. More over it more properly catogorizes an image. I'm mean jeez, the definition as presented by photo.net is like 3 printed pages long.

 

But you're right, about why they don't want to make a seperate catagory but its also likely that its a programing nightmare.

"You just want to avoid doing it because you are afraid that people would become more interested in the photograph gallery instead of the photoshop gallery, and as a result the garish manipulations would run out of favor, reducing the tabloid sales."

 

Naaaaaaahhhhh... That can't be. Why would anyone run away ? Each half will just have 1) less people to "compete" with, and 2) less people low-rating PS works just because they dislike PS - what these people would then do, is to go see what they like instead: straight photos.

 

How many very good photographers (Daniel Bayer for example) have left the site or stopped participating here because of the flame war about PS ? How many more will have to leave and delete their folders ?

 

Separating those who fight is the best way I know to have peace.

I don't think it would be difficult at all to program. Just add one attribute next to the time span and sorting criteria on the gallery pages. Since the attribute exists in the data, it is trivially easy to search using it. But it would be a dramatic change of attitude in photo.net. It would be like a new site in the sense of what kind of photos would get visibility. Or should I say, it would be a dramatic change because photography would get more visibility.

There, I found my all times favorite:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3418634

 

23rd highest rated picture of all times on photo.net. Check the ratings. Can you ever beat that ? Can the management of this site sleep knowing that this picture (and so many more) are the most visible on the site ?

All I'm saying is: let it be the most visible on one half of the site. I think that should be good enough. And perhaps we could then see a few nice simple pictures somewhere in the TRP again...

<em>"If you're on page 99 with a fantastic spider shot, or nature shot, or portrait, or what ever, you'll likely get less than 2 comments. Then tell me, why would you post pictures here ?"</em>

<p>

What we obviously need is a TRP with 500 images on it rather than just 12. The we'd have 488 extra happy users.

<p>

Given there are only 12 slots, everyone isn't going to be happy. But that much is pretty obvious.

<p>

I wonder why the people who get those 12 slots never complain? I'm sure they'd all be more than happy to give you their place if you ask.

<p>

Yes, we could have 6 different TRPs, but then that's not hugely different to the 6 top current TRPs. You can only view one at once.

<P>

What we all want, of course, is our own TRP, so that all our images get rated. It's the Lake Wobegon effect. All our images are above average. If only people could see them, they'd all be on the TRP.

<p>

Now where's that dead horse hiding. He's due for another damn good beating.

"What you and Brian seem to be missing, from day one, is that people who post pictures here would do so to have these pictures seen, and to have a few comments. If you're on page 99 with a fantastic spider shot, or nature shot, or portrait, or what ever, you'll likely get less than 2 comments. Then tell me, why would you post pictures here?"

 

If you feel like you have to be in the top photos to make it worthwhile to post anything, I think you're missing the whole point (and 95% of the fun) of photo.net. Seriously, if it's a "fantastic spider shot" or ANY fantastic shot, why do you need comments? (Go sell the thing, or enter it in some real contests!). Now, if you're not sure if it works or not, THEN comments might be useful. But if you're just after ego stroking, you miss the point of it altogether. You're also implying that "the rest of us" shouldn't even bother submitting anything, which I hardly think is the case.

 

"You just want to avoid doing it because you are afraid that people would become more interested in the photograph gallery instead of the photoshop gallery, and as a result the garish manipulations would run out of favor, reducing the tabloid sales."

 

I think it was a Yogi Berra quote that a restaurant "was so crowded that no one goes there any more". To complain that PS'ed works get high ratings, and then say they're only retained because management is afraid they'd get low ratings seems a bit contradictory.

 

"How many very good photographers (Daniel Bayer for example) have left the site or stopped participating here because of the flame war about PS ? How many more will have to leave and delete their folders ?"

 

If you don't want flame wars about PS, then don't post diatribes against PS....

I like the real photo's an am amazed by the PS, I use elements 2.0 so , I would say I am handicapped in PS . I dislike the flood filter , if thats the one they use for reflections, because I spend some time trying to capture real reflections. I think seperate would create a battle for the default page. am I right ? it would be nice and most of the photo's I look at I see that they leave the manipulation box as unknown or yes, so there is a lot of it being done as Marc has stated.in the ideal world we could have both,but there is only one default page and its were the most views will be had.~ GT

"Now where's that dead horse hiding. He's due for another damn good beating." - Bob Atkins.

 

Let me try to translate your post, Bob: "If I feel I don't want to hear anything more about this horse, I'll call him dead, burryit, and be done with it. I am the boss. I can close the thread if I want to."

 

Now that I've translated, let me answer with another question:

 

Do you sometimes think that you may be a horse, Bob ? :-)

You may have to ban yourself for a while Bob to keep in line with the Zero Tolerance policy for sarcasm etc.

1) I don't shoot spiders.

 

2) This page is not about ego stroking and polemic crap of that sort. Just be logical. This thread is about: comparing oranges among oranges, and apples among apples.

But I like fruit. I don't care what kind.

 

Sarcasm is allowed here, but fruitism is strictly prohibited.

 

It's not my place to close the thread. That's Brian's job.

 

Perhaps the solution is to develop better Photoshop skills if your goal is to appear on the TRPs, that or shoot more appealing subjects.

Hey Marc,

In terms of photo manipulation and the use of filters, I think originality is based not on WHAT filter was used, but HOW it was used and what effect(s) were generated. Certain filters are used by everyone.. take sharpening for example. But more drastic manipulation tools are used as well. Sometimes it seems so "simple" to just click a button and PRESTO there's an enhanced image. But it really isn't all that easy to use such filters effectively. Many filters ruin the aesthetics of an image, like the one you have attached above, but since it is so radical and strange it warrants a higher originality rating. I think it's safe to say that not a single manipulation tool in photoshop creates the exact same look on two different images. A tool has its own set of parameters and alterations, but unless applied on the exact same image it will always produce a unique image.

 

Wouldn't your argument apply to Fuji Velvia, too? How many times have we seen this film's saturated colours? Too many to count. But somehow images shot on Velvia still manage to gain high originality ratings? Yah sometimes, and I think it's because every image shot on Velvia is as original as it is composed regardless of the fact that the same "tool" (film) was applied. Originality should have nothing to do with the technical means by which an image is created, imho - I think the finished product (and how it appeals to viewers) is what's most important.

Why couldn't there be 2 default TRPs ? You could have a page asking you first: would you like to see the manipulated pictures TRPs or the non-manipulated TRPs, or both combined ? . Then you'd click your choice, and you'd see what you wish.

 

And the same could be proposed before you rate pictures in the rate recent. Rate manipulated photos OR Rate non-manipulated photos OR Rate both - i.e. rate anything as it comes. Imagine the time it would save to all the folks who rate through the rate recent feature and who see about 40% of the images are horrible PS works