Elimination of the digital alterations category

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by DavidRabinowitz, Mar 12, 2017.

?

Should the digital alterations category been eliminated in pn 2.0>

  1. absolutely yes

    3 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. no

    15 vote(s)
    83.3%
  1. 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.
     
    Ray House likes this.
  2. 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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2017
  3. 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.
     
    DavidRabinowitz likes this.
  4. 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.
     
    Ray House and DavidRabinowitz like this.
  5. 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.
     
    DavidRabinowitz likes this.
  6. 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.
     
  7. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    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?
     
  8. 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.
     
    gungajim likes this.
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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.
     
    frigo, Ray House and Landrum Kelly like this.
  14. How on Earth did anyone come up with the notion that digital alterations and abstract were synonymous?
     
  15. thanks Tony...
     
  16. might have been the best they could come up with but no, i don’t get it either...
     
  17. Sweet Jesus, David; I never realized you were Black. However, that being the case, I vote that DA be resurrected as a Born Again Category
     
  18. that’s Jackie Robinson...i’ll switch back to my mug soon...
     
  19. I have not received a response yet from photo.net regarding this subject but if and when I do, I will post it.
     
  20. Just curious did you take that avatar photo of Jackie Robinson, David?

    If not, it's good that you switched to using your own considering the PN rules of only posting one's own photos.
     

Share This Page