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. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    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:
     
  2. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    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:
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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. .
     
  6. Jack, for me it is worth it. I’ve contacted the administration of photo.net with no answer and I don’t know if I’ll ever get a response. I’ve enjoyed photo.net for the past 14 years and if they cannot add a photo-composite or digital alterations category back into play then I can’t post my work (other than the abstract category that was recommended to me by pn). But I’d like to find out if this is a glitch or a disinterest in these types of images by pn admins. That’s all i ask. I’m hopeful that Glen and company will get around to addressing these issues.
     
  7. I was told that there will be no more digital alterations category. It was not a glitch or mistake. I have the option of placing my work in the abstract category. I appreciate everyone’s feedback. Thanks my friends....David
     
  8. Did they explain why not?
    I notice that there's both a "no category" and an "uncategorized" category--seems like it would be easy to change the name of one of those, since they both seem to be referring to the same thing.
     
  9. It just struck me that where your work might fit beautifully is in the "Fine Art" category--it seems to fit all the definitions I've seen for "Fine Art," and that's a place that people would be looking for digital alterations (they definitely wouldn't be looking in "Abstract").
     
  10. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Usedta be "the customer was always right" -- not anymore, at least in dam few places. I know there can't be categories for everything, but we have some remarkable practitioners of Digital Alterations and by golly, they s/b a "jewel in the crown" of any photo site, particularly one "going through interesting times."
    There is no dark cloud without a silver lining, the "current unpleasantness" here has kicked me back into another lifelong hobby with more enthusiasm than in years.
    I'll still be dropping in, and will always be into photography.
     
  11. Wasn't there a survey at the top of this thread that asked if the Digital Alteration category should have been dropped? Of those who bothered to respond, 80% voted that it should have been kept. Why bother to ask the question if the answer is that there will be no adjustment. If management had intentionally gone out of their way to piss people off, they could hardly have done a better job.
     
  12. That's a shame, David. I wish you the best.
     
  13. Let's just call the new version "Photo.net Lite" and be done with it.
     
    PapaTango and Sandy Vongries like this.
  14. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    Jack, it's sort of a split conversation. The prime "on topic" message concerns the deprecation of the 'Digital Manipulation' category--and the subtext is the nature of that versus 'abstract.' Perhaps the latter is best argued in the 'Casual Photographic Conversations' thread. The only fail there is that it likely will attract a certain cohort of cranky misanthropes out to grind an ax--devolving into a snarky, elite conversation between two or three people... :rolleyes:

    "Categories" encompasses two areas here in the "New and Improved" PN. There is first (at the most basic level) the category in Portfolio front end (the galleries). The same classification rubric has been applied in our range of selections to "group" in a search array. The second area is the fora board categories. Understand that setting both options for naming is a clear and simple process on the administrative panel side of both the Xenforo and likely XenMedio (the front end) configurations. A unilateral decision was made to do this--it is a two minute task to change either--or to add an infinite number of other categories--and the admins here have made the choice not to do so. And very obviously in stark contradiction to what users would like to have and see.

    I am getting the idea that it does not really matter if a bunch of us wander off--we seem to no longer be what the agenda for the new 'target market' of smartphone mobile users calls for. As they say, a new broom sweeps clean... :(
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
    Ray House likes this.
  15. "I am getting the idea that it does not really matter if a bunch of us wander off--we seem to no longer be what the agenda for the new 'target market' of smartphone mobile users calls for. As they say, a new broom sweeps clean... :("

    I am coming to pretty much the same conclusion myself. I believe management thinks that this will all blow over and the people will adjust to the new format and that in time memories of the old photonet will die. I think they are willing to let some of the unhappy campers walk. I don't believe there will be anything but a few cosmetic changes from here on out. They have simply drawn the line and dug in their heels. They are betting that they will attract enough new members to compensate for those older members that gradually slip away. For my part, I think they are dead wrong and that newer members won't be any more thrilled with this poorly thought out format and intransigent attitude then we are.​
     
    Ray House and Landrum Kelly like this.
  16. I would completely understand though, if the intention was to keep photo.net to the purists. Those people who want to create photographs out of the camera with traditional adjustments to tone, color and light levels with a little dodging and burning (digital or film). There are other sites for people like myself who do more with the imagery and I’ve found several former members there. I have the same thoughts as Jack, that the direction has been set and the lines have been drawn. I’m not bitter about it, just sad. I’ll probably still post but it’s different for me now. Thanks everyone for your kind words of encouragement. I really appreciate them. David
     
    Landrum Kelly likes this.
  17. Well, with all your good work and support, I was just told by Glenn Palm that the digital alterations category will be returning in the near future, possibly with the heading, photo-manipulations which is what everyone was doing in that category. Photo-manipulations is a clearer distinction.
    Thanks again! David
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
    Landrum Kelly likes this.
  18. Great news!
     
    DavidRabinowitz likes this.
  19. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    Super deluxe...

    Now if they would just put the confabulator button back in the galleries so that I could properly mesmerize my pixels--all would be good in heaven and earth... :cool:
     
  20. For pixel mesmerization, see Reply #9 3/4 in the How-to manual. It’s no longer done using the confabulator button. Instead,
    1. First, you need to enable mesmerization on your “personal details” page
    2. To do so, mouse over your name at the top of this screen
    3. Click on “personal details” in the drop-down menu that appears
    4. Toggle the mesmerization switch at the bottom of the page to “on” (note—this doesn’t seem to work on some browsers)
    5. Now navigate to your portfolio page
    6. Click on “My Library,” and find the photo for which mesmerization is needed
    7. Click on the “settings” menu
    8. The third entry will now be “Pixel Mesmerization”
    9. Click on that, and you’re good to go.
     

Share This Page