john falkenstine Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Venica has a point that could be of interest, but might require some additional $$$$ or Euros...My recommendation would be to drop the "Art category" since this is a moving target anyway and to find another term..I understand Lex's viewpoint as well but the parties above must also admit that the fawning praise is there filling a critique vacuum. While I don't rate myself the ace ventura of photography technique or expertise, I often feel that I'm the only party taking any interest in posting real feedback/suggestions on images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 " . . the fawning praise is there filling a critique vacuum . . . " No way. It is deliberately pushed out on many images, as you well know. There's a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Carl, give me some examples where this is taking place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 "Lex, welcome to the fray. This has happened before, by the way, but I have to ask why you're raising this issue." ===================================== Why now? Because my cousin next door just got DSL. Now I can browse photos without enduring the painfully slow response of my dialup ISP. I just happened to follow a link that led to another link that led to another link that finally ended up at this folder of Maria's watercolors. I wasn't lookin' fer no trouble. Or *was* I...? ======================================= "What exactly do you want to see changed?" ======================================= Nothing. Just enforce photo.net policy. It's a photography website, not a painting website. Let Maria chum for accolades over her paintings elsewhere. To be honest, I do have a bit of an agenda. Maria is one of those people who ask for critiques and then gripes when the comments are less than effusive. It makes her an easy target - I just can't resist the urge to pull her pigtails and make her squeal. So there's my agenda. Hey, don't bodda you, don't bodda me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_daalder Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 I've only painted the interior of my house a couple of times, so I didn't mind heaping some praise on <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2548431&size=lg"> this one.</a> I was surprised by the response...<br>Lack of expertise on my part, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted July 31, 2004 Author Share Posted July 31, 2004 Peter, that image was derived from a photo. Despite the final appearance resembling a pen and ink sketch with touches of color, it meets photo.net guidelines. And it's not a bad image at that. Very different from the examples I've pointed to here which never were photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_daalder Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Yeah, you're right Lex. My comment and link above were more or less inspired by Keith's earlier contribution, i.e.: <i>Do people really look before pressing the buttons?</i><br>As you point out, the origin of Drew's image is indeed a real photograph, as opposed to the series of watercolours done by Maria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Actually Lex, I believe Liv fairly addressed your concerns. It seems to me that you're making a mountain of the proverbial. Interesting thread though, even for the Horizontalists amongst our group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 The reason I asked about your motives is not because reproductions of paintings are a major problem in need of a solution, but that rating without understanding is. For those of you who think this isn't a big deal, let me ask how you would rate images in that folder. More importantly, what do you think those who have already rated based their scores on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 Is not photograph anything coming out from a camera? Necessity for some to have a clear set up of frontier of what can be considered or not as a photograph is funny to observe and often arguable. PS versus or not PS (nowadays many PS can be directly done within the camera process and this tren is accelerating...)? Repro versus creation? <p> For me those are just different categories in art of 2D photography: creative or nor creative with the full spectrum of nuances in between. Reproduction of watercolors, or painting, or pictures of buildings, walls,.... are certainly not or less creative but are still photographs IMO with an input of the photographer which is close to zero....<p>Additionaly some members are using PNet as a communication tool through scanning/photographing their stuff to keep or show others their broader artistic works, or family pictures, or party pictures, ... probably the case of Maria with this folder. Not a big issue IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecarter Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 This thread, I have to admit, I have been watching with some faint amusement... Until now. Before I go any further, I'll make my own position on posting a painting clear. Except as a pure photo of a painting - a demonstration of photographing a painting for technical or printing purposes - I think it is very questionable. Photo.net is for sharing photography (and I'll include photography-derived images, such as photoshop art based on a photograph, in this) - there are other forums for sharing paintings. As far as to how strictly this is interpreted, I will leave this up to the moderators who run the site - by and large, they do a great job. However, this is the kind of thing photo.net can do without: "Hey Lex you sound like a real crybaby. I think it's pretty amazing that you people with the little superhero icons(only power you have in your life no doubt) are so obsessed with one person." - Hanna Reitsch I probably shouldn't rise to this obvious bit of flamebait, and may or may not reply to this thread again - but it is this kind of insulting and provocative post that diminishes the value of photo.net as a forum for serious photographers and people who wish to honestly learn and benefit from a wide pool of experience, or those who wish to share their own photography. So, thank you for your kind and warmhearted contribution, Hanna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted August 3, 2004 Author Share Posted August 3, 2004 No worries, Eric, I know when to ignore trolling. Besides, I think my views, taken as a whole, are balanced and expressed clearly if not succinctly. Most folks who've added comments to this thread have obviously read and carefully considered each others' replies before expressing an opinion. By the way, I'm still entertaining the possibility that Maria is engaging in some form of deconstruction, either of photography or photo.net itself or, perhaps, both. If so, it's too abstruse for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livvie Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 saw <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2574977" target="_blank">this</a> and thougth of this thread (i see its still here).<p> i think this more blatently bends the "what is and what is not photograph rules" that prompted your original post than the watercolours. the original poster's uploads were of paintings, obviously so, and didn't claim to be otherwise ... and were actual photographs i believe, albeit of paintings.<p> i would be more concerned about this one.<br> just a bit more food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted August 4, 2004 Author Share Posted August 4, 2004 Dunno, Liv. Mehmet's info about the image states: "A PS composition of 4 basic elements captured in and around Lake Fairfax, VA." And he lists a Nikon Coolpix 4300, presumably the capture device. While the result strains the bounds of photography and strays more into poster art it appears to have been derived from photographs: one of a hilly terrain (probably altered to achieve this final effect); another of trees; a third of a cloud or smoke. Not sure what the fourth element is because Mehmet admits the "sky" is pure Photoshop. If Milla Jovovich is the fifth element then I'll settle for Famke Janssen as the fourth, tho' I don't see her anywhere in the "photo". I've seen more blatant examples of images that were outright digital creations from the ground up, whether in Photoshop, Corel Draw or other software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Is there a good reason why there aren't gallery moderators to enforce the "every pixel must be the photographer's" rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now