photo.net is getting worse!

[ivan_ludwig]

1) i truely can't take it anymore! most of the photos here have been

strongly manipulated with photoshop before posting up here and what's

the point of doing that? and what's the point for me to learn all

exposure and composition things? why shall i attend photography

classes if PHOTOSHOP is the GOD! and still all those photos could

still become top photos...

Photo.net should be renamed as ps.net

 

2) rating system is overdone... why shall photo.net hide the ratings

that we personally give to other photographers? to prevent people

from quallering or what? and does rating mean everything?

 

photo.net should be splited into 2 sections, i strongly suggest, one

section is for - no extra work photos, no dark room, no ps work

section

and the other section should be everythign that with extra work or

dark room.

 

whatever...

[ryan_stone1]

I'll agree w/ some of that, I know I only found this site in the past month and was blown away at how photoshopped some were. But I use shop and no major changes, desat. B&W etc. I think that there should be some sort of limit or suggestion at least. Or require that the original be sumbmitted along w/ the redone version.

[anthony_m1]

Unfortunately or fortunately Photoshop or simillar editing software is just the way it is currently and will not change anytime soon. I have to ask: How many great photos do you see that have no manipulation of some sort? I would say probably not much. Either they have been manipulated on someones cpu screen at home or at a lab. A good photo still has to start out for the most part as a good photo. Exposure should be relatively accurate and composition should also. Photoshop may make a really bad picture look more interesting but rarely will it make it a winning shot just by manipulation. <P>My suggestion is to stay with instruction and learning the craft without PS. Your photography enjoyment and experience doesn't have to revolve around p.net. Learning lighting, composition, exposure, etc. is all very fun and will make your experience all the more exciting. <P>As far as ratings go, you are not the only one dissatisfied with the current rating system. I personally think comments are more important. What has changed for me is I no longer check to see what ratings are new. Can you even tell when you get a rating anymore without remembering what it was last time you visited? I did like that fact that you could click on that persons name and see what "qualifications" that person has who just rated you. I guess too much of that behavior led to revenge or mate-rating. No sweat.

AJ

[ilkka_nissila]

This seems to be a question that comes up regularly.

 

I also think the gallery is full of photos that are just too cheesy and unreal. I like well-done darkroom or photoshop work when the goal is to make a good print (burn/dodge, slight desaturation etc.) but when they remove/add objects not present in the original (photomontage), or adjust the colours to be weird, or apply some strange filter effects, that puts me off. I don't view the TRP gallery except to search for photographers that are of interest to me.

 

I recommend a simple switch which would allow the gallery to be viewed for unmanipulated photos only. This would be REALLY easy to do and it would promote the visibility of "straight photography" on the site. It would be very nice.

 

I think it would be a good alternative to add presentations on www.apug.org where traditional photography is presented. Or there might be other sites which promote traditional methods.

[Spearhead]

Want to make great prints (or on-screen images)? Learn to use the darkroom or Photoshop. That's it. Great photographers never stop with button pushing, no matter what you think.

[mendonphoto]

I just don't understand the problem. At least Ivan is putting Photoshop and the darkroom in the same image manipulation category. But still, even before you get to that point you have made decisions to manipulate the image. For example:

 

1. What focal length did you choose? If we are being 100% true to the scene at hand, only 50mm lenses would be allowed.

 

2. What was your vantage point when you took the photo? Will we disallow changing your position or moving objects within the scene? Should it only be allowed to snap a picture the moment you are inspired? Otherwise, it's not a true representation of the scene.

 

3. What type of film did you use? Velvia is clearly out of the question since it's an inaccurate representation of colors. B&W film is also not allowed since we all see in color.

 

4. Did you allow the camera to choose the exposure or did you do it yourself? Changing exposures to better capture one part of the scene over another is clearly cheating. And, actually, all automatic modes should be outlawed since that is using technology to your advantage. You need to memorize the exposure rules for all the different lighting situations and set the exposure accordingly - and no cheating! Don't set it for f/18 at 1/90th when you know it should be f/16 at 1/90th!

 

5. What film speed and format did you use. Only ISO 50 large format color negative film should be allowed. Any other film and there is the possibility that you could see grain - which is not an accurate representation of the image.

 

6. Absolutely no filters are allowed. Your eyes are not polarized. Neither do they have an artificial red or blue tint. Only clear class can be used to take pictures.

[ilkka_nissila]

Jeff, you're absolutely right. To make top-quality prints, some manipulation is often needed. This is usually subtle.

 

What is going on is people use photoshop to produce computer graphics where the images are surrealistic. It's a matter of taste - good manipulation is subtle and done tastefully. Burning and dodging or local contrast adjustments are not the same thing as merging images together to create dreamy images. Don't you see any distinction between an Ansel Adams landscape and some Dali painting created with Photoshop? Opinions please. Jeff? Your work does not look manipulated. I assume that you do some adjustments but don't make images like that one on the TRP where the hand is in front of the eyes but the eyes show through in a distinctly unpleasant way.

[sabrina_h.]

That could be interesting to have a seperate category.

 

I screwed up an image from a portrait shoot over the weekend. I wasn't paying attention

and chopped my model's feet off. I really liked the photo but i felt it was ruined because

of it. My husband said, "just crop it."

 

I'm not really a die hard purist but i havent cropped an image in over 6 months. I cropped

the image and it did look better. Meanwhile, I felt like the "photographer's police" was

going to come and arrest me. I felt like I committed a fraud and would be exposed of my

shortcomings.

 

Needless to say, I did not keep the image because I felt like it would be cheating and

perhaps I learned a valuable lesson; to pay attention!!!

 

I'd vote for a new catagory *thumbs up*

[ma_ho_fong]

About the rating system: I think it would be nice if we can rate photos with decimal, or at least with 1/2 or 1/4 point step, or perhaps by 1/3 stop? I would also like the rating to be extended by a value at each side: from 0/9 Null to 9/9 Exceptional, or perhaps replace the unit value by value like 1 . . 1.4 . . 2 . . 2.8 . . 4 etc. in 1/3 stop?

[Spearhead]

<i>What is going on is people use photoshop to produce computer graphics where the images are surrealistic. </i><p>

 

I recommend the work of Clarence John Laughlin, who photographed in the 40s and 50s mostly, many books published, many surrealistic photos produced entirely in the darkroom, his photos are in museums around the world. It's not new. What's made photography so interesting is people pushing the tools, pushing the limits, not sitting in a dark box and pretending the world is square.

[Brad_]

<I> What is going on is people use photoshop to produce computer graphics where the

images are surrealistic.</I>

<P>

 

Then, people who are into surrealism will enjoy them, assuming they're done well. And

others who are into landscape pix of rocks and twigs will probably not like them. Sounds

OK to me. What's wrong with that?

[bobatkins]

Apparantly more people want to see flashy photoshop montages than unmanipulated B&W art images. Otherwise the TRP would be full of B&W art images and not PhotoShopped creations.

 

Perhaps you SHOULD take PhotoShop classes if what you want is to produce what most people want to see.

[ma_ho_fong]

Some adjustment, like color balance, saturation, sharpening is OK, but strong manipulation, adding objets is not acceptable for photography. It must remember that photography (photo + graphy) = light + writing, something written by the light, a true representation of a scene. We can perhaps produce beautiful and artistic things with manipulation, but we cannot call them "photography". It is another art.

[john falkenstine]

Spliting...like the angry Rumpelstiltkin????

[link]

<i>

 

1) i truely can't take it anymore! most of the photos here have been strongly

manipulated with photoshop before posting up here and what's the point of doing

that? and what's the point for me to learn all exposure and composition things? why

shall i attend photography classes if PHOTOSHOP is the GOD! and still all those

photos could still become top photos... Photo.net should be renamed as ps.net

</i><p>

 

You're right Ivan! We should have stuck with oil paints and sculpture. Jeeze<p>

 

Photo.net can be a fun place to learn about equipment and technique. If you expect

to boost your self esteam by posting photos here, well I think you're barking up the

wrong tree. If you want to make traditional photographs, wonderful. There are many

photographers who specialize in older technologies like platinum/paladium prints

etc. More power to them.<p>

 

For me, Photoshop has gotten me much more excited about photography. Heck, with

computers I can even self publish my stuff on the World Wide Web. Way cool. Ivan, in

a few years shooting film will be like coating your own glass plates is today. You'll

have to learn the new stuff or be trapped in the past. Even my 80 year old parents

have learned to use computers and the net. If they can give up their ol' smith corona,

you can learn the new techniques without so much whining.<p>

 

Long live the inkjet! Long live the digital darkroom!<p>

 

And I'm a holdout. I don't even own a digital camera yet. I'm waiting for the 20mp

version to get down to $2000...

[scott_eaton]

<I>Apparantly more people want to see flashy photoshop montages than unmanipulated B&W art images</i><P>Bob beat me to it. For every over Photo-shopped image manipulation I see I run across two boring monochrome images.

[lex_jenkins]

Ivan, you must not have seen the reproductions of watercolor paintings posted by one photo.netter to her display space.

 

I thought it was a pretty outrageous flouting of photo.net usage policy. Most folks told me to take a chill pill.

 

Let it be.

[Brad_]

<I>It must remember that photography (photo + graphy) = light + writing, something

written by the light, <B>a true representation of a scene</B>. We can perhaps produce

beautiful and artistic things with manipulation, but we cannot call them "photography". It

is another art.</I>

<P>

 

If that's the case, then shooting with B&W film is not photography. Unless you are totally

color blind, of course...

[kelly_flanigan1]

I have never understood the rating stuff here. <BR?><BR>Last week I got a 39k jpeg; to make a 30x40" poster for a Funeral; in less than one day. The image was about 2/3'rd VGA. Yes I used Photoshop to make a "better image" of the kid; who died a tragic death. The parents wanted a poster by the casket; since the car wreck was too bad for a viewing. The High School kids wanted an image of their hero; in his prime.<BR><BR><b>What the living bloody hell difference does it matter what method was used to make a better image for a client?</b><BR><BR>The dead kid's parents only wanted to use the 39k jpeg image. How I made a decent poster really doesnt matter; only pulling out the stops with any method; and producing the best possible image for a client; is what really matters.

[ilkka_nissila]

Kelly, it doesn't matter at all if the client doesn't care. When you're providing a commercial service all that matters is that the client is happy. What does commercial photograhy have to do with this discussion? Nothing!

 

There is a difference in between photography as in 'drawing by light' (ie., the image is drawn by the light) and drawing by moving a mouse (where the image is created by drawing by hand, not light). That's just a question of the correct technical definition of photography.

 

I am not interested in learning to do photomontages or illustrate my dreams. That's graphic illustration, not photography. Why is it so hard to give the users of photo.net the option of filtering out graphic arts which are not photography? What are you afraid of? There are so many categories in the TRP filter, why not add a check box for unmanipulated? Nobody is forced to use it, and comments on specific images would get far fewer criticisms about manipulation because those who don't want to see them would not have to. And believe me, there are tons of people who are interested in photography in the FoundView style.

[jayme]

Photo.net is what you make it. I don't think it's getting worse, I actually think it's getting better. I pretty much like the way things are going on here. Almost everyday I discover another photographer I really enjoy and can learn something from. Some pretty amazingly creative stuff on here. I personally enjoy seeing all forms of photography, manipuated and unmanipulated. It makes no difference to me and I think I'm probably pretty average. Some is good, some is not so good. So? I enjoy looking at it all and learning from it.

 

I think the key is to remain open-minded and take what you can use and let the rest go. Front pages, back pages, I've found what I thought was good and bad on both. I guess it's just how much time you want to invest in looking for what you want to see and learn from.

 

While high ratings may be important in getting your images noticed in the first place, I have found more wonderfully creative photographers from a comment they left on an image than on any TRP page. I find myself repeatedly going back to their photos, because of course I can mark them interesting. A wonderful feature on PN. I can comment, and then later go back and follow-up on my comment another wonderful feature on PN.

 

So in the end, let me add, life would be pretty darn boring if we were all blonde haired and blue eyed. Variety is the spice of life. Enjoy it! Nice job you are doing Brian! I even get a kick out of Golarka and Faith! LOL At least they're persistent.

[aa2000]

Well Ivan, most of the photos here are so manipulated in PS because they are extremely lousy in original, and the photographer think that by putting a large amount of digital work he/she will get a better picture. If the viewer is used to do the same or have a limited visual culture, this may actually works: a bunch of 7/7 and WOWs will come soon for a photo which have nothing to show but color saturation (often understand as "good light" or "drama") or collages without idea presented as straight photos. People like lies - that's the answer to your question.

[aa2000]

err... "understood"...<br>

sorry

[robertvideo]

Hey Ivan... Take two and call me in the morning!

[navarra]

I don't like heavy photoshopped images at all and think photo editing is usually a trick to hide lack of technical ability and imagination.

 

This said, I just can't stand people saying that edited pictures are not photography, since all photographs have to undergo some kind of editing.

 

Photography has existed for 200 years, wich is relatively a short time for an art. Wait 1000 years (sculpture and painting have 5000 or so!) and try again to explain someone the difference between the "classic" darkroom and the "new" computer if you can!

 

Simone