paul e. wog Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 The story starts here. I posted a critque on Igor L's..foggy morning. It was negetive and still up. Have done maybe 5 others very positive on him. 15 minutes after posting i started recieving ugly emails...the last of which read only...NOTHING CAN HELP YOU... i consider this a threat...anyway,,, I editted my argument adding this part after his responce on the comments. The sole reason i went to this trouble was there were 30 ratings on that photo 21 were 7/7...from fellow "mate raters"...read the early comments its pretty plain. My arguments on that pic are very valid ...its not all that great to begin with. A person should be allowed to do a crique without being physicaly threatened i would expect. >>>>>>"Added edit... Lets forget all that argument Igor and move to another issue. I'm glad in your responce " and bigest fan of my pictures"...that you didn't refer to them as photographs...cause their NOT...as defined by PN guildlines. All of your pics Igor are checked as manipulated. This is no mistake, you certainly know what you are doing. I have no basis to argue your pics from a photographic "art" standpoint. They are computer generated art as defined by paragraph 3, to any that have roots in photography as an "art form". Many of the people aesthetically appraising your pics and pouring 7/7's blindly on them are unknowingly rating a piece of computer art. They haven't bothered to check details (read info). PN throws its hands up on this issue...quote them. "photo.net does not take sides in this aesthetic debate. However, we do wish to provide viewers with accurate information as to whether or not images are manipulated so that those viewers who consider this critical can make their own judgements about the images" To some it doesn't matter but i view it as pollution. It looks very pretty, not trying to subtract from that fact...but this IS PHOTONET..... oxford dictionary... PHOTO n(pl,-os)= PHOTOGRAPH n. So this very sites definition under its own name and criteria is a place for PHOTOGRAPHY...not computer graphics. Otherwise it would be named Image.net... i suspect this legal definition wasn't much of an issue when this site was founded but it has great bearing on what goes on today. Here we have hourds of fantastic real photographers sitting back in obscurity while some computer artist is viewed as the finest thing since sliced bread...on a site that by its own description is for photography only....we have a mess. Its only peoples lack of attention that affords you such fame really. Your images are very beautiful, most...but certainly they should be rated and appraised in their true contex.. computer graphics."<<<end post Tonite i went back to check and ALL that had been deleted out by a mod. I have recieved no mail on this and feel its a very lodgical point to raise.......was going to start a post on this anyway so 2 birds..... Just checked TRP and on page 1 there is 19 "image art" and only 2..yes 2 unmanipulated photos. It seems people no longer know or even care about this issue. I pretty well said all my points in that editted out part and its just burning me up that PN will not only not make a stand on this, but actually goes to such underhanded lengths, disrespecting its members that voice their opinion in good faith. I am here for PHOTOGRAPHY....not graphic art. This is PHOTO.NET is it not??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 How dare photo.net not require people to rate images lower if they don't conform to your ideas of what a photo should be! Shocking! You should demand your money back immediately!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Stein Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Mr. Greenwood - This whole question of "What is a photo?" and "Are altered photos allowed on PHOTO.net?" has been thrashed out many times here already. You, as a new member, might want to do a search on related topics to bring you up to speed on the matter. As I understand it, any visual .jpg which started with one or more photos is allowable here. That's the policy, and your expressed unhappiness with that policy is your problem. I am the moderator who removed portions of your rants from several pictures in the last couple of days, and I removed them because they were neither constructive nor relevant to the merits or value of the photos allegedly under discussion. It is not my policy to email those whose comments or ratings I edit or remove; I don't have the time or the inclination. If you don't understand why your vituperative screeds were removed, you might spend some time considering your attitude and your way of expressing your feelings in your comments. We do appreciate your comments in general, BTW, since they are often useful and insightful as to the photos under discussion. However, when you vent your spleen upon some hapless poster who IS following the p.n rules, your comments are likely to vanish without notice or apology. If you would like to continue this discussion, this is the proper forum, or you should feel free to email me. Jeremy Stein, Abuse Moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 Um Mike i don't think u quite understand the issue. Its not ME..its the dictonary definition of what a photo is that i'm quoting here. I don't see why such a rude responce from a mod here. Am i saying something out of line here? Should i be threatened for giving an honest critque? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 While I see what you're saying (and Igor's immaturity, thin skin and lack of class aside) it's an arguement that will go round and round with no clear answer. <p>I am amazed particularly lately of people's fascination with those portraits that are manipulated to make the subjects look like marionettes from the old Thunderbird series. People are going gaa-gaa over them as if they are terrific photographs. To me they are caricatures, and funny looking ones at that. To each his own... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Paul, I'm not a moderator. There are many people who have a much broader view of what a photograph is (or isn't) than what you claim based on your interpretation of a dictionary listing. Your definition is not the one generally accepted in the worlds of art or professional photography. As someone above noted, this debate has gone on here at photo.net for a long, long time. You are both welcome and encouraged to offer your opinions on the merits of the photos (or images) you see. But when you start telling everyone else how they have to respond to the images, you shouldn't expect people to take you seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 And should you be threatened for giving an honest critique? Definitely not! Such abuse should be reported to the moderators or photo.net staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Jeepers; what would all the nifty UFO dodging tools we made and used in the 1960's; our experimenting with a zillion lids for UFO shots be called? <BR><BR>One old photographer called ENLARGING "not really photography". His take was that only contact printing was really photography.<BR><BR> In 4H club we had a contact printer; that had a mess of small bulbs; and also a filter tray; so one could steer the appearance of an image; with a vellum sheet we darkened with a pencil. I guess we are going straight to hell for manipulating our contact prints. <BR><BR>How about the tilting of the enlarger baseboard; to correct building tilt? To the view camera owners get labeled too; or the darkroom correction chaps?<BR><BR> Maybe we should all go back to glass plates; and get mercury poisoning; so images are not manipulated? <BR><BR>How about banning flash powder; flashbulb; strobe shots; since they artifically add light?<BR><BR> What about reflectors; the evil photogaphers are also darn guilty; in total shame; for artifically adding light. :)<BR><BR>What about the Adams retouching machines; retouching pencils?<BR><BR>What about the plain copier; that is designed to boost contast; to make a "better copy"?<BR><BR>What about variable contrast photo papers?<BR><BR>How about chaps who mess with developers; films; and exposure times? <BR><BR>Add filters to be banned on film cameras as "manipulation"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 Jeremy...I don't see the excerp from above is a "rant". I think instead of mods ganging up here on a brand new post it may be proper to allow time for some of the "vets" to post their opinion. I am not a newbe here btw. You can check all my comments. I try to help others and offer constructive critisism when possible. I realize this issue has been gone over many times and ask you to re-read the lodgic in that excerp. My only gain or interest here is the good of PN. This wasn't a big issue before but take an objective look at the situation now. I'm asking a simple question here. Is this a photographic site? If not why is your name defined as photo?..Should i as a member be allowed to voice opinion here without being told by a mod to shutup and go away because they don't want to deal with the issue? I love this site and came expecting PHOTOGRAPHS...its overrun by imageart.. you have clearly laid out the difference very plainly. If this issue has been going on for as long as you proudy announce it, why aren't you doing something about the collective complaints of the members? Are you incompetent? Many many solutions have been thought up by those members and offered to you yet you still do nothing. Are you proud of this? The energy you are spending just to defend and avoid is a lot more work than actually fixing it. You can't simply avoid this issue its ruining this site. 19 /21 Photos are not photos...by your own definition...and theres no problem? A mods role is not censorship, his role is keeping out obsenity and keeping order. The big thing about a mod is...a mod should hold no opinion, he should be neutral. What you are doing is akin to a judge arguing the viewpoint of the prosecution....I'm being civil and decent and believe i have a point and a right to raise an issue in this forum. Either disprove me or offer a solution...but don't insult and demean me please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucas_griego Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Someone call the Society for Protection of Animals!!!! I want to report someone beating a dead horse! LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 <i>allow time for some of the "vets" to post their opinion. I am not a newbe here btw.</i><p> I'm a "vet," I've been here since 1997 and I think you're just ranting. That <i>you</i> don't think it is a photograph is irrelevant and arguing about it is a waste of time.<p> Also, if we change the "moderators" to "editors", it will be more clear what they do. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I also don't like digital manipulation when objects are added or removed from pics. This is because it no longer represents what was there. However, burning, dodging, selective contrast adjustments are ok in my book. They compensate for the differences between observed reality and the subjective perception of it with what can be captured by the photographic process. Toning and partial desaturation, etc. are also ok as means of visual expression. In my opinion, the line is set so that adding ingredients from photos to other photos or drawing on them directly makes them no longer photographs. However, photo.net tries to keep commercially alive and the staff will do anything to lure more people to use this site. If digitally created images are what people rate high, that's what they will favour. Good taste and popularity are unfortunately partially exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 <i>I also don't like digital manipulation when objects are added or removed from pics. This is because it no longer represents what was there.</i><p> Nobody complained about it when the late Richard Avedon did it with scissors and careful darkroom technique. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Here a film camera wasnt used; or a digital camera either. This is just an Epson 1200U flatbed scan of a camera front; with text added in Photoshop.<BR><BR>Would this be called a photograph? <BR><BR> <IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-262.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Here the Manipulation shows; and reduces folks believing that the founder of the internet was wiring up the first modem wires.<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-469.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Here is a image made from two exposures; so the dynamic range would capture some detail in the church group girl; and the bright white rink. No exposure or even film would gather both. This is composite of two digital images.<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-371.jpg> <BR><BR><BR>I did Sunrise or sunset images of buildings like this with film; 3 decades ago. You scout out the location; and gather light readings at dust and pre dawn. You take trial exposures; of the sky and building nights; you adjust for the changing sunrise sunset times. In one Kansas City airport shot; I used three different exposures; one for the predawn blue sky; one for a TWA jet passing thru; one for the building lights. One can spend days with testing; planning; shooting; to produce the "Manipulated image". Most lay folks have no clue of the work required; to make an image rarely detected as being manipulated.<BR><BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Jeez, Paul, its only digital air......go fishing for a while and suck some suds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 It is a long-standing policy on photo.net that the images uploaded to photo.net must be "photo-based". This is a pretty relaxed standard. Composites, collages, and other images created in the darkroom or in an image-editing programs are welcome on photo.net as long as they involve some use of photographic images. Indeed, such images have always been part of photography, and they have become more and more prominent over the last few decades. The only images ruled out on photo.net are paintings and drawings that involve no photographic elements at all. Even these have been tolerated when uploaded as part of a portfolio which does include photo-based works to illustrate the range of a person's artistic vision (although they shouldn't be submitted for rating/critique). Your definition of "photograph" seems too purist. But even if everybody in the world agreed with it (which they don't), and it covered the full range of what people have called photographs (which it doesn't), there is no requirement that the images uploaded to photo.net and submitted for rating and critique be photographs. Concerning the role of the moderator: if you go around reproaching people for uploading images that violate your concept of what photo.net is all about, that is off-topic. The topic of the comment thread on a image is THE IMAGE, not your opinion of what photo.net upload policy should be, and whether the person has conformed to it. It is entirely appropriate for the moderators to remove off-topic comments. If you think a person has uploaded an image that should not be permitted on photo.net, your recourse is to bring it to the attention of the moderators, not to start rebuking the person who uploaded it in the comments thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 "That you don't think it is a photograph is irrelevant and arguing about it is a waste of time." This site was founded on "photographs", no news there. It is built around the "art" of photography. So what is that "art"? We see a beautiful sunset with the human eye. We have a device to record that. We fully understand and EXPECT that image will never match what the eye sees..We understand we are using a device with limited capabilities. And thats the fun and art of it, as per this site, is to see who can capture reality in the most convincing way. Its pretty simple, or it was until recently. Along comes digital. A perfect match for a computer. Todays pc's can calculate trillions of intersections in a blink and arrange that reality in any form. They are way ahead of the digital recorders by far, but not for long. Our only saving grace right now is these recorders are in their primitive stage. Next year when 12 megs comes along, hooked to a sun workstation do you think anyone here would be able to verify a photo is a photo anymore? Photography as we knew it is coming to an end very quickly. Five years ago a manipulated image was a rare sight here. The photo "purists" are starting to be viewed as archaic,old school, and thats true. An image is an image in a sense and lots of people appriciate it as such. My point is not to argue progress but why at this point even bother making the destintion anymore? Is this a photo or a manipulation?...tell us please...we aren't going to do anything about it anyway...so why even ask then? Its purely PN's criteria that i am questioning. PN isn't some corporation, its the collected efforts of the artists. What are WE asking, how do WE want it to be, where is the line drawn? You ask manipulated?..... If you ask a question then surely you have a reason. Whats the reason? Is some invisable policy at work here? This weeks POW is a manipulation of some sort so we are clearly willing to accept image art as the norm. We gonna accept paintings too?...Cameras and the "norms" this entire site were designed to serve are becoming like a Volkswagon racing a Ferrari. The site isn't doing much in changing with the times to accomidate this, progress won't stop but it might for photography. In say 200 years when they measure digital in terabytes people will say it hurts my head cause i can't tell the difference from reality...what will be the point then? Perhaps i'm the one who's wrong. Got an F5 and came here expecting to be able to go out to pretty places and present art to the world in the form of photography on this site..fairly simple concept. Walk into an "art gallery" with your very best framed photograph. Hi, i wanna display this..I'm sorry sir we don't accept photos here, only art, you know paintings??..oh ya i thought so when i looked at the sign ok cya. Saw a sign said "Photonet"..walked in and went... they got everything here..photos..graphic art..digital...paintings...hay man this is the wallmart of art stores! Goodnite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 <i>Its pretty simple, or it was until recently.</i><P> Extreme manipulation (including inserting things into the image that weren't in the original scene) has been going on in photography for over a century. Even a cursory study of the history of photography will reveal that manipulation, both pre- and post-exposure, is not a recent development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everitt Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 <I/>Is this a photo or a manipulation?</I><P> <P> So, according to your logic, any manipulation of a photo isn't a true photo? Hmmm.. Then any darkroom work is a tool of the devil then eh?<P> <P> Look, if you think that's what photography is, so be it... Yet you are trying to impose your narrow-minded view of photography on everyone else.. It's very hypocritical that you complain about a hypothetical situation about a "true" photo not being accepted at an art gallery because it's not manipulated, then at the same time, you want to restrict photo.net to "true" photos (or at least what <B/> YOU</B> consider true...<P> <P> Live and let live.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I don't understand why some people don't make any distinction between something that is drawn and composited from photos, and something that is a photo itself. When I look at a composite, I feel pretty ill looking at it, my brain is trying to see if it's a drawing or a photograph. I usually stop looking in less than a second. Repulsive is what I would call them, but that's just me. I think the unmanipulated photos in the gallery should be viewable separately. Like a check box in the gallery next to the sorting criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 <i>And thats the fun and art of it, as per this site, is to see who can capture reality in the most convincing way.</i><p> Not to a lot of us. I don't give a hooey about whether or not someone captures reality in the "most convincing way," I care if they made a great photograph. What's made so many great photographers - Avedon, Meatyard, Laughlin, Moriyama, Giacomelli, Klein, for example - such great photographers is that they made great, communicative photographs. Their photos aren't great because they were "convincing," if I want that, I can look at the photos from a security camera.<p> What we see here is a clash between people who know photography as an art form, and people who know it as Popular Photography presents it. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucas_griego Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Paul, Your post is rubbish. And old rubbish at that. Big deal. So you got an F5 and a narrow definition of photography. All that has enabled you to apparently do is to post the assnine photo of the buildings with shutters (last months POW) closed so you could run on at length about how DSLR's can't record reflections off of glass windows. Top it off with downloading pics from the POW and then zooming in on them and complaining about pixelation!!!.... BBWWAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH!!!!! Wake up and smell the pixels. Digital is here to stay recording images with light happens in more than one narrow minded form... deal with it and drop the dogma . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I like to manipulate light to create an image.....This is what the eye does.....what the lens of my camera does .... what film and sensors do.....also what my computer does. Paul I played with film for 15 or more years and when you limit what you can do with light then you limit your creative abilities. Many who use photography as their creative outlet don't wish to be limited. You could start a website like "filmonly.com" if this means so much to you.... A study of etymology might give a little insight as to how "photo.net" could be interpreted.... camera 16c., in Mod.L. camera obscura "dark chamber" (a black box with a lens that could project images of external objects), from L. camera "vaulted room," from Gk. kamara "vaulted chamber," from PIE base *kam- "to arch." Contrasted with camera lucida (L., "light chamber"), which uses prisms to produce an image on paper beneath the instrument, which can be traced. Shortened to camera when modern photography began, 1840 (extended to television filming devices 1928). Camera-shy is from 1922. photo- comb. form meaning "light" or "photographic," from Gk. photo-, comb. form of phos (gen. photos) "light" graphic 1610, "traced" (implied in graphical), from L. graphicus "picturesque," from Gk. graphikos "of or for writing, belonging to drawing, picturesque," from graphe "writing, drawing," from graphein "write," originally "to scratch" on clay tablets with a stylus. Meaning "of or pertaining to drawing" is from 1756; that of "vivid" is from 1669, on the notion of words that produce the effect of a picture. image c.1225, "artificial representation that looks like a person or thing," from O.Fr. image, earlier imagene (11c.), from L. imaginem (nom. imago) "copy, statue, picture, idea, appearance," from stem of imitari "to copy, imitate" (see imitate). Meaning "reflection in a mirror" is c.1315. The mental sense was in L., and appears in Eng. c.1374. Sense of "public impression" is attested in isolated cases from 1908 but not in common use until its rise in the jargon of advertising and public relations, c.1958. Imagism as the name of a movement in poetry that sought clarity of expression through use of precise visual images, "hard light, clear edges," was coined 1912 by Ezra Pound. Jay 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