What qualify as 'photographs' ?

[davecollopy]

I guess you should have.

[johnb]

Frames are not part of the photo, there have been discussions stating such. There have also been discussions stating how frames do affect critique's. Guess you all need frames to make your ok's bettter? Maybe I should try Brian's and Bob's suggestions and consider frames not manipulations.<div></div>

[johnb]

However I don't agree, I believe frames belong with manipulations!<div></div>

[johnb]

Here to explain the confusion:<br><br>

 

Bob Atkins said:<i><b> Bob Atkins (www.bobatkins.com) , feb 19, 2005; 01:22 p.m.

My recollection is that Brian has said in the past that framed images are manipulated. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

We're supposed to be critiquing images and photography, not frames and presentation. Frames can get very ornate. If frames were allowed, just how ornate would they be allowed to be?

 

I suppose we could allow a simple, narrow, black or white border, but Brian makes the rules for the gallery so it's up to him to clarify the point and add text to the guidelines if he feels it's needed.</i></b><br><b>Brian did not argue this point at all, it can be seen here <A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CFU6" title="Click to Open Photo Forum page to see" target="_blank">Feb 19 2005</b></a><br><br>

Brian Mottershead said: <b><i>Brian Mottershead , may 20, 2005; 08:02 a.m.

Putting a frame on it doesn't make it "manipulated". I think people can tell what is "frame" and what is "image". If it is hard to tell then you've crossed the, ahem, border into manipulated.</i></b><br>

<br>

So the staff doen't agree with each other? <br>

<br>

Lets get to the point! <br>

Photo.net is either here to help photographers or to make <b>income <i>(which is it?)</i></b><br>

If here to help photographers then lets get rid of frames unless its classified as manipulated and then we can stick to photography in the <b>UnManipulated Form!</b><br><br>

[john kissane]

Early Saturday morning here. Tired already and only half finished taking my 'photographs' out of those damn frames around the house.

[mike dixon]

<i>Photo.net is either here to help photographers or to make income (which is it?)</i><P>

Why are those mutually exclusive?<P>

 

<i>If here to help photographers then lets get rid of frames unless its classified as manipulated and then we can stick to photography in the UnManipulated Form!</i><P>

How does <b>not</b> sticking to "photography in the UnManipulated Form" prevent one from helping photographers?<P>

As noted above (repeatedly), manipulation has been an important element of photography throughout its history. Your demands are silly.

[root]

The issue regarding frames is actually very simple. Do you want presentation to be part of the image evaluation process on this site? It's important to learn how to mat and frame images, yet I've seen more than one camera club judge award top honors to an image where he liked the double mat. The equivalent happens on this site. That seems kind of silly, don't you think?

 

Regarding manipulation of images themselves, it should be obvious that there's a trend towards fixing images in photoshop that wouldn't have needed much postprocessing work, if any, had they been captured properly. It's useful, especially on a learning site, to make a distinction between artistic manipulation, and fixing a mistake, although I'll concede that it's often hard to tell the difference.

[Doug Keller]

<P><I>"As for the Potato Eaters - it is a painting that will do well in gold - of that I am certain. But it would do just as well on a wall papered in a deep shade of ripe corn. However, it simply mustn't be seen without being set off in this way. It will not appear to full advantage against a dark background and especially not against a dull background. And that is because it is a glimpse into a very grey interior. In real life it is also set in a gold frame, as it were, because the hearth and the light from the fire on the white walls would be nearer the spectator - they are situated outside the painting, but in its natural state the whole thing is projected backwards.</P><P>Once again, it must be set off by putting something coloured a deep gold or copper round it. Please bear that in mind if you want to see it as it should be seen. Associating it with a gold tone lends brightness to areas where you would least expect it, and at the same time does away with the marbled aspect it assumes if it is unfortunately placed against a dull or black background. The shadows are painted with blue and the gold colour sets this off."</I></P><P><B>Letter from Vincent van Gogh to Theo van Gogh

Nuenen, c. 30 April 1885</B></P>

[michael_dimarzio]

I guess the only problem was you are shooting digital, didn't you know that digital is dead, or was that film?

 

Don't worry, have fun. I had a musuem quality photo (in my very humble opinion) flamed with 2/2, I couldn't understand it. When I looked at teh low poster's portfolio, it was all pictures of cats. So I wrote him a nice email explaining that I thought that his photos of cats were great, they are delicious well bbq'd and with not to much curry. He didn't answer, I wonder why?

 

If I may make a really dumb suggestion, buy an old beater film camera and a used light meter and shoot some b+w, it will teach you some things that Coolpix won't, and while film is dead (or was that digital?), it is a lot of fun to shoot. Old fashioned things are ok, look at all of the people that still ride Harleys.

[bobatkins]

Brian rules. Just because I think frames are manipulation doesn't mean Brian does and Brian sets the rules. I have no association with the gallery other than as a critic!

 

 

I'm something of a pureist. I accept that some "manipulation" is part of photography and that photographers have been "manipulating" images since the first image was taken and I "manipulate" my own images by cropping, and density and color corrections. On the other hand I think any image that's 99% a photoshop collage and 1% original image doesn't belong in a photography gallery. It belongs in an art gallery. Art includes photgraphy, but photography clearly doesn't include all art.

 

Given that, if I'm inclined to give an image a 5.5 and can't decide between a 5 or a 6, if I think it might be manipulated or if it has a "frame and mat" border, I'll give it the 5, not the 6. I give the benefit of the doubt to images I regard as photographs. That's just me.

 

I just have no idea how to quantify where to draw the line or how you'd make up and set of rules that were unambiguous. Neither does anyone else and even if they did, people would disagree.

[leorossi]

Gustavo: your photographs are quite good. They are so regardless of your relatively being a freshman in this field. With time you will learn there is a difference between what pleases you and what pleases the public. You will then have to decide which path to follow. You may even decide to follow both paths. It's expression. Express yourself, that's the goal.

 

Possibly there are different types and degrees of manipulation. Most certainly, digital manipulation differs from mechanical, and in the realm of the former there has to be a difference between what alters the capture substantially and what can be taken apart as prosthetics. I think borders most likely tend to fall into this latter field and I agree with Brian that as long as they don't 'make' the shot they can be considered as no manipulation.

 

Ultimately, though, it should fall unto the poster to decide whether these criteria apply to his/her own case. Then, let us click/unclick the box accordingly.

[orensztajn]

Thanks Leo.

I do not consider a frame as manipulation and that is why I click in the unmanipulated square even when I only placed a frame in the photo.

But I do not know, I am new in this, even if I had an "old fashion canon" before that I did not use so much.