Pushing for 2 POWS per week...

[mg]

Based on what we see in this week's discussion in the POW forum - which was imo

very interesting", I feel it's really time to have 2 separate POWs.

One would be, necessarily, declared "Non manipulated", and would be

called "PHOTOGRAPH of the Week".

 

The other one would be, necessarily, declared "Manipulated", and would be

called "Digital manipulation of the Week" or "Digital Imaging work of the week"

or "Manipulated image of the week", what ever floats your boat.

 

If we look carefully at the design of photo.net's home page, at the very bottom

right, on the right of the featured portfolio of the Week, there's a space

which would allow to do this.

 

Having two POWs would give a fair chance to all pictures to be on the front

page of the site, and would allow moretargetted discussions on each photo or

image of the week, instead of having recurrent wars between "purists"

and "photoshoppers".

 

So, who prefers a blank space and one good discussion, rather than 2 great

discussions...?

 

Please cast in your vote for or against this proposal, so that things may

change, if a change is required...

[afs760bf]

Sounds like a reasonable approach. At least we could have a great discussion about why the non-manipulated one was manipulated too much, and why the manipulated one isn't photography at all - unless it could be cropped, of course.

 

Sometimes I feel quite manipulated myself - and I pay money to feel that way :) Cheers.

[stefanovandelli]

Mark, I am surprised that this suggestion comes from you, a very able photographer, certainly sufficiently experienced to know that every photograph becomes manipulated the moment it is digitised.

Whether you or I call it so, "manipulated", it depends only on the extent of the manipulation (which is aways present, introduced by the digitising software or firmware, or by the photographer/artist), and obviously this is just too subjective.

And don't get me started about darkroom manipulation.

[bennyboy]

How are the elves to know which images are manipulated and which are not?

[afs760bf]

I thought elves knew everything.

[mg]

I thought that I should have clarified that, by "manipulated", I mean here "manipulated" as defined by photo.net's manipulation page. So please don't ask where to draw the line, the line is already drawn - by photo.net -, whether we agree with PNet's definition or not. We are all already thicking, or not thiking, that little check box - aren't we...?

[bennyboy]

I'd be amazed if it were so Marc. And if we're going to have 2 POW's then why not 3 or 30? One per category perhaps.

[root]

Marc, you know this won't fly because there will always be debates about what is or is not manipulated, PN written standards not withstanding.

 

You seem to be enjoying the debate on the current POW. Not me. It's completely predictable and has been rehashed ad infinitum. I think the POW should serve a teaching function by discussing why a legitimate photograph works. We don't need negative examples.

 

As you may recall, I think it's too much to expect even a very good image to generate a good discussion that will last all week. Since the typical discussion has run its' course after about two or three days, and since we've been encouraged to sit out discussions of images that offend our sensibilities, it really makes sense to have more than one per week.

[jmichaelc]

Got my vote. You could submit a RAW file/negative to validate your claims. I would chime in to the Non-manipulation section if it were to exist....as it is, i don't even bare to participate.

[c.r._hips]

Mark, I think it would be more interesting to have 2 POW dscussions as well. One for the accepted patter and one for the deleted , dissed variety. Unfortunately , anyway you cut it , the POW is a joke, these days. I just had 3 of my 4 posts this week deleted. I'm sure no one cares.

[think27]

I was away this week and came back to a pointless, boring, endless discussion about manipulation.. Thanks to Patrick for putting in a moderator note as a reminder. When I'm here - I try and catch these before they turn into one of these discussions. They belong in the Philosphy forum - not on the POW which is a critique forum.

[think27]

"the POW should serve a teaching function by discussing why a legitimate photograph works. We don't need negative examples." - Carl Root

 

Thank you Carl... Exactly

[c.r._hips]

Mary, my examples were positive interpretations of the image. Please explain what I said, specificly that was off topic compared to others who miraculously are still included in the thread.

[think27]

Listen - I was away. I got back today. I'm not about to go through the entire thread and clean it up. However - once Patrick said something in a moderator comment - it was clear that the comments were supposed to get back on track and be a critique. I also deleted some of Kent's comments - so you are not singled out at all.

[think27]

PS - I also don't know if I ended up deleting yours because it was an answer to someone else who ended up being deleted or edited. Once a comment is deleted or edited - sometimes the following "answer" or reference to that no longer makes sense.

[c.r._hips]

On one of the posts I started with Yes Kent. I then went on to talk about surrealism and how it related to the picture , in my opinion. Why not just delete the Yes Kent and leave the rest. I thought it made sense and really wasn,t connected to what anyone else was saying. As you know, I have my own views on these things. I only wish you would respect the different ways that the people in the POW think. Deleting should be an extreme reaction in extreme cases, don't you think.

[c.r._hips]

Oh , And the other post was almost entirely a quote by the photographer Michael Kenna, which seemed to make sense in the context of the thread. What was wrong with that?

[laurent_jaussi]

Carl Root says it all...an image work or not...interesting is to know why and what was done

to get it...if manipulated why not...I think Paul Godard was not dishonest and gave the key

very softly and cleverly in is initial stament (a sort of teasing) about secret location letting

people think about it...the question if he was right/wrong or good/bad to manipulate is

not interesting to me....as an amateur I don't need a superior hierarchy to tell me if a

photo is manipulated or if it's right or wrong to do it...manipulated graphics and photos

are everywhere now...I need experienced people to tell me what worked, what didn't and

why, and explanation how it was created...to me the only points of interest in the PoW

discussions.

[davidmccracken]

This sounds like jealousy to me. I don't really see the difference between digital manipulation and darkroom manipulation. Certainly digital manipulation is easier.

[mg]

"This sounds like jealousy to me."

 

Firstly, this is a personal attack - again.

 

Secondly, I hope you do realize, some day, how silly this presemption is. Who's jealous - me ? :-) Jealous of what, exactly ?

 

The point is just this: each time you see a much manipulated POW, you have all kinds of purists - and although you may doubt it, I'm certainly not one of them - commenting that manipulation is bad "in general". What's the point ?

 

On top of that, if you read Brian mottershead's comments on manipulated pictures in the gallery, you'll see very pertinent remarks about the fact that manipulated images are to be judged with a different set of criteria, as opposed to straight photographs. I happen to agree with him on this. Does that make us 2 jealous people, perhaps ? :-)

 

As a side note, once again, and generally speaking looking at this page, I'm baffled at how productive discussions are on this site. :-(

[david_henderson]

I think the original suggestion here would be a good idea.

 

"I don't really see the difference between digital manipulation and darkroom manipulation".

 

Well it can be more extreme. If you can show me something along the lines of this weeks POW that you've made in a darkroom then I might get some way to accepting this argument.

[c.r._hips]

Marc, after being deleted 4 out of 5 times on the current POW discussion, I agree that some

kind of change along the lines you suggest would be good. Marc, if you think about it, Pow

discussions are always divided between those wanting to develope their aesthtic appreciation

and those wanting to improve their technical know-how. Perhaps that is how 2 discussions

would work; one about Why and interpretation, the other abou How, where the Artist could

present how the picture was made and open that side up for discussion. That way we won't

see the usual 2 discussions happening on top of each other. What do you think? Or better

yet, what do you think, Brian?

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Seems everytime someone tries to open up the narrow scope that has been imposed on the POW he gets told:"The POW is for blahblahblah- that belongs in the Etcetera Forum".

 

Time for the moderators to realise that the POW and its discussion have shrunk to the point where many, perhaps a majority, of PN folks are either uncomfortable with or can't relate to it.

 

Marc's idea is good, but perhaps his verbalisation here rubs people's egos the wrong way. Maybe it could be the POW as it stands (which I tend to ignore) and a smaller, second pager called "Trad Photograph Crit Forum" or something like that.

 

There's a helluva lot of brilliant picture takers (Marc G. among them) on this site whose idea of photography differs from most of the POWs of the last coupole of years.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

last couple of years.

[mmmee]

HP wants a nice clean front page POW discussion. The members of PN seem to be calling for a good discussion where ideas (and sometimes names) are exchanged and discussed.

 

I think this could work, Marc. Just don't put the real discussion on the front page.

 

Jammey had a good idea in saying that all chosen manipulated or otherwise photos should upload a copy of the original RAW or the print before the discussion starts. HP wants only high res photos. How do the elves know if a photo is high resolution?