IR

[gregf]

<p>It would be nice to have a new catagory for ratings/critques. I've noticed that IR photos tend to have significantly lower rating than color/b&w. Just a thought, since those of us that shoot IR would love to have a catagory where people just don't go yuck!</p>

[WJT]

<p>Hi Gregory. Speaking just for myslf, I do not know if a new category would actually help this situation. I am an IR film shooter myself and really enjoy capturing the world in this normally unseen part of the spectrum. It requires a different technique than shooting colorful landscapes, of which I also enjoy doing. Many of the results from IR photography are strikingly beautiful.</p>

<p>The problem, however, is that the typical viewer seems to enjoy images that do not stray far from the norm. For example, I have observed the same reaction as what you are seeing on the IR images in true Street photography. A lot of viewers do not seem to care much for this genre either. We have a separate category for Street genre, as well as an excellent tutorial under the Learning page, and it does not remove the "yuck" impulse, so to say. Again, I am speaking just for myself and from my own observations.</p>

<p>I wish that I could provide a good suggestion on how to make the rating/critique system more fair and relevant. Please believe me, though, that a lot of serious attention is being given to this. Regards.</p>

[gregf]

<p>It's not that I care so much about my ratingings for IR, but I do; it's also I would like to see a catagory dedicated to IR so I could learn from other peoples photography. Right now, those of us that shoot IR, usually put them in Landscape or Digital Alterations. But I think if we had our own catagory, we could all improve our techniques. I know from my experience, my IR shots don't get critiques, just ratings. Critiques from other IR shooters would be such a value.</p>

<p>I think you could make the same argument with HDR, as it seems to me that many of the HDR photos put up suffer from bipolar scores, people love them or hate them.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents, and thank God I now longer have to but Kodak's very expensive color IR film, which was way more than 2 cents!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I really don't think that it's just some sort of "conservatism" and shock of the new that makes people avoid or rate IR pictures low.</p>

<p>Quite to the contrary, after seeing white leaves a few times, people may come to consider it a sort of "trick" like shooting portraits with a fisheye lens. A little of it can go a long way.</p>

<p>Believe me, I have my own R72 filter and back in film days used to shoot a lot of false color infrared film too. I have a friend who is a retired Life photographer and he does much work in b&w IR. But IR is not the point nor the be-all of his photographs, and most people looking at them are not immediately aware that they are IR shots, in fact.</p>

<p>I hasten to add that I have not looked at the portfolios of those posting here; I am speaking only to Walter's statement</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem, however, is that the typical viewer seems to enjoy images that do not stray far from the norm</p>

</blockquote>

[indraneel]

<p>+1 for IR section. Or better yet "Alternative films/processing"</p>

<p>If there can be a section for news/journalism and a section for digital alterations, there might as well be a section for alternative films/processing techniques. It need not be called IR, but it definitely is an "alternative" category.</p>

<p>News/journalism implies straight from camera, but except for random projects by Richard Mosse, IR is definitely not allowed in there. Digital alterations is also too restrictive, since we can have film IR, and also not every digital IR needs to be processed digitally. We can also have UV photography (digital or film), as well as traditional (film) cross processing, bleach bypass....</p>

<p>I am aware that "abstract" exists, but it is just too wide in scope. "Alternative film / processing" would definitely fit the bill.</p>

<p>Hopefully more people can persuade to start this section. So far, I'm sorting my IR images by subject matter, but people do not really want to see fluorescent trees in "street".</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I think an IR forum would be a good idea and could include film and digital IR.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you start up yet another forum, where will it all end?</p>

<p>Next somebody will want a forum for all our crappy old cameras,<br>

oh....<br>

Never mind.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>Well, we can't see your crappy old cameras, but if you've been shooting on Mars using regular old kodak film, just upload them under travel or astrophotography. In fact, I fail to see how astrophotography (which has it's own section) is any different from seascapes (which does not have it's section) or landscape (which of course has it's own section).</p>

<p>But I can generate a IR/UV image with no digital/chemical coaxing at all and still not get it accepted as news/documentary.</p>