Proposal for new Landscape Gallery categories

[acjtucson]

<p>I propose that photo.net create 2 new Gallery categories: HDR Landscape and also Black and White Landscape. Stylistically these are so very different. This is not a knock on either one. I have posted HDR, B/W, and color landscapes at one time or another. But I think it would be nice to be able to easily browse through a gallery of just these categories. What say the rest of you?</p>

[Larry_G1664882113]

<p>Andrew, I understand your ideas here, but I disagree. It is the art that counts, not whether the image is presented as a B&W, HDR, or simply as shot. Effective HDRs may not even be noticeable as HDRs, and B&W is a chosen medium for creating artistic impact. IMHO I believe that the landscape category should remain as it is. Best to you. Larry</p>

[acjtucson]

<p>I agree with you in part LG. It is the art that counts. I just look at them as very different forms of art. To that end, there are photography books specifically about HDR and specifically about B/W. They are recognized on their own merits. (Ugh. It doesn't help that at the bottom of this page is a garish HDR I did of the Kern R. years ago. One of my first.) Photo.net separates Gallery photos into 30 different categories already. One could argue one end of the spectrum that if the main point is that it is the art that counts, then why have any categories at all? Why not just have one big gallery? And one could argue the other end to categorize and subcategorize to make it all meaningless. I'm stuck somewhere in the middle. Maybe just a different middle from where you are standing:) Thanks for responding.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I suppose you could also have HDR portrait and B&W portrait by the same logic. </p>

<p>My opinion is that a split of subjects categories into technique sub-categories (HDR, B&W etc.) is probably splitting too finely</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>If I remember correctly, there was a thread on a similar topic, which led to a proposal in favor of creating several new categories, e.g., one for cityscapes. This would include images that really don't belong in either architecture, landscape, or street. I think Josh was amenable to considering new categories; I wonder whether the new administration feels the same.</p>

[john_h.1]

Eventually subcatagoring landscapes will lead to sub sub catagories such as a landscape/waterfalls/colorful leaf placed in foreground by the photographer and so on.

[bobatkins]

<p>Ideally of course, you'd use tags for this. You'd be able to go to the landscape category and browse images with "HDR" or "B&W" tags.</p>

<p>You can do this now globally, so you can search for images with "landscape" and "HDR" or "landscape" and "B&W". This assumes that the images have been tagged correctly of course. Many images aren't tagged.</p>

[acjtucson]

<p>Thanks for all the comments. I like the idea of a tag search. Don't know why I didn't think of that earlier. I must also say that i really don't understand this mindset that if one creates another few categories that then one must necessarily create even more and more and more. It really doesn't have to follow that sort of path. To create a B/W Landscape Gallery does not mean there has to be a B/W Bird Category. B/W Landscape photography is a major bona fide category of photography with a bajillion published books on the topic. How many books are there on "Colorful Leaves Placed in Foreground by Photographer"? I think it's comparing apples to oranges. Again, why not put it to the subscribers?</p>