Tagging a photo as manipulated

[maxz]

When you have a photo in your portfolio you can only tag the photo as

"No, it is not manipulated". If it is left untagged it is said to be

"Yes or unknown".

 

I think it would be useful to say "Yes, it is manipulated". My

crossprocessed pictures are, under the guidelines given, manipulated

and I want to be able to express that I have noticed this and marked

the pictures accordingly. If a picture is left unmarked it should be a

"Unknown, potentially Yes".

 

This should be easy to implement since SQL allows both true, false and

NULL values. representing all the above mentioned cases.

[nomade]

That mark was added not so much time ago, something like a year ago. It was done mainly for many people, the more conventional photographers, claimed that too much manipulated images were beeing posted without the poster declairing it. They claimed a way to state that the image was NOT manipulated, that's why the thing is like it is by now.

 

Implementing this little function meant that it had to be retroactive, that is, coherently valid for the previously posted images. If what you suggest were done by then, the previously mentioned people could be quite upset.

 

Doing it now, would have the same consequences and would imply that everybody should have to change the mark done till the day.

 

I would suggest you, that if you want to mark that your images are manipulated in some way, just be more specific in the "technical details" section.

[maxz]

I believe that this would be a retroactive solution too. Say for example that if you have TRUE for manipulated, FALSE for not manipulated and NULL for unknown then it would simply be to set all of todays TRUE values to NULL (A simple SQL-statement like "UPDATE table1 SET manipulated=NULL WHERE manipulated=TRUE" would do the job). And since no-one have had the possibility to explicitly say that the photo is manipulated nothing would really change.

 

Those that have already marked the photo as not manipulated would still have their photo marked as such.

 

The only real job would be to change the interface so it allowed showing and setting of three values instead of two. Of course I have no idea of how the underlying tables look like or how the code is organized.

 

As for using the "Technical details" section, my folder is called "Cross Processed" which would indicate to the attentive visitor that the entire folder contains photos that under the current guidelines are manipulated. But now we have the field for tagging photos that is easy to use and that directly gives you information on the page displaying the photo.

 

But that is just my thought on the subject. This is not a big issue for me, but I think it would be a neat addition to Photo.Net which would not be a big change for the users, yet allow more accurate information to be saved.

[nomade]

Well... your idea is nice, but I guess that the staff is trying to handle more urgent poroblems, like the ones dealing with traffic...