mikemorrellNL

Good question that has drawn some good and thought-provoking responses. Your question provoked me to read up more (on internet) about 'art photography'. There are of course different opinions. But the differences have definitely given me a wider perspective, so thank you for that Just my 4 cts (IMHO): - The question of 'what is art?' (in general) has been floating around forever without any generally agreed conclusion ever having been reached; So I'm definitely not weighing in on this 🙂. As far as I'm aware, much of what (retrospectively) is considered 'art' has to do with a) innovation/variation in insights, artistic processes (think perspective, 'realistic artists', impressionists, cubists, etc.), and b) innovation in vision, message and/or content matter (think Warhol, Damien Hurst, Jeff Koons, Tracy Emin, enz). And/or a) and b). - IMHO, a similar process applies to photographers now considered 'artists'. For their insight, innovation/variation (at the time) on established processes and/or content matter. At least (as with most artists) the insight/innovations/variations that gained some publicity😉. So IMHO, some street photography can be considered as artistic according to the criteria above (for example Henri Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand - both of whom were innovative both in 'content' and (photographic) process - but believe me, the vast majority of 'street photos' posted on photo sites really don't have any artistic value! - I totally agree with previous posters who point out that today's 'street photographers' often opt for B/W because they IMHO believe that they're conforming to an older 'street photography' tradition. And that publishing B/W photos somehow 'legitimizes' their photos as 'street photos'. - FWIW, I'm in no way averse to B/W photos! I also sometimes publish photos in B/W. But my motivation is always 'does this photo look better in color or B/W?' rather than publishing in B/W to conform to imagined historic standards of a certain 'genre'. So to come back to your original question, yes I think that B/W in street photography is sometimes a 'snobbish Art' but perhaps more often a (misplaced) 'desire to conform' to a long past B/W tradition.

Love it, Tom!

My 3 cts: - Have faith in the competence of our mods/admins that they are doing everything possible both to prevent spam and delete any spam that gets though. - Support for all the efforts of our hard-working mods/admins is more appropriate than criticisme - Whenever you feel that - despite the ongoing efforts of our mods/admins - that the current incarnation of PN is just not for you, you're always free to leave.

Let's have fun while we learn (and show) how we use our imagination, creativity and skills in post-processing. There are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you. Please summarize your PP so we can all learn from each other.

My thanks for this post too. And for @samstevens's reply. I see what you mean. I tend not to notice artifacts but I found this 15 minute Youtube video on 'over-editing' (and artifacts) helpful.

Hi Sam, I don't - with very few exceptions - shoot videos. And if I do, I shoot them on a 10-year old camera. Times have changed a lot since then and most modern cameras have far more advanced video-options. In general, when trying to find out what recent developments have to offer, I rely on Google. For example, this link. But there are of course more Google links. One thing I notice with video photographers is that some(sometimes) use a tripod and others (sometimes use a stabilizer/gimbal to stabilize their video recordings. I don't know what your friends' sons' preferences are but IMHO just a 'better camera' won't really cut it for video recordings. He IMHO also needs to think about the kind of situations in which he would like to record video. And factor 'stabilization equipment' (tripod/stabilizer/gimbal) into his budget. My impression is that would be feasible. Mike

The eyes have it! On an IPhone, I think you did well! I agree that the 2nd photo is the best of the bunch because your daughter's eyes are more sharply in focus. But still not 'tack sharp'. It depends a bit on the portrait but in general (with a better camera/lense), focusing on your daughter's eyes - and catchlights - usually bring portraits 'to life'. A better camera would also enable you to use 'burst mode': a series of shots within 1-2 seconds from which you can select the 'best photos'. In terms of what your daughter's doing, where she's looking (preferably into the camera now and then) and how 'in focus' (eyes) your shots are, etc. A 'better camera' doesn't automatically mean a new one. There are many good 2nd hand cameras (and lenses) available that will do the job. FWIW, I still use a 2nd hand 2012 camera for (voluntary) 'portrait photography' just because I've never found a sound reason to 'upgrade'. These days, much better 2nd hand cameras (and lenses) are available.

I really like your composition and timing as it is. There are three people (a triangle) who interact with each other to accomplish a common task (casting a net). I like the easy and friendly way in the way these people interact with each other. There's obviously a good personal relationship between them. Photographically (to me) the way you've captured the net is two things at once. The fine, flowing structure of the (white) supports and the almost transparent flowing structure of the net create (for me) a 'magical' structure. At the same time, the lower edge of the net where it hits the water, suggests 'action, dynamic, real-time'. I personally think that this is a truly wonderful photo in that it combines both the well-composed 'human interaction' with the 'magical' and 'action' qualities of the net. It's colorful so that both the boats and the people stand out well against the yellow/brown background. I agree with @httpwww.photo.netbarry that the inside (blue/purple) inside edge to the frame doesn't add anything to the photo and IMHO detracts from it. There have been some comments on sharpness and saturation but IMHO these are entirely up to you. Just play around with the levels of sharpness and saturation to see whether you prefer a different balance to this one or not. IHMO, the qualities of this photo in terms of composition and timing are well worth the time and effort of further 'tinkering'! I'm aware of some (past?) geographical and cultural differences regarding the 'presentation' of photos. Including saturation and sharpness levels. Some cultures seem to prefer 'bold (saturated) colors', others more subdued/natural (less saturated) colors. Your choice. Leaving aside the questions of sharpness/saturation in post-processing, I really love this photo for all the reasons given above. Congratulations! Mike I've read that there are 'geographical and cultural preferences' for how 'good photos' should look. I have a vage mem

FWIW, I think Jos Avery has been quite creative in combining the use of AI (Midjourney) with more traditional post-processing tools like Photoshop. I do believe that he (like others) had the initial intention of fooling people into believing his images were 'real photographs'. Just to demonstrate how well 'portraits' can be artificially created. Unfortunately he got carried away and deliberately misled his 'followers' for far too long. That was fraudulent. If he had been upfront early on about how he created these 'portraits', there would IMHO be no fraud. Just a 'digital artist' who uses AI to create realistic-looking portraits. TBH, there are other AI tools that can be used to generate portraits, photos of cars, furniture and of course cats. My guess is that the use of 'AI-generated photos' will only increase over time.

Just 4 comments: - I'm a very amateur sax player and I enjoying playing in amateur bands. The majority of sax players (professional, semi-professional and amateur) play way better than I do. But I still enjoy learning to play better. I sometimes play sax solos but I hate playing a 'written out' solo or just just repeating a solo that has worked for me before. I always (for better or worse) want to try out something new. Usually a variation on something I've played before. It's always a risk. I have to trust in my ability to 'come up with something 'on the fly' that sounds OK. Sometimes I fail abysmally, But I always try and learn from my failures. The parallel I see with photography is: take the photos that personally interest you and don't feel obliged to conform to any 'standards'. Experiment. For amateur photography (in general) the photographer is the only person who can say "I'm pleased with this", "this is junk" and/or "if I was to take this kind of photo in the future, then I would (improve) ....". - In psychology, there's a term called 'locus of control'. In other words, to what extent is your behavior determined by what you (personally) want to achieve and to what extent is it determined by what others ask (or expect)? With respect to photography, the two different 'locus of control' poles seem to me to be about "to what extent do you take photos that you personally want take and to what extent are the photos you take influenced by other photographers? - There's absolutely no 'pressure' to take different photos than you do now. If you're happy with your photos, just enjoy them. But for some people (including amatateur photographers) the motivation to 'continue learning' is embedded in their personality. There's also exposure to more accomplished photographers that inspire amateur photographers to aspire to a similar level. Much as with sax players😉. - Photographic equipment (from a full-blown in-house or mobile studio to a simple mobile) always serves IMHO a purpose. A mobile phone is convenient and mobile anmid is great for many on-the-fly situations. I use by mobile increasingly as my go-to camera. But there are situations for which a mobile phone doesn't cut it. For miexample, situations in which you need a longer (interchangeable) lens. Mike PS. Here endeth my reading for today😉

15 minute comment time exceeded so I'll keep it short: - the photo is of the Amer centrale, a power station in NL - i took the original photo taken almost 8 years ago on a pleasurable day trip with with friends on a rented boat towards a local nature reserve - I recently moved to the minimality that includes this power station and I gradually got involved with an 'ecology' group - I've since learned that the emissions are mainly Nitrogen (you can't see it, you can't smell it but it still damages air quality and 'the environment'' - I've since learned that the river 'Amer' is polluted by shipping and emissions I'm no 'eco-warrior' and my version is not intended as an ecological or political statement. I just tried to highlight (with color) the findings of publicable available measurements.

See comment below.

@BismuthJust out of interest, what kind of lense (focal length) do you use to capture these kinds of photos? With an 1.4 extender, I can get to about 600mm on my current full-frame camera with a 400mm lense. And about 800mm on my much older (1.4) crop camera. Mike

I'm neither a bird-watcher nor a bird photographer (though I do enjoy photographing birds too). My 2 cts.: - I really like both photos. Both are sharp and colorful but I prefer the 2nd because it shows more of the habitat. In the 2nd photo, I also really like the 'color harmony' between the yellow in the wingtips and tail and the yellows in the vegetation; blue is the contrasting color for yellow. In the 2nd photo I also like the way the 'diagonal angle' of the birds' bodies is opposite to that of the flower stems. So just in terms of compositional 'lines', the birds stand out from the background. So all in all, I find the 2nd photo more interesting in terms of composition. Yes it's pretty much impossible to 'compose' a photo of birds (from a distance through a long lense) that may fly away (or move) to somewhere else at any moment. But sometimes you just have to be thankful for 'serendipity' 🙂 - Your 2nd photo looks to be a 2:3 photo (portrait mode) which works really well for this photo. The 1st photo is square implying that it's a crop. I don't know whether the original was taken in landscape or portrait mode and the crop is always your choice - I personally regard 'composition' in 2 stages: the first - and most important - is in the viewfinder of your camera, the second is in post-processing (cropping). Wildlife, especially (including Birds) but other genres too have the specific challenge of trying to get (optically) close enough to capture the fine details while allowing some 'space' for possible cropping. So IMHO - with very little experience - wildlife photography has to balance the 'optical zoom' with the 'space' around the subject for possible cropping (= recomposition in post-processing). Too much space and you lose the detail. Too little space and you limit your options for 'recomposing' in post-processing. To the extent you don't already do this, I suggest: 1) always shoot in 'burst mode' (to capture multiple shots per second of whatever you're photographing - birds move fast!) 2) always shoot in 'RAW' (so you can adjust exposure, white balance, etc. in post-processing if need be) 3) If you have the time and opportunity take photos in both landscape and portrait orientation; sometimes you don't know what works best until you see your shots on a screen (and decide which ones are 'best' and how best to crop them). To summarize, I love both photos and I truly hope you'll upload more in a personal/private 'gallery'. FWIW - ignoring the superb photography - I associate your 1st photo with a 'macho bird': wide leg stance, challenging posture - not a bird to be messed with😉. I associate your 2nd photo more with a (bickering?) couple. However personal and wrong my associations might be, I find it interesting that both of your photos inspire some kind of 'association' in me. Neither are 'passive'. So (to me) boring they are not!

IHMO, this is a defeatist attitude. Will we ever defeat spam completely? Probably not. But - with no access to the 'Administrators Control Panel' (ACP) I suspect - just as a member - that there is perhaps more that we could do. I - accept - primarily - the statement by PN-admins that they are unable to install (anti-spam) plug-ins. I do wonder why they - on this specific website - have this restriction. Mike PS. I've made it abundantly clear in PM's and in forums that I'm willing (and reasonably able) to join the fight against spammers. No response so far.

Let's have fun while we learn (and show) how we use our imagination, creativity and skills in post-processing. There are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you. Please summarize your PP so we can all learn from each other. Mike

I assume that the mods/admins are doing everything possible to prevent Spam using the options in the 'Administrators Control Panel' (ACP). That said, I reported 3 or 4 'members' as spammers this morning simply by searching the forum for the word 'Airlines'. Together, they had posted hundreds of spam messages in different forums in a matter of hours. Probably, it was the same bot switching 'members' (and messages) every so often. Given the prevalence of specific 'keywords' in the flood of spam posts we're seeing, I wonder if we're making full use of the 'block post if it contains a keyword' function in the ACP. It was intended to flag posts for moderator approval (and/or remind members that specific words in their posts do not comply with forum guidelines). But perhaps the 'keyword list' and flagging/blocking could be applied to 'SPAM keywords' too. Just a thought. Mike

FWIW, I've just finished reading the novel Utopia Avenue by David Mitchell. One of the themes of this novel is IMHO relevant to this thread: - we tend to want to stick 'labels' on everything and to put things into 'categories' - reality is much more fluid, diverse and complicated The question 'at what point does a photo become an illustration' implies that there are two distinct' categories' (photos, illustrations). And some kind of variable 'boundary' where one category merges with (or crosses over into) a different 'category'. TBH there are currently many more genres of 'creative imaging than these two. Some incorporate photography (or film), others don't. IMHO, 'creative imaging' (as in most other areas of music/art/craft/hobby) continues to innovate and evolve. In hindsight, art historians can perhaps place imaging (including photography) as 'move: ments/developments' in history as they do with other art forms. I come back to my original 'story': currently (and for the foreseeable future) images are just images. Some out-of camera, others tweaked in PP and other incorpotatec (or not) into 'image creations'. So IMHO image reality is fluid, diverse and complicated.

Thanks Tom! I took this photo so long ago, I'd completely forgotten where. Interesting to know the name and history of the castle!

I know very little about portraits. IMHO both are good. I do note that your original is larger, has more 'context' and is relatively 'unedited'. In contrast, your edited version is more tightly cropped to the face. Your edits also include some (limited) 'blemish removals' (notably the wart) which the judge might have noticed. I have no idea what the competition was or what the criteria were. Perhaps your 'score' might have been better on the original, That said, I think I prefer your edited version🙂.

Apologies, I missed this request in January. FWIW, I think you're a very good editor! This 'high contrast' (dark room/bright windows) situation is IMHO a) very difficult to expose 'in-camera' and b) not at all easy to improve in Post Processing. Your first edit looks good to me: perhaps (only) the mid-tones could be lifted just slightly. I'm not sure whether HDR always 'flattens' a photo (I never use HDR) but my guess is that it's difficult to get just right. I agree with previous 2 comments that your HDR edit does look flat and removes any sense of 'atmosphere'. It could just be that you were a bit heavy-handed on the exposures used in HDR. It could also be that a 'default' HDR setting tends towards 'average exposure' in all parts of the photo. In situations like these, I find manual adjustments work better.

Let's have fun while we learn (and show) how we use our imagination, creativity and skills in post-processing. There are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you. Please summarize your PP so we can all learn from each other.

@jordan2240 Good point. My thanks - and congrats - for posting the very first PP challenge back in 2014. And of course for proposing the initial PP challenge guidelines. I see what you mean about it never being the original intent to create pictures that are pure fiction. I'm not quite sure how or when the weekly PP challenges (gradually?) came to accept 'fictional pictures'. I can only guess that this acceptance grew as the active participants changed over the years. For some years, the invitation to participate in the challenge has been generally: "there are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you." Another factor, perhaps, is that current versions of PP software and plugins make a wider range of 'creative transformations' more easily accessible than they did 8 years ago. It'll be interesting to dip into some of the PP-challenges and responses over the years! Mike

Good observation and prediction. The sophistication of 'deep fake' photos and videos steadily increases. I read somewhere that a photo competion requested the 'Raw data' + all Exif data f⁴rom candidates in order to determine the degree of enhancement/manipulation. In principle, the same kind thing can be done with videos. For both media, some additional 'forensics' can be done both on a macro-level (lighting, color) and on a micro-level (pixel peeping the 'edges')⁴ I fully agree with you that 'deep fakes' are a real danger to society, notably through spreading misinformation through social media or 'non-independent' (?) traditional media (printed and digital). My hope is that social media companies develop automated (AI) processes whereby 'deep fakes' are detected and prevented from being posted and shared. But I suspect that the 'deep fake' situation is similar to the 'Spam' situation. Many 'deep fake' prevention processes can be introduced but these will never be 100% effective. So social media companies may also rely on 'the community' to flag possible 'deep fakes' The 'achilles heel', as see it, is that people - and their (social) media channels are organised into 'bubbles'. So one 'fake post' may be welcomed and fully accepted by groups of participant towards which it is targeted. Other social media participants may never even see the socially targeted 'fake post'. Even if they do, they may struggle to give their opinions the same weight as 'supporters' do (via likes, share⁵s, enz.) ⁴ /⁴