Posted by Barbara Graham on February 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Flora is a pretty wide-open gallery, which is great, but I'm still very confused about photos versus photo art when it comes to the Flora gallery and flora images in the world at large.
I have three images here to post as an example, and hopefully anyone who isn't highly bored with this subject already ;) might give their opinions. Thank you!
Oh, the wooden bridge under the leaf would possibly be another question as to whether this image would be okay for Flora.
This first image posted here is the original photo, colors as they were.
Posted by Barbara Graham on February 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM
This one is definitely photo art, with filters used.
Posted by Barbara Graham on February 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM
But what is this one? No filters, but high saturation, colors not as they really were.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 14, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Hi Barbara - I'm sure others can give their feelings, but I think with the third one you're looking for a clear dividing line that doesn't exist. Put it in photo art, and people will look at and judge it one way, put it in flora and people will go another - and put it in Man and Nature and you'll probably get a third view. It's really up to you as to what you're going for and how you think about it.
Posted by Bill Chambers on February 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Strictly my opinion of course, but in my view, just changing saturation or something like that doesn't constitute Photo Art. All three of your images posted here should go to Flora or M&N (again, my opinion). If you start adding filters and such, then it goes into Photo Art.
EDIT: Oops, didn't notice the second one had used filters - that would go to PA.
Posted by Ian Wolfenden on February 14, 2011 at 3:34 PM
Barbara : you've opened up quite a topic here !
I suspect at least one purpose of the Photo Art gallery is to encourage images of nature in which imaginative digital manipulation may supervene on the beauty or interest of the subject. It seems to me that, in Flora etc, whatever techniques the photographer may have used, or however abstract their images might be, a delight in the subject matter for its own sake - a love of flowers etc - somehow always comes through. But I don't think you can define things too closely - otherwise we'd have nothing to debate !!
Barbara, This surely is a fine line, and should at some point be addressed.
Noise reduction is a FILTER but used by most of us with most or every image. Does this make it Photo Art? No. How about sharpening? Another FILTER commonly used and not mentionned in processing.
But what about other filters? Here the lines become blurred.
A "warmth and brilliance" filter? A "sat boost" filter?
"Glamour Glow" ? A vignette filter?
Other Nik or Topaz filters? Yes? No?
The issue will never be black and white, and there always will be differences of opinion. Especially in Flora, there is (and should be, imo) a lot of leeway in processing.
Until more clarification at some point, just post where you feel is best - and if the category is deemed incorrect, the Mods will move your photo and explain.
I see nothing in any of your 3 photos that would require it be posted in Photo Art. The main subject is the LEAF, which to me means means FLORA GALLERY.
Sandy
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 14, 2011 at 9:03 PM
The issue will never be black and white, and there always will be differences of opinion. Especially in Flora, there is (and should be, imo) a lot of leeway in processing.
This is exactly right. There will never be an exact agreement on what constitues "Photo Art," "digital manipulation" or manipulation in general. It's a circular discussion with no right or wrong answers or opinions.
Having said that, for purposes of categorizing images on sites like this, other venues, photo contests and other stuff, there do need to be some sort of loose guidelines in which the photographer knows where to place their image, which I think is the crux of Barbara's question.
Along with two other photographers, I was recently asked to help the Director of my local County Fair Photography exhibit/competition to help them define the Photography categories or Divisions. One of those Divisions is essentially "Photo Art," Although that's not what it will be called. That's another story... ;-)
After a week's worth of back and forth, here is the definition of "Photo Art" that we came up with:
Color or black-and-white photograph that has been creatively altered, manipulated, or enhanced to introduce effects or elements not present in the original scene or photograph.
The very second you actually mention a technique, a filter, a process or anything specific, then you open up Pandora's box for disagreements. In other words, the moment you say, "Noise Filter" is manipulation, then as in Sandy's example you have to specify EVERYTHING and start that circular discussion that Black&White photography is "manipulation."
SO, rather than going down rat-holes and trying to define what is "Photo Art," or what is manipulation, versus standard photographic techniques, such as contrast adjustment or sharpening... you end up being generic and vague.
I'm not saying my definition above is the answer, but it accomplishes two things in my mind. One, eliminates any discussion about comparing techniques, methods, digital or traditional alterations. Secondly, it puts the onus on the photographer to best place their image in the correct category; where the photographer is the one who captured and crafted the image that knows their INTENT.
So Barbara, in your example, IMHO, the image where you applied some filters (look like water color type effect) YOU intended to alter the original image with some effect that is significantly different than the original. Had you taken the saturation example to an extreme, I would say the same thing. But as the viewer of the saturated image, I don't think it goes far enough to be considered Photo Art.
But it gets back to you intent. Are you intending to alter the image is some creative or artistic way? Or are you simply trying to make the image the best it can be in terms of exposure, color, contrast and sharpness?
I think if you ask yourself these questions up front, it will help you and hopefully help other members as well, which category to place your images in.
Lon
Posted by Bill Fach on February 15, 2011 at 12:11 AM
Barbara: I've been moderating Flora for almost 4 years and this does come up from time to time. In my time as moderator I've moved a handful of images to Photo Art. In each case the form of the main subject was substantially altered. Your second image is one I would think about moving. The other two are not. Filters that make up for an inherent deficiency in the capture such as noise, sharpness, and saturation are always OK for me unless taken to real extremes. Filters that change the appearance of the original purely for artistic effect are a tougher call. I guess I use the same logic as the supreme court justice who was asked to define pornography and said that while he couldn't give a black and white definition he knew it when he saw it. I guess that puts you at the mercy of the court which would be Pat and I. That means you're in big trouble.
Posted by Barb Pflaum on February 15, 2011 at 1:26 PM
I think that when most people look at a photograph they think they are seeing exactly what the scene looked like at the time the picture was taken. Sometimes photographers have to make adjustments during processing just to get the photo to that point.
Sometimes filters or other adjustments are done to make the picture more beautiful or dramatic than the actual scene. I have no objection to this and some very beautiful artwork is created this way, but I would consider it photo art.
Posted by Derek Yow on February 15, 2011 at 1:49 PM
Another good topic Barbara, and one I just struggled with myself recently. I guess I'll use that as an illustration to my thought process, whether right or wrong.
If you look at my latest post, you'll notice I stated that I added some Gaussian blur to the image to give it a much softer presentation than I actually shot it with. The flowers had been gone a few weeks when I sat down to process this the other night, and the longer I looked at my results the more I decided I would like to see the shot softer. So I applied the Gaussian blur (which is technically a filter) to the image, and then selectively masked the effect to basically artifically reduce the depth-of-field.
I went back and forth on whether this constituted photo art, or not. In the end I posted it to the flora forum, because I decided my processing really didnt do anything I couldnt have done with my camera. It's just at the time, I didn't shoot this with a wider aperture (which goes back to the close-up topic and shooting with lots of different settings - I didnt follow my own advice), so I applied the affect after-the-fact. In my mind that was along the same lines as altering the exposure in Photoshop.
Maybe that's fallacious reasoning, but as mentioned, this is a topic that's not black-and-white. I think it's somewhat subjective based on the processing and intent. My approach was to post it in flora, and be completely honest and transparent about what I'd done so the moderators could make the final determination on whether it belonged there or not.
Posted by Pat Sampson on February 17, 2011 at 8:00 PM
Barbara,
Maybe I have an overly simplistic idea of how this works. It wouldn't be the first time. (smile) When I look at most Cezanne landscapes, Monet water lilies or Vermeer still lifes it's usually obvious that Cezanne isn't really wanting to show me the landscape, Monet isn't that interested in water lilies and that Vermeer doesn't really care about the fruit and household items in the painting. I don't know what they're trying to show me but for lack of a better term I guess I call the work Art. Some of the images I see in the Photo Art Gallery are the same as the paintings. They have trees and lions and water and birds but those elements are subordinate to the overall intent of the work. If they're not, I'd argue the image doesn't really belong in PA.
So from my standpoint, the tools you use are pretty much irrelevant. It's more about what you want to create. I think Bill has the right cut on it as do Lon and several of the other commentators. I'm just trying to elucidate it a little differently here. I will give one counter instance. When I look at Van Gogh's sunflowers, while the paintings are certainly Art, they're also very much flora. I can't look at a Van Gogh Sunflower without thinking, this guy was interested in sunflowers. IMO the best flora images are also Art but they're clearly about the flora.
pat
Posted by Pat Sampson on February 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM
Barbara,
I wanted to add this quote. It' s about as eloquent and concise a statement as I could find concerning the interpretation of Cezanne's work, probably my favorite artist, as art. "The control of planes is the essence of Cezanne's achievement. I am not so much impressed with the tiny planes that are kept distinct and unblended in the familiar chromatic passages or color modulations. It is the organization of the important underlying planes - there rotation from static to dynamic positions, the tensions, the space intervals between them, their movement into depth and their inevitable return to the picture plane - that is primarily important.
Erle Loran Cezanne's Composition - (1963)
To me this is what's meant by a discussion of a work as Art. Not the tool or techniques used.
pat
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 19, 2011 at 9:10 PM
.....but those elements are subordinate to the overall intent of the work
I'm no where near the art aficionado as Pat here, but this statement about sums it up for me. If your intention is to render a scene naturally, or as best you as the photographer recall it or want to recall it, then the intent should place it in the category of your subject, Landscape, Flora, Wildlife, etc. If your "intent" is to alter the scene is some manner, artistic or otherwise that renders the scene in a manner that isn't consistent with the original scene, then I would say Photo Art.
Of course the problem comes in when we, as the viewer or critic, can in no way know the intention of the creator. Therefore, it's up the the photographer to place the image in the category they think is the best fit, considering your "intent." Let the moderators move if you're way off.
just another .02
Lon
Posted by Pat Sampson on February 19, 2011 at 9:54 PM
Discussion
14 repliesI have three images here to post as an example, and hopefully anyone who isn't highly bored with this subject already ;) might give their opinions. Thank you!
Oh, the wooden bridge under the leaf would possibly be another question as to whether this image would be okay for Flora.
This first image posted here is the original photo, colors as they were.
EDIT: Oops, didn't notice the second one had used filters - that would go to PA.
I suspect at least one purpose of the Photo Art gallery is to encourage images of nature in which imaginative digital manipulation may supervene on the beauty or interest of the subject. It seems to me that, in Flora etc, whatever techniques the photographer may have used, or however abstract their images might be, a delight in the subject matter for its own sake - a love of flowers etc - somehow always comes through. But I don't think you can define things too closely - otherwise we'd have nothing to debate !!
Noise reduction is a FILTER but used by most of us with most or every image. Does this make it Photo Art? No. How about sharpening? Another FILTER commonly used and not mentionned in processing.
But what about other filters? Here the lines become blurred.
A "warmth and brilliance" filter? A "sat boost" filter?
"Glamour Glow" ? A vignette filter?
Other Nik or Topaz filters? Yes? No?
The issue will never be black and white, and there always will be differences of opinion. Especially in Flora, there is (and should be, imo) a lot of leeway in processing.
Until more clarification at some point, just post where you feel is best - and if the category is deemed incorrect, the Mods will move your photo and explain.
I see nothing in any of your 3 photos that would require it be posted in Photo Art. The main subject is the LEAF, which to me means means FLORA GALLERY.
Sandy
This is exactly right. There will never be an exact agreement on what constitues "Photo Art," "digital manipulation" or manipulation in general. It's a circular discussion with no right or wrong answers or opinions.
Having said that, for purposes of categorizing images on sites like this, other venues, photo contests and other stuff, there do need to be some sort of loose guidelines in which the photographer knows where to place their image, which I think is the crux of Barbara's question.
Along with two other photographers, I was recently asked to help the Director of my local County Fair Photography exhibit/competition to help them define the Photography categories or Divisions. One of those Divisions is essentially "Photo Art," Although that's not what it will be called. That's another story... ;-)
After a week's worth of back and forth, here is the definition of "Photo Art" that we came up with:
The very second you actually mention a technique, a filter, a process or anything specific, then you open up Pandora's box for disagreements. In other words, the moment you say, "Noise Filter" is manipulation, then as in Sandy's example you have to specify EVERYTHING and start that circular discussion that Black&White photography is "manipulation."
SO, rather than going down rat-holes and trying to define what is "Photo Art," or what is manipulation, versus standard photographic techniques, such as contrast adjustment or sharpening... you end up being generic and vague.
I'm not saying my definition above is the answer, but it accomplishes two things in my mind. One, eliminates any discussion about comparing techniques, methods, digital or traditional alterations. Secondly, it puts the onus on the photographer to best place their image in the correct category; where the photographer is the one who captured and crafted the image that knows their INTENT.
So Barbara, in your example, IMHO, the image where you applied some filters (look like water color type effect) YOU intended to alter the original image with some effect that is significantly different than the original. Had you taken the saturation example to an extreme, I would say the same thing. But as the viewer of the saturated image, I don't think it goes far enough to be considered Photo Art.
But it gets back to you intent. Are you intending to alter the image is some creative or artistic way? Or are you simply trying to make the image the best it can be in terms of exposure, color, contrast and sharpness?
I think if you ask yourself these questions up front, it will help you and hopefully help other members as well, which category to place your images in.
Lon
Sometimes filters or other adjustments are done to make the picture more beautiful or dramatic than the actual scene. I have no objection to this and some very beautiful artwork is created this way, but I would consider it photo art.
If you look at my latest post, you'll notice I stated that I added some Gaussian blur to the image to give it a much softer presentation than I actually shot it with. The flowers had been gone a few weeks when I sat down to process this the other night, and the longer I looked at my results the more I decided I would like to see the shot softer. So I applied the Gaussian blur (which is technically a filter) to the image, and then selectively masked the effect to basically artifically reduce the depth-of-field.
I went back and forth on whether this constituted photo art, or not. In the end I posted it to the flora forum, because I decided my processing really didnt do anything I couldnt have done with my camera. It's just at the time, I didn't shoot this with a wider aperture (which goes back to the close-up topic and shooting with lots of different settings - I didnt follow my own advice), so I applied the affect after-the-fact. In my mind that was along the same lines as altering the exposure in Photoshop.
Maybe that's fallacious reasoning, but as mentioned, this is a topic that's not black-and-white. I think it's somewhat subjective based on the processing and intent. My approach was to post it in flora, and be completely honest and transparent about what I'd done so the moderators could make the final determination on whether it belonged there or not.
Maybe I have an overly simplistic idea of how this works. It wouldn't be the first time. (smile) When I look at most Cezanne landscapes, Monet water lilies or Vermeer still lifes it's usually obvious that Cezanne isn't really wanting to show me the landscape, Monet isn't that interested in water lilies and that Vermeer doesn't really care about the fruit and household items in the painting. I don't know what they're trying to show me but for lack of a better term I guess I call the work Art. Some of the images I see in the Photo Art Gallery are the same as the paintings. They have trees and lions and water and birds but those elements are subordinate to the overall intent of the work. If they're not, I'd argue the image doesn't really belong in PA.
So from my standpoint, the tools you use are pretty much irrelevant. It's more about what you want to create. I think Bill has the right cut on it as do Lon and several of the other commentators. I'm just trying to elucidate it a little differently here. I will give one counter instance. When I look at Van Gogh's sunflowers, while the paintings are certainly Art, they're also very much flora. I can't look at a Van Gogh Sunflower without thinking, this guy was interested in sunflowers. IMO the best flora images are also Art but they're clearly about the flora.
pat
I wanted to add this quote. It' s about as eloquent and concise a statement as I could find concerning the interpretation of Cezanne's work, probably my favorite artist, as art. "The control of planes is the essence of Cezanne's achievement. I am not so much impressed with the tiny planes that are kept distinct and unblended in the familiar chromatic passages or color modulations. It is the organization of the important underlying planes - there rotation from static to dynamic positions, the tensions, the space intervals between them, their movement into depth and their inevitable return to the picture plane - that is primarily important.
Erle Loran Cezanne's Composition - (1963)
To me this is what's meant by a discussion of a work as Art. Not the tool or techniques used.
pat
I'm no where near the art aficionado as Pat here, but this statement about sums it up for me. If your intention is to render a scene naturally, or as best you as the photographer recall it or want to recall it, then the intent should place it in the category of your subject, Landscape, Flora, Wildlife, etc. If your "intent" is to alter the scene is some manner, artistic or otherwise that renders the scene in a manner that isn't consistent with the original scene, then I would say Photo Art.
Of course the problem comes in when we, as the viewer or critic, can in no way know the intention of the creator. Therefore, it's up the the photographer to place the image in the category they think is the best fit, considering your "intent." Let the moderators move if you're way off.
just another .02
Lon
I'd say it's a dollar anyway Lon. (smile)
pat