Posted by Eva McDermott on September 26, 2011 at 8:16 PM
OK - I am going to raise a question here since there does seem to be some inequality as to what gets moved to Photoart and what does not from ES&S (Landscape) to Photoart. Being moved to Photoart is not a bad thing but I think we need to be more consistent in our definitions. In camera movements, Vaseline, or breathing on the lens should be considered Photoart. Sometimes it is recognized as Photoart but many times it is not.
There is a perceived "special treatment or overlooking" in my mind. As clear as Landscape vs. M&N is, I think there needs to be a clear definition of ES&S and M&N vs. Photoart. I have come across several instances in M&N where they should be in Photoart and not M&N. I mentioned this to those persons involved but have not seen them post in Photoart or M&N since (too bad). There does seem to be a stigma of not posting in Landscape and I think that may be part part of the problem...... but how is that perception changed I ask?
Eva
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 27, 2011 at 1:22 AM
Hi Eva,
It's a great question and thanks for raising it. I have my thoughts which I'll give in a minute, but first can you clarify a couple things. I know I haven't moved an image from Landscape (in a very long time if at all,) so could you provide a couple examples? Typically me, Marc, Floris and Aziz don't communicate with each other when we move an image - it's really whom ever gets to it and thinks it's appropriate. So I'm just saying I don't know of any that have recently been moved (although Matt's deserves too, and I'll get to that.) But also, can you expand on "see to be a stigma of not posting in Landscape." If there's something we need to address I would certainly like to know about it. I know there are certain individuals that we know about, but if it's something broader, please let me know.
Now this is just MY opinion and outlook on Photo Art vs. Landscape. The same can be said with Fauna and Flora too. But PA I think is a little more prevalent and obvious? maybe? First of all, IMHO the "hand of man" issue is easy in the sense that the presence of the human element technically disqualifies and image from Landscape. In other words, the guidelines clearly state "no recognizable "hand of man." Although we of course miss many irrelevant HOM items and many slip by as we try to be somewhat reasonable (heck, a contrail is HOM right? )
Where I'm leading to is that motion blur, a flower portrait or a perched egret are not images that can be "disqualified" from Landscape. The guidelines simply say that the member should post in the "most appropriate" gallery. Now we're in subjective territory. Who's to say that current image in Landscape is any less or any more Photo Art than [url=http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=181135&CGISESSID=56ef33b0e51909f4d8fba0255d15aa7d&u=26698]Matt Andersons. This is the difficulty I personally have with these other classifications. For many people, Black and White is Photo Art. really. Just because there's a bird in the image doesn't mean it can't be in Landscape. Where do you draw the line? Robert Dayton's summer of wildflowers? I think they belong in either, and I believe he's posted in Flora as well Landscape.
So I think this will be a good discussion. Much easier for me to draw the line with M&N. The rest, not so much. So actually, any thoughts, opinions and advice would be appreciated.
Believe me, I hate it every time a motion blur image comes up. I think I'll go ahead and move it. I think Matt's a pretty sensible guy... :-)
Lon
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 27, 2011 at 2:04 AM
Apologize for the duplicate sentences... for the life of me I can't get rid of them.... grrrh
Posted by Eva McDermott on September 27, 2011 at 7:00 AM
Hi Lon - Thanks for the reply. Two examples that come to mind are Matt Anderson's image which I see you moved and in the past week or so, Jimmy Gekes. I do notice most people are placing motion blur images in Photoart in general now anyway. I didn't mean to stir the pot. I am just looking for consistent guidelines and motion blur seems to have an unwritten guideline that is sometimes applied and sometimes not.
Posted by Keith Bauer on September 27, 2011 at 12:23 PM
This is an interesting topic. I'm going to sit back on the sidelines and read, but my initial thoughts are that a major differentiating factor for PhotoArt is that the "Artistic effect" was created in digital post processing. The motion blur image from Matt Anderson (as I understand it) was done in camera. While abstract, I didn't see that as PhotoArt because of my narrow definition.
Useful discussion, Eva. Looking at it "from the outside" I see two discussions that need to occur, and probably remain ongoing as techniques and software evolve:
1. Is there, should there be, what is the overall standard for NPN?
2. A parallel discussion about methods and application of standards in moderating should occur among moderators when more than one operates in the same gallery.
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 27, 2011 at 2:07 PM
Eva - yeah, I believe Jimmy's aspens should have been moved; which gets to point about consistency. So along with Hank, I would agree on his #1 statement about at least discussing the standard for NPN. More on that.
Keith - you'd make a great straight man (as in a comedic pair...) This is exactly what will happen the moment we attempt to more narrowly define what these categories are. You know there is an HDR app for the iPhone right? Just because it's in-camera does not make it a traditional photograph, IMHO. Many folks believe black and white is an alteration of reality - others say it's the most pure forms of photography - all in-camera. I mention those two examples only because I know that everyone else can think of examples of what is, or isn't Photo Art, Flora, Avian, etc. The more people chiming in, the more opinions. The point I'm making with your comment Keith is that I could agree or disagree with your definition, but even if we agree, that won't help our cause because someone else will come up with a different criteria that we haven't thought of yet.
Earlier this year I was asked to help write the category definitions for the Photography exhibit at the Alameda County Fair. Me and two other togs toiled with this for a couple weeks, having the same conversations as this is leading to. All good and fun discussions, but in the end, the more we tried to define and list all the possibilities, the worse it got. The more we simplified and the more vague the guidelines became, the easier it was to understand them. In the end here is definition that became the guideline for the County Fair for the category of "Creative Digital Photographs:"
Creative Digital Photographs: 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.
I really liked this because you can take any of these examples, motion/camera blurs, composites and more easily determine if they fit the above definition. Let's take for example Matt's camera blur "fire" image. By moving the camera he "introduced effects" that were not present in the original scene; ie. the trees/leaves were not moving in a vertical motion by themselves. Conversely, leaf-swirls in stream is also a "motion blur" image, however the leaves were actually moving in a circular motion. The photographer did not do anything other than open the shutter. So to me, two motion blur examples that belong in 2 different categories.
BTW, the only other categories/divisions for entering a print in the fair were: 1. Color Photographs, 2. Black and White Photographs, and 3. Alternative Media (hand tinting, polaroid transfer, etc.) in addition to the 4th category of "Creative Digital."
How this could be applied to NPN guidelines... well, haven't thought that one through yet.
Lon
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 27, 2011 at 2:09 PM
2. A parallel discussion about methods and application of standards in moderating should occur among moderators when more than one operates in the same gallery.
Hank, yes perhaps we should have a separate discussion. But could you clarify what you mean by "....one operates in the same gallery?" who or what do you mean is operating in the same gallery? confoozed.
Sorry I wasn't clear Lon. I was just noting that there are four moderators listed for Landscape and two for M&N. In addition to an overall NPN set of guidelines, I was suggesting that all the moderators listed within a gallery might want to discuss among themselves HOW to apply the guidelines as they impact that gallery. They might even want to talk among themselves about specific moves.
I was suggesting that all the moderators listed within a gallery might want to discuss among themselves HOW to apply the guidelines as they impact that gallery. They might even want to talk among themselves about specific moves.
I think this is a very good idea. I think this is especially true in a gallery like Landscape. The moderators really do need to be on the same page: "The only thing worse than no plan, is two plans."
Regarding specific moves: I think each mod should move a post that doesn't meet guidelines as soon as possible in order to prevent confusion. If a move is done by consensus, it could take too long. I think that if a move is done, a simple e-mail to the other mods advising them of the action taken would suffice.
--P
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 29, 2011 at 2:15 PM
Thanks for the clarification Hank, I see what meant now. It would be ideal if we collaborated on moves, but I agree with Preston it would take too much time. As it is, once an image has sat for a day or more I personally don't move images. Can't speak for the other mods.
But we do have occasional discussions, and we're having one now about the PA issue.
Discussion
10 repliesThere is a perceived "special treatment or overlooking" in my mind. As clear as Landscape vs. M&N is, I think there needs to be a clear definition of ES&S and M&N vs. Photoart. I have come across several instances in M&N where they should be in Photoart and not M&N. I mentioned this to those persons involved but have not seen them post in Photoart or M&N since (too bad). There does seem to be a stigma of not posting in Landscape and I think that may be part part of the problem...... but how is that perception changed I ask?
Eva
It's a great question and thanks for raising it. I have my thoughts which I'll give in a minute, but first can you clarify a couple things. I know I haven't moved an image from Landscape (in a very long time if at all,) so could you provide a couple examples? Typically me, Marc, Floris and Aziz don't communicate with each other when we move an image - it's really whom ever gets to it and thinks it's appropriate. So I'm just saying I don't know of any that have recently been moved (although Matt's deserves too, and I'll get to that.) But also, can you expand on "see to be a stigma of not posting in Landscape." If there's something we need to address I would certainly like to know about it. I know there are certain individuals that we know about, but if it's something broader, please let me know.
Now this is just MY opinion and outlook on Photo Art vs. Landscape. The same can be said with Fauna and Flora too. But PA I think is a little more prevalent and obvious? maybe? First of all, IMHO the "hand of man" issue is easy in the sense that the presence of the human element technically disqualifies and image from Landscape. In other words, the guidelines clearly state "no recognizable "hand of man." Although we of course miss many irrelevant HOM items and many slip by as we try to be somewhat reasonable (heck, a contrail is HOM right?
Where I'm leading to is that motion blur, a flower portrait or a perched egret are not images that can be "disqualified" from Landscape. The guidelines simply say that the member should post in the "most appropriate" gallery. Now we're in subjective territory. Who's to say that current image in Landscape is any less or any more Photo Art than [url=http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=181135&CGISESSID=56ef33b0e51909f4d8fba0255d15aa7d&u=26698]Matt Andersons. This is the difficulty I personally have with these other classifications. For many people, Black and White is Photo Art. really. Just because there's a bird in the image doesn't mean it can't be in Landscape. Where do you draw the line? Robert Dayton's summer of wildflowers? I think they belong in either, and I believe he's posted in Flora as well Landscape.
So I think this will be a good discussion. Much easier for me to draw the line with M&N. The rest, not so much. So actually, any thoughts, opinions and advice would be appreciated.
Believe me, I hate it every time a motion blur image comes up. I think I'll go ahead and move it. I think Matt's a pretty sensible guy... :-)
Lon
1. Is there, should there be, what is the overall standard for NPN?
2. A parallel discussion about methods and application of standards in moderating should occur among moderators when more than one operates in the same gallery.
Keith - you'd make a great straight man (as in a comedic pair...) This is exactly what will happen the moment we attempt to more narrowly define what these categories are. You know there is an HDR app for the iPhone right? Just because it's in-camera does not make it a traditional photograph, IMHO. Many folks believe black and white is an alteration of reality - others say it's the most pure forms of photography - all in-camera. I mention those two examples only because I know that everyone else can think of examples of what is, or isn't Photo Art, Flora, Avian, etc. The more people chiming in, the more opinions. The point I'm making with your comment Keith is that I could agree or disagree with your definition, but even if we agree, that won't help our cause because someone else will come up with a different criteria that we haven't thought of yet.
Earlier this year I was asked to help write the category definitions for the Photography exhibit at the Alameda County Fair. Me and two other togs toiled with this for a couple weeks, having the same conversations as this is leading to. All good and fun discussions, but in the end, the more we tried to define and list all the possibilities, the worse it got. The more we simplified and the more vague the guidelines became, the easier it was to understand them. In the end here is definition that became the guideline for the County Fair for the category of "Creative Digital Photographs:"
I really liked this because you can take any of these examples, motion/camera blurs, composites and more easily determine if they fit the above definition. Let's take for example Matt's camera blur "fire" image. By moving the camera he "introduced effects" that were not present in the original scene; ie. the trees/leaves were not moving in a vertical motion by themselves. Conversely, leaf-swirls in stream is also a "motion blur" image, however the leaves were actually moving in a circular motion. The photographer did not do anything other than open the shutter. So to me, two motion blur examples that belong in 2 different categories.
BTW, the only other categories/divisions for entering a print in the fair were: 1. Color Photographs, 2. Black and White Photographs, and 3. Alternative Media (hand tinting, polaroid transfer, etc.) in addition to the 4th category of "Creative Digital."
How this could be applied to NPN guidelines... well, haven't thought that one through yet.
Lon
Hank, yes perhaps we should have a separate discussion. But could you clarify what you mean by "....one operates in the same gallery?" who or what do you mean is operating in the same gallery? confoozed.
Lon
I think this is a very good idea. I think this is especially true in a gallery like Landscape. The moderators really do need to be on the same page: "The only thing worse than no plan, is two plans."
Regarding specific moves: I think each mod should move a post that doesn't meet guidelines as soon as possible in order to prevent confusion. If a move is done by consensus, it could take too long. I think that if a move is done, a simple e-mail to the other mods advising them of the action taken would suffice.
--P
But we do have occasional discussions, and we're having one now about the PA issue.
Lon