What raises the question in my mind are Tony Kuyper's sandstone images. Having spent some time in the Colorado Plateau, I know the colors shown are in the rocks, but they don't remotely resemble what Tony presents. Tony's colors are beyond electric. The same can be said of some of the HDR presentations, but I generally don't see them in the landscape gallery.
Tony's images are very well received by the landscape members, but should they be moved to the photo art gallery? I am indifferent whether they stay or go, but I am curious to hear what this group thinks about whether totally unrealistic color constitutes photo art and hence should be moved.
Posted by Lon Overacker on April 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM
This is the question that I think no one wants to ask, including me... ;-) I have long thought that Tony's (and others for that matter, slot canyon images, etc.) are not real and where the colors are over the top. My concern (beyond any images posted here on NPN) has been that Joe photographer sees an image from the Desert SW and BELIEVES that they will find and be able to photograph the wild colors. When in reality it's all shades of brown and dull orange; yes colors are enhanced with low angled and reflected light, I get that. But in the end Tony's recent image is NOT reality and I believe it belongs in Photo Art. I love his work, don't get me wrong, but clearly it's in the "creative license" space and "manipulated" enough that it should no longer qualify for the Landscape gallery.
Now I'll put on my moderator cap. Yes, we've agreed as a mod group(Landcape) that motion blurs (camera blur, shake and lens zoom) are more appropriate in PA and we move them. Bastardized composites and obvious alterations and of course the easy one, hand of man, will usually get moved and are easier to define and justify moving.
Playing devil's advocate though, how does one regulate color, contrast, saturation,etc.? Clearly TK's image goes beyond "believable" in my view. However, there is no "believability" clause in the guidelines. The guidelines simply put the onus on the member to place in the "most appropriate" gallery. And the most "appropriate" for many people simply means that Landscape is the most popular gallery and they'll get the most views and comments. Valid thinking or not, that fits the guidelines. But along these lines, where does one draw the line as to what is "naturally" saturated or what has been grossly manipulated? Do we move images where the tog breathed on the lens? At what degree of Orton application do we make the cut off?
It's a catch 22, damned if you do, damned if you don't. We either police everything, or nothing. But in reality we pick and choose what we police which then it gets perceived as inconsistency. and that's true. I'm not quite sure what to do or where to go with this. We could suggest modifying the guidelines to be more specific which may help. But on the other hand, that opens the inevitable pandora's box and guarantees that someone will post some technique or image that isn't "listed" in the guidelines just to prove a point or test the system. Leaving the guidelines more vague allows for inconsistency, but then again doesn't open the door as wide to Pandora's box.
I agree with Lon that it's a slippery slope and any line we draw on manipulation is both arbitrary and subject to challenge. At the end of the day the thing that's most critical to me is open disclosure of what was done to the image or, at the very least, someone not claiming that an "over-the-top" image is exactly "as it was seen". We run into the same problem in the wildlife gallery, but the primary culprit there is the cloning tool. If a novice spent time in there and then went out in the field for the first time they'd be shocked at how grasses and/or branches get in the way all the time (and wonder what the heck they're doing wrong). Would be nice if we could have a universally agreed-upon "Guaranteed As Seen" icon that the whole world could use on their images (quite the pipe dream, eh?).
At the end of the day I think there's little we can do - either in terms of limiting the amount of image "manipulation" (correction??) in any specific gallery or moving images. Perhaps simply diplomatically mentioning your thoughts in the comments on an image will convey the message - you can always choose words that are non-accusatory. Things like "On my monitor the colours seem a little too punchy to be realistic..." or "I like your artistic impression of this scene". Once a photographer repeatedly sees comments like these they'll get the drift and still have the option to proceed how they want (with their image postings).
Discussion
2 repliesWhat raises the question in my mind are Tony Kuyper's sandstone images. Having spent some time in the Colorado Plateau, I know the colors shown are in the rocks, but they don't remotely resemble what Tony presents. Tony's colors are beyond electric. The same can be said of some of the HDR presentations, but I generally don't see them in the landscape gallery.
Tony's images are very well received by the landscape members, but should they be moved to the photo art gallery? I am indifferent whether they stay or go, but I am curious to hear what this group thinks about whether totally unrealistic color constitutes photo art and hence should be moved.
This is the question that I think no one wants to ask, including me... ;-) I have long thought that Tony's (and others for that matter, slot canyon images, etc.) are not real and where the colors are over the top. My concern (beyond any images posted here on NPN) has been that Joe photographer sees an image from the Desert SW and BELIEVES that they will find and be able to photograph the wild colors. When in reality it's all shades of brown and dull orange; yes colors are enhanced with low angled and reflected light, I get that. But in the end Tony's recent image is NOT reality and I believe it belongs in Photo Art. I love his work, don't get me wrong, but clearly it's in the "creative license" space and "manipulated" enough that it should no longer qualify for the Landscape gallery.
Now I'll put on my moderator cap. Yes, we've agreed as a mod group(Landcape) that motion blurs (camera blur, shake and lens zoom) are more appropriate in PA and we move them. Bastardized composites and obvious alterations and of course the easy one, hand of man, will usually get moved and are easier to define and justify moving.
Playing devil's advocate though, how does one regulate color, contrast, saturation,etc.? Clearly TK's image goes beyond "believable" in my view. However, there is no "believability" clause in the guidelines. The guidelines simply put the onus on the member to place in the "most appropriate" gallery. And the most "appropriate" for many people simply means that Landscape is the most popular gallery and they'll get the most views and comments. Valid thinking or not, that fits the guidelines. But along these lines, where does one draw the line as to what is "naturally" saturated or what has been grossly manipulated? Do we move images where the tog breathed on the lens? At what degree of Orton application do we make the cut off?
It's a catch 22, damned if you do, damned if you don't. We either police everything, or nothing. But in reality we pick and choose what we police which then it gets perceived as inconsistency. and that's true. I'm not quite sure what to do or where to go with this. We could suggest modifying the guidelines to be more specific which may help. But on the other hand, that opens the inevitable pandora's box and guarantees that someone will post some technique or image that isn't "listed" in the guidelines just to prove a point or test the system. Leaving the guidelines more vague allows for inconsistency, but then again doesn't open the door as wide to Pandora's box.
Just my .02
At the end of the day I think there's little we can do - either in terms of limiting the amount of image "manipulation" (correction??) in any specific gallery or moving images. Perhaps simply diplomatically mentioning your thoughts in the comments on an image will convey the message - you can always choose words that are non-accusatory. Things like "On my monitor the colours seem a little too punchy to be realistic..." or "I like your artistic impression of this scene". Once a photographer repeatedly sees comments like these they'll get the drift and still have the option to proceed how they want (with their image postings).
And just my .02 as well...
Brad