I am starting this topic with Gary latest statement in Flora Gallery: "......I wouldn't get into a discussion about how administrators look at things differently...". Gary please doesn’t be angry. I'm not criticizing your excellent work; I'm just confused and would like to hear honest opinion of other NPN Members to this subject. I refer to Gary latest post in Flora Gallery the "Gone Banana" image. I've commented it. It is a great photo artwork. Excellently done and presented. But I'm still confused. Is this still Flora Gallery subject or should it be moved to Photo Art Gallery? Another fact is confusing me; this image was not created by camera. I'm a modern man, I'm an engineer and I'm very close to modern technologies but I still have problem to see images created by scanning or even (X-Ray?). I'd like to have your honest comments to this subject. I hope that everybody understand this topic. The meaning is not to criticize somebody excellent work, the purpose of this topic is to understand proper classification, where (in which gallery) is the right place for photos which are balancing on the edge of two or even three galleries. Thank you.
Miro, you do know that the Flora Gallery is just not for flowers (which is what is posted 90 percent of the time) but for all plant life. I guess a banana is part of the plant life, so I see it as part of Flora. The scanning or Xray of the subject is different that it is not a photo taken with a traditional camera, but it is a photograph by using a different format. I was puzzle when I posted an abstract backlit palm leaf and you responded in your comment with "I'd rather post it in Photoart Galery". So I'm not sure if you thought it should have been posted in the Photoart Gallery because you thought there was some special photoshop processing which there was none, or if you thought the Flora Gallery was only for flowers.
Posted by Rick Diffley on May 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM
These categories do have broad parameters for what is and what is not to be included. Some times confusing to myself, like should macro shots using a macro lens only go into that gallery?
On the side I'd like to see critters have their own gallery.
I'm not a gallery moderator but I do want to make two points :
-- There are many photos that could fit in multiple galleries. There's just no way to avoid that. For instance, should a photo of a flower taken from an inch away at 1:1 go in Flora or Macro? The answer is that it's fine in either and it's up to the OP to decide. There are many cases like this - a seascape with a seagull for instance, could go in either Landscape or Avian. In most cases, the most appropriate gallery is dependent on what the OP thinks the focus of the image is.
-- I personally think Flora was the correct choice for the banana image. It's not Photo-art since it's a straight photo taken with, essentially, an X-Ray camera; And it's of plant life. To my mind, that means the Flora gallery. In lieu of an "alternative capture" gallery of some kind that would include X-Ray, Scanning, etc. I think Flora is the best choice.
(As a side note, no, I don't think we should have an "alternative capture" gallery... it's a narrow field, and puts too much emphasis on the workflow, rather than the resulting image and its merits.)
This type of conversation comes up from time to time and my thoughts are always the same: why does it really matter? Does it have to be black or white (no pun intended)? The most awesome thing about the flora gallery is that it is so accepting of all photography where flora (vs. fauna) is the main subject. So I think all mode of image capture (digital camera, film camera, scanner, x-ray, cell phone, etc) is welcome as long as the artist believes flora is the primary subject. My two cents
It's not Photo-art since it's a straight photo taken with, essentially, an X-Ray camera; And it's of plant life. To my mind, that means the Flora gallery. In lieu of an "alternative capture" gallery of some kind that would include X-Ray, Scanning, etc. I think Flora is the best choice.
I agree with David's comment here. For me, at least from the perspective of getting to make these choices in the Landscape gallery, it's one of the principles I use in deciding whether or not to move images to PA. IN GENERAL, if the intent of the photographer is to render a scene naturally, as found, or in the case of Gary's image, a banana laid on an x-ray scanner (consider that's rendering a scene naturally - relative to the x-ray capturing device.) An example in Landscape is camera blurs. If the intent is to blur an image via shake, zoom, camera motion, that is the photographer altering the scene for some intent other than rendering the scene "naturally" (that's all subjective of course so I'm trying to generalize.) AHHHH, but someone asks, what about star trails and silky water? that's motion and potentially abstract and could be Photo Art. Yes, however the major distinction in my mind, is that nature did the moving (ie. earth rotates, water moves, etc.,) not the photographer.
To Rick's question/point. I think it's a good thing to have broad and even vague definitions. The very second you define the galleries, categories and definitions (as in my examples above, camera blur, star trails, etc.) then the list will be infinite and there will always be someone who says, "Well, what about pinhole photography?" or Polaroid transfers, scanned using an iPhone....
So I think keeping the definitions a bit vague works for the vast majority of situations. Gary could have chosen to place in PA and it would work fine. However, IMHO, the image isn't disqualified from Flora by any means.
Fair question, Miro (and Rick), as it can be a little confusing. I agree with David that many images fit multiple categories, and people have latitude to choose between or among appropriate galleries. So, Rick, images shot with a macro lens can go into flora or macro. In fact, I post close up floral images (taken with a macro lens) in both the flora and the macro galleries, as do others. I will scratch my head a little when I see close up image of a leaf or some other natural object posted in Landscape, but it's no big deal. With regard to Gary's image, I would just further note that posters regularly post scanned floral images in the flora category, and I view Gary's floragraphs much the same.
Thanks for all comments. I'm glad to see such a good response. I wish to repeat, I was not criticizing Gary's excellent work, I just wanted to see the opinion of other NPN members, especially active members in flora gallery. We got reasonable explanations and I hope that this will help me to avoid any confusion in the future. Why I've opened this subject? I'm member of NPN for 7 years (I hope I can one day celebrate the 10th anniversary). I remember that on the beginning some moderators (not only in flora gallery) have shifted my photo(s) from the gallery where I posted it to another gallery with an explanation that it fit would there. Since then I was a bit more observing the galleries and comparing the photographs. But still hope to get also some comments from our moderators. May be it would be Once more thank you for your valuable contribution.
Miro - Sorry for the late response. I was sick yesterday .
You already have some great responses here. My thought reflects the good points made by Lon, David, Anne, Scott and others before me. On NPN we are more or less all encompassing when it comes to Flora Gallery - we allow Macro, usual Flora shots, Abstracts, Crams, Foliage, Plant Life (if anyone wants to share underwater plant/flora, we would allow those too), Trees etc. Depending on the focus of the Artist, it could sometimes land up in Macro Gallery or Landscape as the case may be.
Coming specifically to Gary's Banana XRay shot, it also falls within the definition. The light used for making that photo might be of a different wavelength but its still a photograph in the grand scheme of the definition. Its a very realistic rendition of the actual scene looking at it from a XRay standpoint.
Even though this is a bit subjective, photos that are not realistic renditions will be moved to Photo Art (without getting into the definition of reality here). 99% or more of the photos do get correctly posted in Photo Art anyways.
I hope this helps. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Miro: Ram summed it up pretty well for the staff and I might refer you also to this thread for a deeper insight into this specific subject. For sometime now the unofficial motto of the Flora gallery has been If it grows, it goes.. Bananas definitely grow so the subject is fine and the capture method is pretty irrelevant IMO.>=))>
Miro:
Thank you for raising this legitimate issue. As a moderator, I am completely in agreement with what Ram had said.
However, I would like to response as a poster. I do not take your comments as criticisms of my work. On the contrary I am quite delighted that you have considered my work as 'art' as this is my I aspiration. My work has evolved over the few short years from documentary pieces towards more interpretive works thanks to the inputs, critiques and encouragement from members like yourselves and staff on NPN. I enjoy pushing the envelop of photography (in the wider sense including Xray and scan) as much as possible using the latest hardware and software tools that are available. I think this is a challenge for all of us here and why we enjoy doing what we do.
Happy posting in whatever gallery you see fit. I am sure the moderators will make sure they get into the right gallery if they are not .
Posted by Lorna Taylor on May 17, 2012 at 10:19 PM
I think the other Mods have pretty much covered the criteria for the flora gallery so I will just add that I would only consider moving an image from the Flora Gallery if it showed use of textures or artistic manipulation like heavy use of art filters and such that the image took on a more painterly style. Then it might be deemed best in the Photo Art Gallery. If an effect can be captured with a lens or camera of any style touched up with basic darkroom adjustments then it is good with me.
As Bill stated if it grows it goes.
Posted by Tonia Graves on May 17, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Personally I have no problem with x-ray, ct, or mammogram equipment-produced images. While it is not a photograph, many of the same concepts (exposure, composition, and technique) go into making a radiograph. As long as the image is not overly manipulated in post-processing, I feel they should be accepted into the categories that we currently have for image posting. That being said, I am slightly biased as I enjoy producing x-ray art as well.
Great response. I thank all of you for participation. We got a very good and reasonable clarifications. I wish all of you enjoyable photo sessions and looking forward to see many intersting photgraphs in NPN galleries, especially in great flora gallery..
Discussion
13 repliesOn the side I'd like to see critters have their own gallery.
-- There are many photos that could fit in multiple galleries. There's just no way to avoid that. For instance, should a photo of a flower taken from an inch away at 1:1 go in Flora or Macro? The answer is that it's fine in either and it's up to the OP to decide. There are many cases like this - a seascape with a seagull for instance, could go in either Landscape or Avian. In most cases, the most appropriate gallery is dependent on what the OP thinks the focus of the image is.
-- I personally think Flora was the correct choice for the banana image. It's not Photo-art since it's a straight photo taken with, essentially, an X-Ray camera; And it's of plant life. To my mind, that means the Flora gallery. In lieu of an "alternative capture" gallery of some kind that would include X-Ray, Scanning, etc. I think Flora is the best choice.
(As a side note, no, I don't think we should have an "alternative capture" gallery... it's a narrow field, and puts too much emphasis on the workflow, rather than the resulting image and its merits.)
To Rick's question/point. I think it's a good thing to have broad and even vague definitions. The very second you define the galleries, categories and definitions (as in my examples above, camera blur, star trails, etc.) then the list will be infinite and there will always be someone who says, "Well, what about pinhole photography?" or Polaroid transfers, scanned using an iPhone....
So I think keeping the definitions a bit vague works for the vast majority of situations. Gary could have chosen to place in PA and it would work fine. However, IMHO, the image isn't disqualified from Flora by any means.
Lon
You already have some great responses here. My thought reflects the good points made by Lon, David, Anne, Scott and others before me. On NPN we are more or less all encompassing when it comes to Flora Gallery - we allow Macro, usual Flora shots, Abstracts, Crams, Foliage, Plant Life (if anyone wants to share underwater plant/flora, we would allow those too), Trees etc. Depending on the focus of the Artist, it could sometimes land up in Macro Gallery or Landscape as the case may be.
Coming specifically to Gary's Banana XRay shot, it also falls within the definition. The light used for making that photo might be of a different wavelength but its still a photograph in the grand scheme of the definition. Its a very realistic rendition of the actual scene looking at it from a XRay standpoint.
Even though this is a bit subjective, photos that are not realistic renditions will be moved to Photo Art (without getting into the definition of reality here). 99% or more of the photos do get correctly posted in Photo Art anyways.
I hope this helps. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Thank you for raising this legitimate issue. As a moderator, I am completely in agreement with what Ram had said.
However, I would like to response as a poster. I do not take your comments as criticisms of my work. On the contrary I am quite delighted that you have considered my work as 'art' as this is my I aspiration. My work has evolved over the few short years from documentary pieces towards more interpretive works thanks to the inputs, critiques and encouragement from members like yourselves and staff on NPN. I enjoy pushing the envelop of photography (in the wider sense including Xray and scan) as much as possible using the latest hardware and software tools that are available. I think this is a challenge for all of us here and why we enjoy doing what we do.
Happy posting in whatever gallery you see fit. I am sure the moderators will make sure they get into the right gallery if they are not
As Bill stated if it grows it goes.