Can we have a gallery category for the heavily processed and the unorthodox?

[zoossh]

I just noticed there are some individuals who have such preferences, and their rendering, whether in landscape, portraits or candid, are just a little out of the conventional taste and that easily attracts disputing opinions.

in order to yield better feedback from like-minded individuals who may agree or can exchange better with their styles, i thought it is good for such category for people who enjoy very heavy processing beyond normality or naturalness.

 

[eikin]

I just noticed there are some individuals who have such preferences, and their rendering, whether in landscape, portraits or candid, are just a little out of the conventional taste and that easily attracts disputing opinions.

in order to yield better feedback from like-minded individuals who may agree or can exchange better with their styles, i thought it is good for such category for people who enjoy very heavy processing beyond normality or naturalness.

:think:

can explain abit more? any examples you'll like to raise?

 

[zoossh]

emm.... didn't want to bring out examples, as i didn't want it to appear like a personal agenda, neither do i want to put it up as for more disputes.

let's take for example. Rarindra Prakarsa is a great indonesian photographer whose work is both surreal in texture and lighting as well as having other attributes such as composition and meaning. regardless of whether we like or do not like the style, we know of his merits. he's a good photographer regardless of our preferences in style. we know he processes his work and he processes it well for most of them.

again there are many forumers who have their own thoughts over their processing although almost everyone think they processes badly. often comments over their processing invites defensive response and often misunderstandings. it might be better for people who does heavy processing themselves to relate to each other in the subforum, as it is easier for among themselves to communicate and also easier for one to accept comments and not keep to their ivory tower.

 

[djork]

I think I know what you're talking about, I saw your responses on that particular thread.

If the person does it on purpose, so be it. If they state it when they post or in a later reply that it's done on purpose and it is understood by the TS and reader, there is no need to put their posts in a separate corner where you think they might "yield better feedback".

Talking about "normality and naturalness", everyone has a different take. I don't see a need for it just because someone disagrees with someone else's taste.

 

[zoossh]

i just hope it is not mistaken as a personal thing, djork. exactly why i dun intend to link it up with any examples, and hoping you won't do that too.

let's put it as the following example. a person may speak french, and a person who speaks greek commented on that. isn't it better for him to mix around with the french guys to get a better feel of what's going on instead of speaking french to the chinese, getting feedbacks on that and taking that as a basis of what good french is about. if he speak french with the french, then it won't be mistaken as a matter of different taste.

there is such thing as good language and bad language, and i dun think you will dispute that. yes, there may be variation and subjectivity, but subjectivity is not absolute. i'm not here to make judgement of what makes it good and bad, just that it is better to leave that variable of "different taste" out, and to yield a more constructive outcome.

besides, the various galleries existed for exactly the different techniques and different features but there is no such category for them at the moment. i believe there is existence of sufficient population to constitute such a family.

 

[night86mare]

emm.... didn't want to bring out examples, as i didn't want it to appear like a personal agenda, neither do i want to put it up as for more disputes.

let's take for example. Rarindra Prakarsa is a great indonesian photographer whose work is both surreal in texture and lighting as well as having other attributes such as composition and meaning. regardless of whether we like or do not like the style, we know of his merits. he's a good photographer regardless of our preferences in style. we know he processes his work and he processes it well for most of them.

again there are many forumers who have their own thoughts over their processing although almost everyone think they processes badly. often comments over their processing invites defensive response and often misunderstandings. it might be better for people who does heavy processing themselves to relate to each other in the subforum, as it is easier for among themselves to communicate and also easier for one to accept comments and not keep to their ivory tower.

rarindra prakarsa, while having obviously heavily processed pictures, does it in a natural manner. i would not really lump him together with the latter group that you have mentioned, because they have massive haloing, etc.

i am frankly, disturbed by the proliferation of the 2 extremities, people who are so bloody proud about how "they have no pp" when it is obvious that the picture needs basic pp, like correction of tilt, vertical perspective correction etc to make it look more aesthetically pleasing (azure is different, his are already solid out of cam at those sizes so i am not attacking him, note).

then you have those who pump their pictures into some mutant machine, and it comes out looking like a gremlin from hell, and they will stick to their guns despite how many people tell them that it looks like a gremlin from hell, under the shield called "artistic license"

sure, PP ALL YOU WANT

but when it looks bad, smells bad, tastes bad, it's bad, no matter how much you want to say that you are entitled to producing bad stuff. i suppose you are, after all

i can give so many examples of people who pp heavily but still are received widely. besides your earlier example, dave hill is another, angelreich on deviantart here is another

extreme pp is not the problem
it's the eyesoreness that is the problem, i hope we all get that clear, so there is no need to hide behind any pp shields

and i think we should all be frank, sugar coating it and being nice and diplomatic, often does not work, because well, welcome to clubsnap these days

 

[zoossh]

i just think that categories where post processing precedes and takes a large factor, deserves a separate gallery. since i propose a change that i hope it is to be implemented, i didn't want fights over it, just simple weighing of benefits versus maintanence effort. if there is sufficient volume and population, then it is worth consideration.

 

[leejay]

rarindra prakarsa, while having obviously heavily processed pictures, does it in a natural manner. i would not really lump him together with the latter group that you have mentioned, because they have massive haloing, etc.

i am frankly, disturbed by the proliferation of the 2 extremities, people who are so bloody proud about how "they have no pp" when it is obvious that the picture needs basic pp, like correction of tilt, vertical perspective correction etc to make it look more aesthetically pleasing (azure is different, his are already solid out of cam at those sizes so i am not attacking him, note).

then you have those who pump their pictures into some mutant machine, and it comes out looking like a gremlin from hell, and they will stick to their guns despite how many people tell them that it looks like a gremlin from hell, under the shield called "artistic license"

sure, PP ALL YOU WANT

but when it looks bad, smells bad, tastes bad, it's bad, no matter how much you want to say that you are entitled to producing bad stuff. i suppose you are, after all

i can give so many examples of people who pp heavily but still are received widely. besides your earlier example, dave hill is another, angelreich on deviantart here is another

extreme pp is not the problem
it's the eyesoreness that is the problem, i hope we all get that clear, so there is no need to hide behind any pp shields

and i think we should all be frank, sugar coating it and being nice and diplomatic, often does not work, because well, welcome to clubsnap these days

Nice points. :thumbsup:

 

[eikin]

i just think that categories where post processing precedes and takes a large factor, deserves a separate gallery. since i propose a change that i hope it is to be implemented, i didn't want fights over it, just simple weighing of benefits versus maintanence effort. if there is sufficient volume and population, then it is worth consideration.

ok i saw the thread personally i don't think there's a need for a category for ''unconventionally'' post processed pictures. post processing is part of digital photography anyway, setting up a separate gallery somehow sends out the wrong message that post processing creates unconventional pictures ... the tools are all there, it's what the person makes of them.

it can make or break a photo

 

[zoossh]

post processing is like make-up. we comment on it as if we are commenting on people walking in the streets or going out for a concert or dinner. there is a certain threshold and subtlely that earns the praises of most people.

however opera singers and halloween party goers may have a different make-up, it is not as if that is wrong, but their goals and intentions are different. whether their pictures are good, how they are going to improve, how they are going to correct their mistakes, are all best discussed among people adapting the same techniques and by people who have already achieved actual achievements and recognition in that field. for example, someone who shot a few pictures for his friend's wedding, show it to a few relatives who said the photos is nice. when he showed to a friend taking studio nudes and got comments otherwise, he may not take it well. how can we let him see the reality? shoot more wedding photography and face the feedback of the couples or other wedding photographers. there should be such an avenue.

moreover, there are certain fields that has no place to post. for example, people who like to shoot multiple exposures of the same person and to combine them together, or people who like to put aung sang suu kyi next to a tank in iraq, or people really doing surrealist pictures with dreamscape like that of salvador dali, or people who posterize their pictures into some kind of andy warhol artwork.

besides in each gallery, there are simply certain conventional rules of appreciation that restrict such people's artistic expression. someone who shoots portrait who allows the skin tone to be bluish in color or the eyes to be off focus compared to the nose or people who wanted satire and distorted or alter journalistic themes, are bound to receive criticisms based on conventions. they may have simply different intentions or they simply fail on both aspects, neither in aesthetic nor in their claimed intentions, such as one claiming to make a satire but failed so too.

putting them together and giving them a community will allow them to walk out of an isolated circle. that is afterall the aim of a forum - to build a community, to exchange resources, knowledge and appreciation.

 

[binbeto]

Can't work actually. The poster must first of all admit that his pic is "heavily processed" to begin with.

 

[eikin]

post processing is like make-up. we comment on it as if we are commenting on people walking in the streets or going out for a concert or dinner. there is a certain threshold and subtlely that earns the praises of most people.

however opera singers and halloween party goers may have a different make-up, it is not as if that is wrong, but their goals and intentions are different. whether their pictures are good, how they are going to improve, how they are going to correct their mistakes, are all best discussed among people adapting the same techniques and by people who have already achieved actual achievements and recognition in that field.

moreover, there are certain fields that has no place to post. for example, people who like to shoot multiple exposures of the same person and to combine them together, or people who like to put aung sang suu kyi next to a tank in iraq, or people really doing surrealist pictures with dreamscape like that of salvador dali, or people who posterize their pictures into some kind of andy warhol artwork.

besides in each gallery, there are simply certain conventional rules of appreciation that restrict such people's artistic expression. someone who shoots portrait who allows the skin tone to be bluish in color or the eyes to be off focus compared to the nose or people who wanted satire and distorted or alter journalistic themes, are bound to receive criticisms based on conventions. they may have simply different intentions or they simply fail on both aspects, neither in aesthetic nor in their claimed intentions, such as one claiming to make a satire but failed so too.

putting them together and giving them a community will allow them to walk out of an isolated circle. that is afterall the aim of a forum - to build a community, to exchange resources, knowledge and appreciation.

personally, i still see the main galleries as being able to accommodate unconventional photographs so far. otherwise i believe you're referring to either photography in Art (relating to artistic philosophies and theories, which draws little audience here) or digital art. the latter doesn't seem to have any problem ''blending'' in as far as i see.

some works are unconventional, some others are more a matter of skill and creativity (or the lack of)

 

[zoossh]

Can't work actually. The poster must first of all admit that his pic is "heavily processed" to begin with.

actually i dun think that is difficult. most of them knows it themselves when they have such intentions and have complicated steps that exceed 20 steps.

 

[eikin]

actually i dun think that is difficult. most of them knows it themselves when they have such intentions and have complicated steps that exceed 20 steps.

i think it's pointless to classify photographic works by quantifying processes in steps or complexity of method.

 

[zoossh]

yes i'm refering to digital art and the "intermediates".

with the proliferation of new softwares, there are people increasingly more interested in playing with the filters and getting the different textural effects, of which that is their main concern.

i didn't really comment it after coming across a single example. that's why i think that is worthy of consideration, be it now or in near future.

 

[zoossh]

i think it's pointless to classify photographic works by quantifying processes in steps or complexity of method.

perhaps. i'm just putting an arbitrary value. i believe these people know what they are doing to the picture, although how their outcome relate to others is a different thing.

 

[binbeto]

actually i dun think that is difficult. most of them knows it themselves when they have such intentions and have complicated steps that exceed 20 steps.

Most of them that I see don't "realise" it. They only state that they are over processed or HDR after we commented that they look fake.

Maybe a HDR section? But I am not sure they is enuff posting to justify one.. Maybe just put together with IR? The IR people might not be happy if it happened.

 

[drakon09]

The problem always occurs because there will always be people who refuse to judge the final image as it is.

What defines "heavy pp"? If someone proficient in post processing creates a bloody good image, then it is a bloody good image.

 

[eikin]

Most of them that I see don't "realise" it. They only state that they are over processed or HDR after we commented that they look fake.

Maybe a HDR section? But I am not sure they is enuff posting to justify one.. Maybe just put together with IR? The IR people might not be happy if it happened.

what i see so far, the HDR images have been accepted by the main galleries with no problems isn't it? :think:

 

[zoossh]

what i see so far, the HDR images have been accepted by the main galleries with no problems isn't it? :think:

actually true. well done HDR images have been largely accepted.