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

[zoossh]

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.

another contrary could be the user thinks his image is not judged by the final image but by the process, thereby enclosing themselves.

actually in most cases, most existing categories does not placed definitions. users take their own discretion in posting while moderators assist only if it is way apparent and off.

actually we need to step out of that loop of judging heavy post processing as right or wrong, good or bad. that is not the point of this suggestion. but rather the degree of processing and certain post processing techniques can derive a very different emotion that is totally different from the conventionals to the extent that they no longer share any similar intent, process or effects.

usually if it is a "bloody good" image as you said, there is usually no contention at all. but there are others that falls short of that. they should learn from the right people and get advices from people who understand where they are coming from.

 

[Zoobiee]

I think this leans towards making photography too clinical.

I think the current categorization of the form of photography (macro, sports, portrature etc) is pretty good enough.

IMO, it serves no purpose whatsoever to classify photographs which has been heavily in post. Like another poster here said, what quantifies as 'heavily post produced' can be quite subjective.

And with future cameras in the works with integrating HDR directly into the cameras, so...

I think the suggestion is well meant but IMO it will only dilute. Also if it is help on how to do PP, forgive me if I am wrong, won't the Digital Darkroom sub forum suit that purpose?

I've been doing 3d and digital art way longer than I've done photography tho, so i might be biased. my 2c.

Z

 

[zoossh]

I think the suggestion is well meant but IMO it will only dilute. Also if it is help on how to do PP, forgive me if I am wrong, won't the Digital Darkroom sub forum suit that purpose?

perhaps i have the tendency to prefer combining gallery and discussion together (which is not the current practice here), i would have think otherwise.

anyway i reckon that my suggestion is probably not shared by most, with the feedback so far. but i hope it would be kept in mind.

by the way, is it true that HDRs are going to be integrated in the newer camera bodies, in what way?

 

[eikin]

by the way, is it true that HDRs are going to be integrated in the newer camera bodies, in what way?

i wouldn't be surprised if it happens. HDR processing has quite a big following in digital camera users. but for me, like any post processing, HDR processing is also about vision and technique, and not just shooting a picture with every part ''equally exposed.'' machines can only do so much

 

[zoossh]

i'm hoping for one day with an inbuilt GND 1-4 stops (hardware or software). have enough of dust and dirt....

 

[Zoobiee]

Well Olympus submitted a patent on it.

You can read bout it here (site has a link to the actual patent).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=25080333

Sounds like they're probably gonna make use of IS to somehow 'guess' the long and short side of exposures to get HDR.

Z

 

[zoossh]

thanks. will read. anyway, sorry for the OT, guys.

 

[night86mare]

hoi, hdr is not overly processed all the time la
you have a choice to make it look funny or to make it look natural

in any case, how do you put it, if a picture is heavily processed AND THE PROCESSING WORKS
people will still lub it deep deep

if a picture is heavily processed AND THE PROCESSING SUCKS
people will hate it no matter how much the poor guy tells them "i spent a lot of time on this you know =( =( =("

as such there is no need for a separate category, i think everyone is entitled to express their viewpoint on others' works
and unless you want all the people with inherent aesthetic numbness to group together and flood clubsnap with even more unorthodox, unconventional (in an aesthetic sense) works, i think they should be at least, given a chance to be informed as to the general public's reaction to their works

 

[drakon09]

usually if it is a "bloody good" image as you said, there is usually no contention at all. but there are others that falls short of that. they should learn from the right people and get advices from people who understand where they are coming from.

Yup, you and I are on the same wavelength.

How much pp done should never be an issue - only whether the pp is well done, or a total disaster.

And that I believe, is very much the consensus among most of us here.

 

[Pablo]

Why not have a category that is completely the opposite of what you suggest :dunno:

Make one titled "Straight from the camera"

It will be interesting to see if those that do post un-processed photo's begin to post there leaving the others use ps, where they post now.

It would basically achieve the same result would it not :dunno:

Gust a thought

 

[zoossh]

Why not have a category that is completely the opposite of what you suggest :dunno:

Make one titled "Straight from the camera"

It will be interesting to see if those that do post un-processed photo's begin to post there leaving the others use ps, where they post now.

It would basically achieve the same result would it not :dunno:

Gust a thought

a well taken out of camera jpg may not be of much difference to a subtlely processed picture. actually the proposal for such a gallery is neither to ostracise post processing nor to make comparisons. it is proposed because the processes, resultant texture and emotions and the intent of these categories are different from the existing ones.

 

[Pablo]

a well taken out of camera jpg may not be of much difference to a subtlely processed picture. actually the proposal for such a gallery is neither to ostracise post processing nor to make comparisons. it is proposed because the processes, resultant texture and emotions and the intent of these categories are different from the existing ones.

Yes, I understand what you mean. I was simply putting it another kind of way to achieve the same basic result.

I agree with your idea for the gallery category and would maybe suggest a title for it such as "Post Processed Art" or somthing along those lines.

As I say,"I am for your idea".

Though I don't expect that you suggest the title for the category as in your title for this thread,
I think that the title for a category need be subtle.

Just a view

 

[zoossh]

thanks. agree with you.

i think i shouldn't use the word unorthodox because of its tendency to cause misunderstanding. heavily may also cause misunderstanding. but they are used here simply for discussion sake.