Over the last couple years we have attempted to keep the Photography Gallery a showplace for "pure" photography. This was done in order to give Photographers a place to show their talent, without getting lost in the larger "Rendering" community. [Everyone please take a quick read of the guidelines at the top of the Photo Gallery.] As our Gallery has grown and spread to a wider group (getting new digital cameras for Christmas, etc.), there has been an increasing number of postings including 2D or 3D rendered elements. Often it is VERY difficult for the Mods and Coords to draw the fine line, in many cases resulting in angry Members. ["You moved MINE, why didn't you move THIS one??!!!!"] There has also been upset about this not being "Fun" anymore. This Forum and Gallery exists to please its Members. It is appropriate for us to periodically reset any of the rules in order to better please the evolving Membership. Here is your chance to OFFICIALLY whine about the direction you'd like to see in the Gallery. PLEASE BE CIVIL, AND KEEP THE FLAME LOW! WE WILL DELETE ANYTHING THAT EVEN SMELLS OF ATTACK. Include specific comments for: photo manipulations photographs that have been heavily changed Images containing 2D elements stock photography 3D elements I'd also like the folks in "2D" and "Mixed" to chime in here with their opinions.

Well this will always be a difficult one just beacause of the diversity of human nature. Is the gallery predominatly for untouched photos? For Photographic art? collages ? Montages? The list is endless. I for one believe that there is place for all photographic media, untouched or not. My own personal opinion is that all forms of photographic perception should be welcomed AS LONG IT IS ORIGINAL WORK. The difficulty comes with trying to place artist's work into categories.

i believe in bubbles!! :D :D :D hehe

uh, seriously... in my most humble opinion-

heavily changed- if still resembles a photo, YES
photo manips- " " " then YES
images containing 2D elements- & it is all the artist's own photography, unless they got permission to use a part of someone else's (like their eyes rolls eyes) or an antique photo of great grandma & i guess a little fake lightning, bubbles & such is alright but discourage heavy use of tubes
stock photos- NO
3D elements- like Bryce & Fractals, etc. NO

the photo gallery is so HUGE as it is, the 2nd largest at RR
Mixed Media hardly fills 2 pages a day

Well put Cyn. I'm afraid I'm against stock photography and, personally, I think 3D belongs in 3D galleries. Manipulation of ones own original work? Fine by me :) I do it all the time. Just look at Kowloon bound, that ferry started life as a train in the jungle ;]

I guess I'm too purist in my ways ;) MHO? The photography gallery should be for unmanipulated photographs. Touch ups, contrasts or tinting should be accepted. As should photographs with 2D or 3D additions as a decoration on a border, rather than on the actual photo. When it comes to photo manipulations (I think heavily changed falls into that catagory) and images containing additional 2D elements, these should belong in the 2D gallery as they no longer resemble the original photographic capture. The techniques and skills involved in creating these type of images usually fall into the 2D arts genre. Using a photograph as a backdrop for a 3D element, or changing a photograph with a 3D creation, images should really fall into the Mixed Media or the appropriate 3D gallery. The skills that it takes to create these artworks falls into the 3D arts genre. The images in the three genres of galleries, Photography, 2D and 3D, all require completely different skills to create. As R'osity is partially a learning centre, would it not be more helpful to be more stringent about catagorisation? I'm sure a beginner would find it easier to get help if they know exactly where to go to look. As far as stock photos in the photography gallery? No, people should take their own photographs if they wish to be interested in photography to that degree. Manipulate it and throw it in the 2D gallery with credits to the photographer please ;) That's my 2 cents worth anyhow L

I agree. For me a good threshold of "suitability" for the Photography gallery is this: Could it also be done in the darkroom?

Contrasting should be allowed. Find any professional photographer (even the big names) and chances are that their finished prints will look quite different from the images on their contact sheet, having undergone selective contrasting to bring out the tonal range. In some lighting conditions (whether natural or artificial) it is just not possible to exact the full range of tones in a shot, and many famous photographs have undergone such "postwork" in the darkroom - no one would dream of calling their creators "not true photographers".

Tinting... again, this has been done for years and years. I remember at art college there was a chemical you could buy to turn your black and white prints into sepia tones. I'm not "clued up" enough to know much about these things but as far as I'm aware shots can be tinted in any number of ways in the darkroom.

Touch-ups... remember the good old airbrush? It's now over a century old, having been invented in the early 1890s. While it's been done to death at times (particularly in the 1950s and round about that period) generally photographs have not been considered "no longer photographs" if they've had corrections (particularly for spots, skin blemishes and other flaws). Really this stuff should be kept tasteful and minor and shouldn't detract far from the source.

But when things are manipulated beyond what can be done in the darkroom... really, why not just post in the 2D gallery? When 3D elements are involved, then okay, Mixed Media. I guess there are a few people out there who can do unbelievable things in the darkroom without ever going near Photoshop (check out J.K.Potter for example) but really, this sort of thing is pretty exceptional and is another form of illustration. For the purposes of keeping confusion minimal, I do think postworking should be minimal for Photography gallery pieces.

As for stock photography, I agree with Cass above, definitely not! People's uploads in the Photography gallery should be their own ;-)

2 pence from me, seeing as I'm English LOL ;-) Message edited on: 10/26/2004 13:07

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=685635&Start=37&Artist=cynlee&ByArtist=Yes

(i would like to change my answer on "heavily changed" to no... photo manips, fine... but heavy to where the work no longer resembles a photo, NO)

& how about photo collages??????? i do a lot of these...
can one not get scissors & glue & cut up a photo & reassemble it? does that make it not a photo any longer?
why is it in the genres?

what about cloning out unwanted areas? this could be done in the darkroom to a degree

this is a great discussion & as Misha said needs to be discussed & decided upon, as it's getting harder for us to decide what stays & what goes & we want to be fair

here's a debate on the same subject... see link
"Postwork Study & Discussion"

• photo manipulations: The majority of photos that I produce from digital images, are photo manipulation in some way - if only to take out red-eye :]

So, I would hate to see manipulated photo's not allowed.

However, images that are so manipulated that they are no longer recognized as a photo, I would vote to have those uploaded to the 2D gallery instead of the photo gallery.

• photographs that have been heavily changed : Again, this comes under the category of ... Can the image still be considered a photograph? If not, perhaps the 2D gallery would be better suited :)
• Images containing 2D elements: This is a tricky one. Again, it depends on the amount of 2D to the amount of original photo. Technically if someone takes an image of a man walking in front of a poster the poster would be considered a 2D image! Again, if the majority of the image is photography and not 2D I would think it would be ok.
• stock photography : I really think that images that are posted to the Rosity gallery should be photos that were taken by the photographer. The problem we have run into with Stock Photographs in the past was copyright verification! Legally, if you post someones photograph and you were not the photographer, you need to have written permission from the original photographer to post the image.

Which brings up another point do we allow historical or family stock photography? I have noticed that many members have posted images of their ancestors noting that the images were taken by family members, many long deceased.

Not to be confused with digital images of playboy bunnies, that were taken off the Internet, which Huge Hefner really frowns upon :]

• 3D elements : When I was in college one of the photo assignments [using traditional film, not digital] was to create a collage image. I started with a B&W image of a man sitting in the woods, with several images of fairies dancing around him. The fairies were also photographs that had been shoot separately, reduced in size and glued onto the original photo. Along with this I glued on glitter and some small twigs. I then took a photo of the final image and submitted it as my final project. Thus, it was an image that contained 3D elements, yet the final image was a pure photograph!

So, this is a tricky one to answer again, if the majority of the image is still a photograph. I would think it could stay????

Dee-Marie

As I see it, I would think that what Cynlee has mentioned is a fair representation of what should be allowed in the Photo gallery. If all the images are photographs then the final image is a photograph. I personally pretty much do very little to my photos post shot, except the odd layering now and then.(Is this really any different to a well executed double exposure on film?) In the past I may have thought that it was cheating to use two or more images to make your photo, I dont feel that way any longer, technology has allowed this to evolve. I now feel that it is an acceptable practice to use additional images as long as it is all the work of the artist (even the newspapers do it to some extent) I wouldnt like to think that we would be reduced to minor post work such as contrast/saturation adjustment etc, I think this would be a step backward. Stock and or 3D though I feel is a no no LP

Although not a photographer myself, my mom is into it, and I have been trying to get her into digital photography as well, as a means of merely complementing her already present arsenal! Trying to show her the benifits of Photoshop as a way of fixing bad lighting situations and such, and she has experimented with watercolor markers on b&w photos, which would be much easier and cleaner in PS! As far as your guidelines go, I think that doing such photo manipulation falls loosely into the category of film development, which is part of traditional photography and therefore acceptable! However, I do agree that it would be nice for ppl to actually know that such images WERE manipulated in this and that way! As I said, since I am not a photographer this doesn't really directly concern me, but I thought that I would state my opinion on the matter, as I still frequently hit the photography gallery from time to time, and love seeing ALL the images, whether they have any type of postwork or not! I would hate to have to dig around several separate galleries just for a quick perusal of "general" photography! "I cannot escape from myself, I am never alone!" Cheers, Jesse

IMHO I think there are only a few photographers posting their image without any postwork. Most of us, me too, do some touch ups on their photographs... like colour correction or contrast/saturation and so on. This should still be allowed as well as cloning out some unwanted areas. As long as a photo still resembles a photo it would work for the gallery. Also I think collages would go well with the gallery. And some additions like "bubbles" wink @Cyn should still be allowed as well as mixing own photos together. But an absolute NO on using 2D elements. As long as those 2D elements are only added to a frame it would be ok. Stock photos or changing a photograph with a 3D creation is a clear NO, too. Now I'm curious on the opinions of all the other photographers here :o)... this should gonna be a hard discussion.

If a photograph is GOOD, should not need PW...ok, I just do a slight brightness and contrast...very minimal. MOST cams have different 'in camera processing', ie, sharpness, contrast, brighness etc etc... for jpgs etc...so the end result will always show different...I'm shooting in RAW format with the nu cam, and I adjust accordingly to suit the end result. NOT against Postwork, not my style BUT...ONE WAY around this problem maybe is to have NEW GENRES..ie, Photograpy and PW Photograpy..or words to that effect...OR, for the 'original' image to be shown too, like a larger thumb. just a few thoughts :) hope the situ gets resolved :) love ya all

Dunno, mebbe I am just biased, as think more along the lines of the end-result and less about how it was accomplished (to a certain extent) so thats just my thing! Also, being a Photoshop junky doesn't help matters any for me as far as the "No Postwork" stuff, but like I said, thats just me! Everyone has their own opinions, so hopefully the matter can be resolved with little trouble, and even less angry ppl! Cheers

Interesting reading. As Jimry says, would the addition of another "Genre" be considered. So that when in the Gallery, you could choose... i.e. "no postwork" from the dropdown menu, and whoever wants to display their work under this catagory can?

well, the thing is, that if you like your work to be seen by many people, you have to categorize in a gallery where a lot of people look at your work. I have never posted a work that hasn't been through photoshop. Most of the times I heavily change and manipulate my pictures. My guideline in chosing galleries is: if an image still mostly looks like photographic material (incl collages)than I'll post it in photography, otherwise -in my case- in 2d. I prefer photography, while I experience better quality in feedback (which is still generally far too nice most of the times, which I think could be a better discussion theme) SUGGESTION: OPEN A 'ALTERED PHOTOGRAPHY GALLERY'

i agree with the suggestion: OPEN A 'ALTERED PHOTOGRAPHY GALLERY' just different kinds of art, but all art :)) !!!

Photoshop is the modern darkroom of today.its normal to use it.remeber,as photography started, there was no film. the artist was drawing the image.this is the real root of photography. i prefer for a new category. we have animals,flowers/plants, mood ........ etc. why not " without postwork " ? that would be fine for some peoples. i love to do postwork, but i also can take photos without it. mostly postwork adds more artistic elements, so it can make the image look more individual. an example: we take a shoot of the Eifel Tower in Paris.many people do this.how can you find your image under this millions of shots ? when you have postworked your image, it is a lot more easier to find yours .postwork always was a important part in photography. now we have more features.so we will see new effects, this is absolutely normal. gerhard

a Digital SLR is a lot of features too. pure photography is always uses a Range Cam 4" x 5 " or bigger, without all the electronic Schnick Schnack . one step more pure is making your Films by yourself on glassplates.another step to get more pure is photography without Lens.so we can say , all this technical things is postwork,too. gerhard

Oke, I give it a trow. Photography should be photography: writing with light Now, I think it would be oke to say that whats been done by analoge collegeeks is done in the past, should be allowed to digital photographers. Those that say no manipulation allowed, should please explain the meaning of contrast, jpg etc to me. It is, as soon as it is digital manipulated. If you dont want Canon or anybody else tell you how youre pictures should look, why not do the postwork youreself, and do youre own manipulation. As it comes to adding 2 or 3D elements, for me, as long as it feels like a photo it alright. Thats a point that will always differ, a person, a view. It should not be pressed by the fullness of the photography galls nor the echoes in the mixed medium ones. Rules, are hard to make, its about personel idear and believes, and even more sensitif, when it comes to youre own creatif works. They room fot the stiff minded is becoming smaller and smaller. Because its impossibel to tell, manipulation, real, 2D, 3D. And it will become even more diffecult in the very near future. I dont realy understand people having trouble with altering. Maybe its my fantasy mind. Its done from the beginning. Its the wish to show the disired, the dream. Eye candy. ET. I remember seeing Hitler dancing, and it was feak.

I just went back to the gallery and read the guidelines again... I think the one who wrote them really thought this thru. It's very logical and well, almost perfectly clear... :) It's very obvious for me that we're allowed to use Photoshop to alter our images. It's called PHOTOshop, after all... :D Contrast, sharpening, desaturation, cloning - it's all natural 'touch ups' for me. As far as I'm concerned: 2D elements when it's not your own work - no, 3D elements, certainly no, (I'm obviously talking about the photo, not the frame) Collages - of course! If I put my own 3 shots in one frame they don't stop being photos. Just as 'stitching' your images together to make a pan, for example, doesn't stop the final image from being a photo. Now, I'm not sure what 'heavily changed' means: if I put a 'canvas' filter on my shot, it looks like a painting, is it a 'heavy' change? As for creating another gallery - I don't think we need one. Mixed Medium and 2D are quite enough, imo. Thanks for this thread, dear Stuff :)) I'm quite interested in what will come out of this... :))

Postwork is optional of course and I fit into both categories, photography as in all forms of art evolves and will continue to do so. I think Gerards idea is good (without postwork) Im not sure about another gallery, as it already takes a fair time to look through just one gallery, adding another would just complicate things even more. I dont do allot of post work but I do enjoy seeing the work of others, I will probably do more as time goes by and I learn new things. Any and all postwork as in layers that I do are all my own work, and maybe that is the pivotal point. The only exception to that I would think was acceptable would be for instance if I saw an image by another artist that I liked and wanted to use within my work with permission and credit given to them for their contribution. I agree that a good image may not need any real postwork, but I have always believed that there is always room for improvement, and if that comes in the form of PS/PSP then I welcome that. The option to be creative is a natural thing to do. I think the real issue here is images that are heavily manipulated that are difficult to tell whether they were originally a photograph in the first place. Or have 3D and or stock images in them. Sorry but I feel that introducing too many restrictions would have a negative effect overall. The statement in the challenge guidelines at present is "Postwork is acceptable and encouraged" from that we as individuals have the choice to do or not to do as we see fit. I know two judges that judge on a national panel whom are both die hard traditionalists, but welcome digital work purely because of the creativity, they both only shoot film always have and probably always will, they both scan their negs and add layers use multiple images etc. It is their belief (and is probably the only thing they agree on) that postwork to acceptable level is the way forward. More like my 2 worth than 2 bob/pence/cents or whatever the currency is that you use. LP

Hmm an old chestnut I tend to agree with most of the comments and also think Photoshop is a new digital darkroom and many things darkroom wizards could do can now be done quickly by most people.. A new Genre is certainly a good idea... In anycase the postwork from many of our talented people would get high praise in whatever gallery it was posted in IHMO And many people feel more comfortable in posting in the Gallery where they feel it belongs... Maybe it also raises other questions do the artists feel happy to have essentialy photographic works in the 2D or Mixed medium Galleries which has been suggested they get posted onto rather than Photography?? It may be a bit presumtive to assume it is ok Thanks my tuppennies worth anyway lol

I work purely with a Digital Camera at the moment (maybe one day I'll get back into film).

I'm still learning about how to capture a great looking image, that doesn't look over/under exposed, or flat, or skewed, and it has no red eye, and its not out of focus...etc etc etc

Try as I might, but with the limitations my camera and my skill level, I'm rarely going to be happy with the picture that comes directly of the memory stick. And thus I use Photoshop to attempt to bend the image back to what I was trying to achieve in the first place. And indeed sometimes I may even add a border, or a tint to simulate a tinted filter.

Does that mean I'm not longer an amateur photographer and I'm now a 2-D artist? I still composed the image with the camera, and set the shutter speed, F-Stop and ISO...I'm still using photography skills to create an image. Quite frankly the differnce between what I do and what a purist photographer does is simply that I'm not as good as him/her!! I don't feel therefore that because I need to use photoshop to correct and enhance my picutres that I'd be somehow not welcome to post my images on a "photography" gallery. Such a move would actually hinder my development as a photographer!! I want to share my work with those more skilled than me, so I may learn and become better!!

Images that have clearly been manipulated so much that it no longer looks like something you "could" capture in a camera should perhaps be in a Mixed gallery. At the end of the day it does come down to simple common sense...is it a photographed image or not?? Could the image have been created in a camera instead of photoshop?

As for collages, maybe there is scope there to have a seperate gallery for them. Collages contain great photography true, but maybe there is a valid argument that would say that a collage is a different form of art. I dunno though, if it was mostly a collage of original photography, I'd be happy with it on a photography gallery under the sub heading of "collages"....which funnily enough we already have :P

Heavily Postworked- Does it still resemble a photo? Then yes it belongs in the Photography gallery. Your image doesn't look anything like what you started with? Then you need to find another gallery. Photo manipulations- Once again, does it still resemble a photo? If it does then it belongs in photography, if it doesn't then find another home for it! stock photos- Absolutely NOT! Tubes??? hehehe! If you downloaded a tube from a site, meaning it isn't yours, you didn't create it, then it doesn't belong here in Photography. 3D elements- like Bryce, Poser & Fractals etc. Hehehe, I think RR has fractal, Bryce and Poser galleries here don't they? If you used any of these 3d elements then upload it there please. I am pretty much a purist too! But I am not going to tell you that you can't postwork... I mean come on even in a darkroom you do postwork... But in all honesty if your work looks nothing like the image or images you started with, then maybe it is time to think of posting it elsewhere. I can see adjusting contrast, sharpening, cropping, cloning gremlins, merging two or more images (that you shot), using filters for coloring softening etc., adding a border or creating a collage. Basically I guess what I am saying is that if I can do it with film and a darkroom it should be permissable to do in the photo gallery. Oh yeah and I did want to remind you all that it wouldn't really matter what gallery you uploaded your work to, because the ebot will still go out telling your fans you have uploaded. OK now I am going to address the "new genre" suggestion... I will go you one better, seeing as this gallery is so big, maybe the time has come for it to have it's own web site. Personally I have always detested playing second fiddle to a computer program anyway. As a photographer I really don't care to view anything that isn't photography. I would even be willing to pay to be a member of such a site, as I do at UF. Food for thought. Brenda :)

I love seeing the variety in the Photography community: straight photo and digitally altered. It would be great if there were sub-sections for the different varieties or, at least, the artist would make everyone aware of the status of the image. (actually, many already clearly indicate this already.) Mixed Medium and 2D don't always seem to be the best place for some work. I don't like seeing stock photos used but there are rare times that an element from a 3D program seems acceptable (if it isn't the major focus and is a minor player in the picture.) All I can say now is GOOD LUCK trying to sort it all out. Whatever the outcome, I enjoy seeing all the incredible talent in the Renderosity community.

Wow! What a response! Keep it up. We can distil a lot from this discussion! "Which brings up another point do we allow historical or family stock photography? I have noticed that many members have posted images of their ancestors noting that the images were taken by family members, many long deceased." I've tended to allow these for historical perspective and/or examples of restoration.

I dont see the harm with allowing historical/family photographs, for a point of nostalgia if nothing else.

Not sure how the copyright is determined for this, in the UK(possibly internationally ?) the copyright For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.
In which case you cannot Copy the work. Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public. Perform, broadcast or show the work in public. Adapt the work. This law was introduced in 1988 so photographs prior to that may not be included or be exempt?

Message edited on: 10/26/2004 20:36

It took Me over a Year how to Learn the Basics of Photoshop Elements, as it was not configuring in My Old Brain, yet, the ideas I had, I could do in seconds 35 Years ago with Double Exposures....even Developing My Own Film. I see the Statements on some "Postings"...."NO POSTWORK"....just like a stand against Rock'n'Roll by those of the Bing Crosby era....as it would be the Ruination of Mankind. I see "Postwork" as an "Everyday Element" of Digital Photography, and realize the skill of many "Postworked Images" and how it changes them from a "Snapshot" into a Modern Photographic Image, whether that be "Sharpening" , "Tinting", "Filters"....even Leveling the Horizons....so the Sea doesn't run out of Your Monitor, should You not get it straight. I too feel that Manipulation is part of the Digital Era.....and, will continue to believe and support....if it looks like a Photo....it is. However.....I also believe, that it should be Ones "Own" Photography, not "Stock Photos", but, if a Subject, for instance, is Photographed....and there is a Bill Board....a Mural....a Bus with Advertising Posters in the background, it would be inane to expect it goes into a different Gallery. Photographers....Unite! Postwork is here to stay...throw away Your Box Brownies....and Join the Revolution! "We shall not be moved We shall not be moved Just like a Tree standing by the Water side Oh, we shall not be moved!" Peace :]

Attached Link: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

• Photo manipulations:I guess time to make a stand on this.They can be interesting,and they are photographs,until they are distorted.Then we need a section for Manips.
• Photographs that have been heavily changed:If you have a digital camera and you change the tone to greyscale or any other hue,this is a drastic change. Hard to make a stance on that one.
• Images containing 2D elements: Inside the image... this might as well be Mixed Medium.
  For sure.
  But the framing of images?I know I like to add a border to give the presentation some flare for a finished gallery product. But this would be no different than matting and framing a print.
  I say allow framing in a paint program. It also keeps our skills up to date in those applications.
• Stock photography:Not allowed.
• 3D elements:Post these in the appropriate galleries.Bryce,Terragen etc.
  Trying to learn photography,it will not help me by viewing a collection of doctored up images.It will however help me seeing what happens with real out of camera scenes,to help decide on future settings for my camera.

I believe some people get used to a certain Gallery. They find friendships in them and perhaps feel out of place posting in a different section. Then I guess we might as well make this Renderosity the Free for All.If the guidelines are set strict,I will post any works that I have used a paint program on ie: watercolour in PS in the Mixed Medium.
This is all I do to an image if I decide I don't like the original output.Sometimes it is salvaged by adding the touch up.
Rarely do I ever do anything to an image except to resize for under 500mb.That and the odd crop.
I saw one photo the other day which had a body copy and pasted into it,but felt that as long as it is 2 photos taken by the photographer it should be alright.
I think though if we make a set of rules then we abide.
Maybe it's time to get more into original shots only please.
That is one reason I stopped posting in the Bryce gallery because of so many mixed mediums,who knew what was Bryce in the actual image.The contests were becoming all application...go for it all.

As far as red eye and smudging.I don't know.Guess my opinion is to allow it.

I pretty much agree with Cynlee in the first post to answer. As for use of 2d and 3d stuff, likely I will say no....unless the image is predominately and I do mean predominately a PHOT0. I have posted images with lots of post work including ones made of a layer or two but it is obvious the initial and final work is essentially photography. Sure, this is line to cross and I can't say where. I wouldn't want all such manipulations left out totally. I don't want a poser figure in the foreground with a background photo, submissive and supportive of the 3d work while the photo is only decoration: That belongs somewhere else. Whew... For many, the computer is the darkroom and that is acceptable even with its range beyond burn and dodge and tricks done under the red light. Still, let the photo be the true and recognizable basis of the image. I may recant tomorrow..first shots at this topic.

We are now in the 21st centaury, that I'm sure we can all agree on, so we can if we wish (as individuals) use 21st centaury equipment and technology. To be creative that is surely acceptable. To my mind making a colour image into greyscale using software is no different than putting a monochrome film in my old T70. I fully understand why there should be a limit to the amount and type of postwork done but go too far backward and RR photo gallery wont exist at all. No matter how you look at it we all use digital in one form or another, prints/negs/slides have to be digitally scanned, without which we cant upload them to the gallery in the first place. Isnt the whole point of photographic art to be creative and as original as possible? Tedz is right we should join the revolution in fact we all have already. The skill involved in capturing an image hasnt changed it is still necessary to do a decent job of it, if you completely blow the highlights on an image no amount of postwork can correct that. Other than cropping it out completely and replacing it. Personally I dont see the harm in adding layers. I am not that good at using programs like PSP but I am learning all the time. In fact it is more difficult to shoot digital than it is to use print film; digital is more sensitive to the highlights and similar to slide film. Whilst there have been some very good points raised, some of the arguments being used just arent realistic or logical. Can a Mod please try to keep this in context? There is a vast array of talented people here at all levels, I for one have learned a huge amount in the 14 months or so that I have been using RR, I am sure that I am not alone.

I could not edit my post quickly enough to say more. I will relate these comments to other forms of creative and technically demanding work, such as what I do professionally as a jewelry designer/maker. If I stick only with the old traditional methods, I can make pretty things and I can suffer in that. I suffer in creative outlets and suffer in wrists torn up from years of traditional method of hand-work. So, I use power tools when I can, make nice things, still it is jewelry. There is no person on a pedestal telling me my work is not jewelry. There is not a person telling me a particular form to which I must submit. Today, the computer is a power tool of photography. For example take something as simple as saturation and color rendered on film and the very well selected paper. We are beyond dodge and burn under the red light and that is not a remark against film. I love the well executed image, whether from film or digital capture. Yet, I am here for one primary reason: To learn from the creative and technically accurate work of others and have fun in the meantime. A look at the monthly challenges give some insight into both technically accurate and often excellent photography while presenting the often oddball but challenging images creative use of the photo (or photos). I do not want purists on ivory towers telling me that what I do must be the kind of work they dolest it not be real photography. I want to see the images of 3dguy, Cynlee, Tedz(!!), logiloglu..Lostpatrol..ah the many others. There in is diversity and from a personal point of view, I need diversity to grow. I do not need an ivory tower of specific criteria to decide if my image(good or bad as it might be) is a photograph IN ESSENCE. Whew..

MHO photo manipulations - as said before, Does it still look like a photo? photographs that have been heavily changed - Not if they don't resemble some type of reality. Photoshop was my first 3D program. I was able to create things that couldn't be created in Bryce at the time. However if you look at my recent gallery postings the only manipulations in the last 4 images have had 0 postwork other than resizing and sigs. The 2 prior to that very little, but it is postwork. In fact most of my images since the bondage Bride series contain almost no postwork. That series however does contain what I call heavy postwork. But all of it was possible in a darkroom, I jsut chose the dgital darkroom. Images containing 2D elements - not in my opinion unless it is less that 15% of the overall image. stock photography - Not unless it is MY stock photos in MY gallery. If I choose to post an image then put it up for sale in a stock gallery (mine or anyones) does it then need to be removed? But I don't want Donald or Misha posting my stock work. 3D elements - Again, apply the 15% rule. As someone said, if its possible in a physical darkroom, then in most cases it should be OK. Lastly addressing the historical photos. In my opinion the posting of these images should be limited to restorations. Family memories I feel should be left to the forum. There they can be shared and discussed. The gallery is more for our achievements and our milestones. Just my opinions. Magick Michael

This issue seems always to evoke a lot of discussion, but when I read all your posts I find that you all agree more now than in the same kind of discussion a few years back. Photoshop is here to stay, that's for sure. I think it workes well as it does, without adding new genres. The people who are proud of publishing photos without postwork just write it under the photo, so as I have seen. And those who make postwork more than the usual sharpening etc. tells that. The only main thing is that it is your own photo. A little creativity does not hurt in this gallery either!?? The Forum is a good place to test what your fellow members say if you are unsure in which category your work belong. The same kind of discussion as this is just going in the Fractal Forum. The new tools we have now invite us to cross borders, and I don't think it is possible to stop development by holding too strict on old rules. As this already is a long thread, I don't want to add more words, I agree to what you alrady seem to agree on :-)

My few cents worth... Photography Gallary must have what?? Photographs..... ofcourse. Manipulation, curing, correcting, merging layers, overlapping...... well, I personally see nothing wrong with those for it only helps in enhancing ones artistic talent/calibre. At the same time I feel that photo composition using only the camera, within the frame is true photograhic genious. Like our friend Jimry......hardly ever uses crop or use brightness, contast enhancement etc., He is very much committed to compose th photos within the Camera. Similarly, there are many other photo artist here who do likewise and my hats off to them. I have used photo curing technique like... clonnng, erasing, enhancing contrast, adjust brightness and so on primarily because of certain situtations beyond my control. For example..... I took a cool butterfly shot and on the background you could see an empty wine bottle, a cigratte box, poly bags and what not. It really creates an irritant in the photowork, so, I have meticulously worked hard to remove those wherever they cause too much visible distractions. I am sure there are many like me who have felt similarly and have had to do some post work. Now a suggestion to get over this debate. When we go to upload pictures, we first select the Gallary, then the Genere and title and so on. I would suggest that either a new box maybe introduced which may specify if any post photowork has been done or if its a pure photo in it's raw form from the camera. Or else.... it could be part of the Genere itself......... or maybe a Gallary for untouched photos?? These are some of the options that I would recommend. Honestly, I have never used the mixed medium or 2d gallary to post my pics ever. Maybe, renaming it would help me look towards that direction. The bottomline is... other than Monthly Challenges, we as artist of this Great site should not look down upon the creative emphasis by an artist and hampper their natural flow of talent by restricting their post photo emphasis. For...... some of us are using camera as just another tool in our creative exploration. I remember a remark by Kro in one of the posts the other day.....the artist had explained in detail how he had post effected the photo upload and kro says........ Do not disclose how you created the dream. Let the dream be itself for us to enjoy it and I see truth in it....he is right to large extent. I am sure whatever comes out of this discussion would only help in betterment of the site here and I hope everyone agrees to it despite diffrences of opinion. Peace!! SNAKEY

Well...... I notice Misa has raised another issue about historic and family potraits. I feel, so long as it is photo, it is okay if it's posted in the photo gallary itself.....why not?? It is hard to make the original photographer to post it ( as some are no longer allive) and secondly........ it gives us an idea about photography in the good ole time. I would definitely like to read the opinion on this.... Again like I said... a seperate Genere for this, named....... Old family potraits/Historical pics?? SNAKEY

I'm happy with the status quo. "Darkroom only" type manipulation has some merit, but puts to much onus on the image police, and their personal darkroom experience and would have some rejectees calling for a jury decision. Maybe a category for purist photographs and then let them decide whether or not to accept film only over digital,or if retouching, enlarger manipulation, negative sandwiching, chemical intensification or reduction, toneing or print collages and many other skills are acceptable! Who would want to be a moderator?

I probably agree with the most part of the comments, mostly agree with Synapse,logiloglu,Kropot... and since I was involved in this kind of discussion - a thread posted in forum on 9/12/04 18:19 - with a work of mine (http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=761928&Start=19&Artist=Mikan&ByArtist=Yes) I have to say that... *Photo manipulations - belongs to photography gallery, as Photoshop is the dark-room of the 21th century; *Images containing 2D elements & 3D elements - as long as we still talk about the photos and not about the frames (that can be easily interpretated as 2D or 3D elements - check the link above to see the subject of my thread!), that kind of works should be posted in 2D gallery or Mixed Medium; *Photographs that have been heavily changed - I use to postwork a lot some of my images but I post many of my original photos without a single touch of postwork; I do not mind if a new gallery would be placed here and named - Original Photos; the other one should be Manipulated Photos; *Stock photography - ABSOLUTELY NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT!(should be posted in 2D gallery!) I've seen some posts with photos copied from another sites or smth like that, but this kind of works were never been moved to another galleries; I know, I know - it's impossible to control everything on the site, the photo gallery being so BIG and it's impossible for the moderators to see all the uploads...I've became kinda sick seeing pictures with some movie-stars/celebrities (with a little postwork) posted in photo gallery... BUT, of course, we could use OUR OWN STOCK photographies, as we are the owner of them! :) *And I agree with the point of view of zhounder (about historical photos) saying few lines ahead that "Family memories (...) should be left to the forum. There they can be shared and discussed. The gallery is more for our achievements and our milestones." Respectfully, Mihai. A kingdom for your thoughts...

Many knows my opinion on that (we've had a similar debate in 2d Forum about an year ago on this topic), but since Misha asked in 2d forum to partecipate at the debate I'll write down a couple of lines. I personally prefer not manipulated version of the pictures, or till the maximum of extent the kind of postwork you can achieve in the darkroom (as Synapse said). This cos this way I can appreciate the "vision and inspiration" the photographer can trace out from the reality he sees. But in years here I have seen that there are quite a few member of the photography gallery who do brilliant and delicately enhancing postwork on heir images, makin the photo remain wonderfully and merely "photos". There's also works that are pure genius collages, like Tedz's, which are worthy being in the photogallery, despite the fact they coul also fall in the 2d cathegory. What could make the difference to me would be to post ALSO the original source or sources. That could be also a way to learn how to make postwork. And a way to learn about composition and to define also better the artistic inspiration and ability of the photographer. By comparison from the start to the end of the process everyone would obtain elements to evaluate more the steps that were taken also in the allowed manipulations, and that could enlighten the whole community more on the possibility of digital photography. All said and done... I still believe a photo completely not manipulated that achieve artistic impact has to count slightly more than what was obtained after postwork. Cos it means the photographer saw the reality as art from the very start, and just framed it. Which takes an enormous talent, actually. But as well, postworks such as enax's or Cynlee's show a talent uncommon for the totally perfect balance of elements and decisions of underlining bites and lights that really create movement and feeling in the viewer. That requests talents as well.And has to be praised. I think often the postworks I see in the gallery don't add much (in some cases they diminish) the artistic flair of the photo. I am sure if we would see the sources, often that would result to the eyes of everyone, and in a while only worthy postwork could be showed. It's not easy problem to solve, but I am sure the talented photographers around will find their way to give room to their creativity always. This gallery is beyond doubt oneof the real focuses of creativity in this site. My two euros :)

Thanks everyone for your excellent input~ Great ideas from everyone! Dee-Marie

Wow ... huge amount of interesting input here. I'm not going to enter into the silliness that is the debate between Photoshop and the Darkroom (at the core, ignoring specialized graphics/art filters, Photoshop is the same thing using different tools and without the smells). I'll just say simply, in my mind, if the majority of the image is still a photo, then it belongs in the Photo gallery. If you take a photo, run it through Painter until it looks like an oil painting and not a photo then it needs to go into mixed media or 2D. Stock photos have no place in the photography gallery unless they were taken by the poster. As for the "no postwork" phenom going on, I've never understood that line of thought. Even in the darkroom, how you process your film, the setup of your enlarger, the paper you choose is equivalent to the "standard" photoshop postwork that most of us do. shrug -=>Donald

WIVELROD wrote, At the end of the day it does come down to simple common sense...is it a photographed image or not?? Could the image have been created in a camera instead of photoshop? NILLA wrote, Heavily Postworked- Does it still resemble a photo? Then yes it belongs in the Photography gallery. Your image doesn't look anything like what you started with? Then you need to find another gallery. NILLA wrote, Tubes??? hehehe! If you downloaded a tube from a site, meaning it isn't yours, you didn't create it, then it doesn't belong here in Photography. NILLA wrote, 3D elements- like Bryce, Poser & Fractals etc. Hehehe, I think RR has fractal, Bryce and Poser galleries here don't they? If you used any of these 3d elements then upload it there please. PERRY6 wrote, I love seeing the variety in the Photography community: straight photo and digitally altered. It would be great if there were sub-sections for the different varieties or, at least, the artist would make everyone aware of the status of the image. (actually, many already clearly indicate this already.) TEDZ wrote, I see the Statements on some "Postings"...."NO POSTWORK"....just like a stand against Rock'n'Roll by those of the Bing Crosby era....as it would be the Ruination of Mankind. dBgrafix wrote, Photo manipulations:I guess time to make a stand on this.They can be interesting,and they are photographs,until they are distorted.Then we need a section for Manips. DBgrafix wrote, I believe some people get used to a certain Gallery. They find friendships in them and perhaps feel out of place posting in a different section. TomDart wrote, Sure, this is line to cross and I can't say where. I wouldn't want all such manipulations left out totally. LostPatrol wrote, I fully understand why there should be a limit to the amount and type of postwork done but go too far backward and RR photo gallery wont exist at all. LostPatrol wrote, Isnt the whole point of photographic art to be creative and as original as possible? Tedz is right we should join the revolution in fact we all have already. TomDart wrote, So, I use power tools when I can, make nice things, still it is jewelry. There is no person on a pedestal telling me my work is not jewelry. There is not a person telling me a particular form to which I must submit. TomDart wrote,Yet, I am here for one primary reason: To learn from the creative and technically accurate work of others and have fun in the meantime. TomDart wrote, I do not want purists on ivory towers telling me that what I do must be the kind of work they dolest it not be real photography. I want to see the images of 3dguy, Cynlee, Tedz(!!), logiloglu..Lostpatrol..ah the many others. There in is diversity and from a personal point of view, I need diversity to grow. I do not need an ivory tower of specific criteria to decide if my image(good or bad as it might be) is a photograph IN ESSENCE. Zhounder wrote, MHO photo manipulations - as said before, Does it still look like a photo? Gunsan wrote, Photoshop is here to stay, that's for sure. I think it workes well as it does, without adding new genres. The people who are proud of publishing photos without postwork just write it under the photo, so as I have seen. And those who make postwork more than the usual sharpening etc. tells that. The only main thing is that it is your own photo. SNAKEY wrote, Now a suggestion to get over this debate. When we go to upload pictures, we first select the Gallary, then the Genere and title and so on. I would suggest that either a new box maybe introduced which may specify if any post photowork has been done or if its a pure photo in it's raw form from the camera. Or else.... it could be part of the Genere itself......... or maybe a Gallary for untouched photos?? These are some of the options that I would recommend. Honestly, I have never used the mixed medium or 2d gallary to post my pics ever. Maybe, renaming it would help me look towards that direction. Gallimel wrote, What could make the difference to me would be to post ALSO the original source or sources. That could be also a way to learn how to make postwork. And a way to learn about composition and to define also better the artistic inspiration and ability of the photographer. Gallimel wrote, All said and done... I still believe a photo completely not manipulated that achieve artistic impact has to count slightly more than what was obtained after postwork. TallPockets writes, It is going to be almost impossible for everyone to agree on which standards should be applied to photos vs. manipulations. My only suggestion to the hard-working moderators in this wonderful gallery, would be that whatever rules you choose to put into effect, that they be enforced equally, irregardless of who uploads something. I think most genuine people can agree to disagree about photography definitions as such. But, if Renderosity is going to set one rule or a number of standards, then please apply those you do set. That, imho, is the main cause of friction among many Ive spoken with here. I, too, admire the sheer brilliance of those who use post worked software programs, and someday, I would hope to be even half as proficient. Hats off to their genius! However, some here cannot afford such high ticket items, while some others here choose to remain more of a purist as it were. Some peoples are against so called progress. Most are not. They just want a level playing field based on certain criteria. To each their own, I say. My beef is that when you have to compete with ultra technological advances it is a mis-match. In boxing and in wrestling they have divisions for weight classes. For fairness, as it were. If a heavyweight fought against a lightweight, it would not be a pretty sight. When Playboy magazine publishes the centerfold pics each month even the models will tell you they are airbrushed to high heaven. Just be honest and upfront about the procedures is all Im suggesting. I continue to think that the voting should be eliminated entirely. In talking to others here, many tell me (privately) it is the #1 cause of animosity. Many feel it has become a popularity contest and not a true quality contest any longer. If youre in the crowd welcome aboard the main engine of the locomotive. If youre not, enjoy the caboose ride. I am surprised a great deal that there is little, if any, postings below photo uploads describing how someone envisioned the shot, took the shot, framed the shot in his/her mind, dealt with lighting issues while taking the shot, post worked the shot, or any other actual helpful hints or instructions that might make a photographer a better one (if someone has requested comments). In the writers gallery, there is more of a descriptive bent toward what the uploader was thinking as it were. I keep reading about how this, or any gallery here, is mainly here to help others reach a higher quality level. Ive found that a lot of people dont seem open to sharing their skills as it might mean that they arent top 20 as often (from opinions of many others spoken to me). The very fact that this discussion was started/posted just points out the deep divisions that exist. As does the replies. I dont envy the moderators who have to set up the standards. Its a no win job. Good Luck. Again, just kindly enforce the standards you do choose, whatever they are, if any. Most respectfully, TallPockets.

Great summrisation Tall........ I couldn't read half of them as I was in too much of a hurry to post my views.;) The briefing helped.....Thanks once again.:O))

Ummm, teacher, ... could I have additional time to complete this assignment? You see, I need to read this entire thread at least 3 times before trying to respond (i.e. not look like a fool). OTOH, I am seeing echoes of the discussions that led to (and followed!) the "No Postwork" May Challenge. MGD

Hmmm...i've read this thread 3 times. i commented once...last night. I don't see it. sigh ok... here i go again.

Here's the thing...it's all about potatoes. give me a sec and I'll explain.

i take photographs. sometimes i do heavy manipulation on my photos as a way to express myself artistically. Does this mean my photo is no longer a photo?

most of u say no. that's no a photo because it doesn't LOOK like one.

well, with respect to each of you, i say it is STILL my photo despite its manipulation.

is a potato still not a potato even if it doesn't look like how it is straight from the garden? is it still a potato if it's mashed? doesn't look anything like the original potato, but in my eyes, it's still a potato nonetheless.

when i first joined RR, i talked to Michelle about this subject. basically it says we should use our own judgment about where to post if the image is heavily postworked. she said my stuff is fine here as long as it's my photograph...regardless of the postwork.

if ya'all feel like we need to discuss changing that, that's cool.

all this sounds like a boundary issue. What are the boundaries of this photography gallery. Ya'all are thinking the boundaries may need to be tightened. some think maybe not.

I see things differently than most of you. I've ALWAYS been on the fringes. I know there are some of u in here that can relate...some who are even more on the fringes than i am.

photography is an exploration. that's how i see it. it's a process. it's a means of self-expression for me...sometimes WITH postwork, sometimes WITHOUT.

i see things differently than many of you. i like to take photography to the edge sometimes. I have SO much to learn. That's why I'm here. I want my work critiqued by other photographers.

I agree with a lot of what TomDart said:

I do not want purists on ivory towers telling me that what I do must be the kind of work they dolest it not be real photography. I want to see the images of 3dguy, Cynlee, Tedz(!!), logiloglu..Lostpatrol..ah the many others. There in is diversity and from a personal point of view, I need diversity to grow. I do not need an ivory tower of specific criteria to decide if my image(good or bad as it might be) is a photograph IN ESSENCE.

I LOVE the diversity here!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me end by saluting all of you for sharing your thoughts and feelings.

And I salute those of you "pure" photographers whose brilliance I cannot come close to. I want to learn from you, but i learn slowly.

I salute those of you who travel a different road and show me how to take my photography to the edge...and back again.

I just want to learn and grow. i suppose i can do that in any gallery. i just like to be here, but above anything else, whatever ya'all may think of my work, it IS photography to ME...

sometimes it just looks like mashed potatoes!

Love ya'all...so happy to have a place to express myself...here and in my gallery...a place i can be me.
Hugggzzzz! sheila

Message edited on: 10/27/2004 14:30

Let's see.... as I was the one who wrote the guidelines... maybe I should say a word or two? They weren't written to be a source of contention nor are they hard and strict rules. A lot of thought did go into trying to make them as fair and as reasonable as possible..... maybe some don't see it that way shrug.... can't please everyone.

Point 1.

Photo manipulations and photos that have been heavily changed are not a big deal.... never have been (at least not for me)... as long as it's all your own photography, why should anyone really care? Really... there are much more important things in life to get pissed off about... I think the intention of those lines have been misinterpreted. It has nothing to do with your usual, typical postwork that we all do to our images.

Explanation: When I first started on as Moderator I used to get numerous complaints insert sarcastic tone (oh the joys of being a mod!) from people because of the amount of heavily manipulated images that were in the photo gallery, and by heavy manipulations I mean the bad photo with 10 PS filters slapped on it... You know the kind (it doesn't look like a photo anymore) but it still doesn't look good either... The gallery was a lot smaller then. The quality of work being uploaded now is way beyond what it was then too. Much has changed in two years. So basically this was written in for people to think about which gallery you want to put it in.... USE YOUR JUDGEMENT.... It does say that... not sure why people worry so much about this one....?

Sometimes there are images uploaded to the photo gallery that I thought would have a wider audience in 2D or Mixed Medium...that no longer resembled photos.... but hey it's up to the member... whatever!

Point 2.

Images containing 2D elements.....

Explanation: The thought process here was more along the lines of photographic clip art that one can get on those cd's or PSP tubes for example. If your adding in stuff that isn't yours to a photograph, than it really ought to go into 2D.... sorry but this sort of falls into the same category as stock in my book.....

Point 3.

Stock photography, a big fat no way... pretty straight forward and the one thing everyone seems to agree on.

Point 4.

3D elements.....

Explanation.... we have numerous 3d galleries on Renderosity.... 3D mixed with photography is Mixed Media there's a gallery for it.... If I want to see 3D I have plenty of places to look, I have no desire to see it in the photo gallery.

If the photo gallery were to become a free-for-all, upload whatever the hell you want gallery, then why bother to have a Photography Gallery.....? I come here to see photographs, and photographic art. I generally don't spend any time in 2D or Mixed Medium, Fractal, etc, I'm sure I'm missing some great stuff, but it's not what I'm interested in.... and it is not what I'm here for....

Generally I think what we have in place now is good, the content of the gallery is outstanding, and it's fair.... were things to change drastically I would have to honestly say that I would not have an interest in being here.

Message edited on: 10/27/2004 15:08

Well put Michelle A! There will always be dissenters and those who want to change the rules. If the moderators continue with their clear and fair explanations I can certainly live with that!

Michelle, just wanted u to know I have appreciated knowing these boundaries. I have felt like i understood them, but If i misunderstood them, then i apologize. some of my images have been postworked so much they no longer resemble a photo. but i have used my judgment as you gave us freedom to do...and i thank you for that freedom!! That's one thing I have really liked about being here...the freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! seems like there's so little of that these days. To everyone: I have NO idea what is possible to do in a darkroom and what is not. Although i do have experience with a darkroom, that was 21 years ago and things have changed so much. thanks for listening

stock photos...no way. Everything else, well, as long as you tell us what you did to it. I completely agreed with Cynlee.

Attached Link: http://www.uelsmann.net/.

An invitation to take a look at Jerry Uelsmanns work... much of it done in the darkroom well before computers, and Photoshop.

I'm imagining a good number of hours probably even days that went into creating a single image. He's a master of montage and surrealistic photographic art IMO....

Message edited on: 10/27/2004 18:01 Should also add... that isn't it nice that what once took hours/days to create can now be done so much more easily... I love working in my darkroom, it's magical, but I also love my computer and Photoshop. :~)

Message edited on: 10/27/2004 18:13