This subject is one, that has nothing to do with the quality of images in question, but with the question, where to place them.
I noticed you had Michel's wonderful dog 3D image in LWITG. Though beautiful - I don't think it's a photography any longer. Mixed or 2D would be appropriate place to post it. Same goes for Fairies that appear with postwork wings in flowers, George Bush's face in a King George painting and so on.
I don't mind postwork - I'm using it a lot myself. But it's used to enhance the image - or in drastic cases to focus on the object in the image by replacing a hectic background with a dark or light one.

But when other elements are introduced to actually make or complete an image, then it's really no longer photography.

Again - no critique on an individual image - just on where it should be posted.

Interested on what ya'll think.

Hi Klaus.

I must agree with you that I find that some of the pictures don't belongs in the Photo gallery. 
In my view to much adding things must be posted in Mixed or 2D

I don't mind postwork, 

because sometimes I postwork a background out  "net" or wires

the same thing for me
no critique on an individual image - just on where it should be posted !!!!!

Let me try to clear things up a little..

"mixed medium" usually refers to images containing 3D elements.

"2D" if for images containing things such as stock photos or "heavily manipulated" images.

These descriptions are fairly subjective.

As to the image included in the LWITG...

It's my opinion that, enough of the original image remained intact.

That one falls into  "Photo manipulation"..In my opinion

At this time, we don't have a "genre" for these..(not a bad idea tho)

Now, as to the "other images you mentioned..

One was moved to another gallery, and the other I am waiting on opinions from the rest of the team. Out of respect for the artists. I don't feel it is proper for me to discuss those images specifically here. Technically as a moderator, I don't to elicit opinions form the rest of the team. However, we make every attempt to make decisions as a group.

Some basic guidelines..

If it contains any "stock" photography it belongs in 2D
If it contains any 3D elements.. (like Poser Bryce etc etc) it belongs in Mixed medium

More than 50% or the original image should remain intact

Fine by me - what 3D images like Michel's is concerned -  maybe a category as suggested would be good, though I still think, that the "operation" is so invasive that it warrants the 2D category, but I also don't want to nitpick.

However - in the other cases -  If I take a part of a photo and  place it in another photo and add other things - I don't see why the Artist places it in Photography ? When I was still doing my 3D stuff it never came to mind to place my images in categories, they didn't belong. So although I never really worked with Poser - every now and then things I rendered there I also posted in the Poser Galleries as opposed to my usual VUE.
So what's the problem in the first place?

This same discussion came up when I did more 3D work..

When MojoWorld gained the ability to import PZ3 files...(Poser) ..the discussion became , is it Mojo or Poser? or mixed medium?

We have to view many images and have always allowed images that did not contain too many additional elements in them..
Also we expect that all photographs taken are by the person who posts, hence why no stock images etc as Bruce points out. 

I can well understand the purist perspective, and perhaps a further Genre of having a postworked which has been debated before.. At present any  parts of an image that are not photography must not be no more than 40-49% of the image... 

As Bruce has said it is not a bad idea to have a new Genre if anybody else has an opinion let us know..
 

I'm by far not a purist and a proponent of postwork.
From my point of view the rules are just not clear. While there are situations, where you combine photo's - e.g. in a sequence, or in a collage of separate images - the introduction of elements, that were not in the original photo - like those cute Fairiewings or things like that automatically qualify as belonging to the 2D Gallery. And were's the harm in that?
My main point is that the gallery already is almost impossible to follow, and add to it all the images that not really belong there, thus making it even more difficult.
If I'm interested in seeing Mixed Media, Poser, Vue, 2D or whatever - I go there.
Adding a new category will not really help, since they will show up as well, when browsing the gallery.

A solution would be if R'osity finally came around and took advantage of the new PHP/SQL structure and would put this combination to good use, allowing the user to define what he wants to see - e.g. have customized results for his convenience. Technically not really too difficult, since every image is already tagged with main and sub category.
If a user could select one more main categories plus the subcategories, he's interested in - this preference could be saved and that would be it...

But the least that should be done is to clarify the rules and remove rubber paragraphs like defining something in 40 -49%. That's BS. What if I say it's 49% and you as a Moderator say it's 50%? Do you want to fight that out with me?

So to be unmistakingly clear - if you introduce elements not in the original image it belongs in 2D. Period.

I see it like in Books - fiction and non-fiction. How difficult can that be?

Actually, I see a valid reason for creating another category... Even a lot of postwork (taking out power cables, darkening skies, cleaning trash off of lawns, etc.) still leaves it in the realm of a Photograph. We're talking about added or constructing elements, in which case "Photomanipulation" is a good idea for a new gallery option.

YES, adding elements (3D elements, stock elements, seperate photos, switching elements between images, etc.) immediately makes it modified photography, therefore not a camera original image, but should not be cut-and-dried considered 2D - this is actually a little different and more complicated a situation. It's not as easy as fiction or non-fiction which is a clear black and white issue.

By putting it in "2D" puts it in the realm of drawing and painting. They're almost never viewed the same, and you will hear arguments from those who draw and paint all their work that "it is NOT 2D, thank you very much! YOU just put photos together!" (this is hypothetical, but I can see it coming now)

This is one huge "grey area" and can get a little confusing as to "where" to put your composited image - given that all we have are categories of "Photography", "2D", or "3D software specific".

I propose that if you have 3D elements (ex: Poser characters in front of a background photograph of a waterfall) it should go into 2D. If they are ALL photo elements - highly distorted or not (think along the likes of worth1000.com) - then it should go into Photomanipulation.

What say you my brethren?!
-Lew ;-)

Maybe a slightly different view on the subject: There are people who do this kind of photo-transformations ('3D photos' like Michel's and Ray's) professionally, in real life. I used to do a fair and regular share of these transformations in my graphic design work... And I have to say that I have never considered it as being a part of photography. For me it was just a part of the graphic work, taking existing images (mine or other's) and transforming them (for reasons of layout or page embellishment). So, even though I don't really care in which category those images are posted, I personally feel that it has nothing to do with photography, I don't look at it as photographic work, and I even find that in some cases it takes away from the eventual photographic value that the image could contain. The result is that I usually don't even look at those images, when they're posted in the photography gallery... so maybe the images would actually benefit from being given a separate category... where we can value them for what they are: graphic image transformations...

I think the rules are clear enough on what we have worked with for a number of years.. The image in question was a photo manipulation what 3D are you talking about here? Other than a 3D effect.. And was a follow up to a tutorail by a fellow member.. 

Certainly there are images that have been allowed and need to be moved, and I do think your idea of the seperate Genre and the improvements to php  searching  as per custom requirements is very good and will be looked into

Well Danny - I do have to disagree with all due respect.
For one - the fact that the rules have been there for years, doesn't make them good or usable.
Just consider the availability of FX for photo manipulation now and just a couple of years ago...
Secondly: Any rule with vague percentage measures that are automatically cause for interpretation is a bad rule. There is no way to really "measure" percentages in a satisfactory way. Period.

I agree with the notion that moving photo art or manipulation might create new problems. Why not create an entirely new Category e.g. Photo Art - and at the same time clean out the general categories?
Have a main category 3D that contains Poser, Vue as subcategories etc. One Photography w/ subcategories, one 2D and one Literature...
That would really clean up the current navigational mess that offers way too many choices as to be intuitive.
And along the way this and issues alike can be taken care off by creating a thought through and balanced navigation and categorization. The current one is a result of the growth of R'osity over the years and had categories wildly added - a consolidation really would be in order.
Renderosity owes that to it's users - even if it means that work has to be done.

First of all, where are these rules located? Have I not found all the nooks and crannies in the Photography gallery? I have uploaded 30 or so images without the benefit of the basics. After following a number of these type of threads I have found that I have no comment etiquette, my pictures are not only boring as s*** (pardon my asterisks) but are not even worthy of critique or even viewing. And now I am going back and to figure out if some of my uploads have met these rules. I have reviewed a couple of obvious pics and agree they miss the 50% rule by a large margin. I don’t agree with moving them to the 2D or mixed media galleries so I have removed them. I don’t think its that big of deal for me since each only had a couple of wow,cool comments(which I like but now wonder the motive) and were not on favorites lists. I really don’t understand why the two tutorials were presented in the Photography gallery when both break the 50% rule. I should have actually just posted the ‘rayburg’ type pic in the tutorial thread.

I don’t know about other newcomers but I am a little discouraged by this type of thread. Where were you elder guys 3 or 4 months ago? This type of picture or the comment thing was going on then too.

Whew, got that out my system. The Photography members have been great to me, but I should have spent a little more time on the ins and outs of this type of website and really have no excuse for not knowing the basics.

Many apologies for my indiscretions, I still like this place and there is plenty to keep me coming back for inspiration.

Finally, does cropping a photo to under 50% of the original fail under the rule?

Mike

Don't be discouraged Mike. The rules are not clear and I am not even sure where to send you for clarification about categories. As the old saying goes, nobody is perfect, and while Renderosity is a great site (or we all wouldn't be here, right?) it is far from perfect. I agree that it would be beneficial to have place where the categories have clear guidelines regarding what belongs in them. I would like to see some categories/genres added as well, and perhaps some removed. Photomanipulation and graphic art would be 2 I'd like to see. Defining the rules isn't easy because everyone's view of a pure photo is different, as it the scale of how much manipulation is acceptable before it becomes something else. Should only unretouched photos be allowed? Shooting with RAW means you have to make some adjustments so that is out. Cropping 50%+? Nah, photographers have been doing this for many years, well before digital. Should frames be allowed? Power lines cloned out okay? A sky switched out? Where does it end? I have no good answers. I have my own opinions but they may be and probably are different from the next person's. I better reel this comment in now by simply saying that yes, I think the gallery categories need a good looking and and some clear guidelines clearly posted.

I'm with you on that, Kort.
If Rules are not clear they are meaningless. Of course you can't cover every possibility, but I have the feeling, that people think of being "downgraded" when the suggestion to move an image in a different category is made. And that's not the case - at least not from my point of view.
Shooting a photo and enhance it is one thing, taking one and manipulate it to have a new meaning is another. And there is where my analogy with books come into play. Documentation and Art, Showing an object or creating art is what are the differences, that are simply different backgrounds and intent, which are beyond good or bad, right or wrong.

This all goes together with a general overhaul of Renderosity's Navigation, which has become patchwork over the years and urgently needs consolidation and clarification.
See my threat in the Communities Suggestion Box, as well.

Just this time Renderosity would be better off, to have their members have a say in what and how things are going to be changed, instead of making changes unilaterally and then getting flack!

Stats could help to determine what's needed - and what not - there are plenty of top level categories, that are all but empty - or that get as many entries in 2 months as the Poser Gallery gets in 2 hours - making them pretty redundant.

And with this needed overhaul a new structure could be implemented that takes care of these problems to a great degree.

And with it functionalities, that are common in other sites, and which are sorely missed here could be implemented as well - that is that a user can add to his settings the galleries and subgalleries, he really wants to see and where he wants to upload - as compared as to go tons of steps to do so.

Not a piece of cake to realize - but not too hard either - a good programmer could implement that within a week - since the backbone is already there and it mostly concerns database queries, cookies and renaming and moving stuff around.

Starting off with a well thought out survey, that all users are made aware of would be a good step.