Category for photos without processing

  • 18
  • Idea
  • Updated 5 years ago
Despite all photos are superb, i would appreciate if there was a category only for photos without treatment - Photoshop, filters, ... -.
Photo of José Campos da Cruz

José Campos da Cruz

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 18
Photo of Sherry Andreason

Sherry Andreason

  • 4466 Posts
  • 218 Reply Likes
Hello Jose, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Since out categories are by subject matter, we allow manipulation in all of the categories to some degree. You can use the PURE tag on your images to distinguish them as un-processed or minimally processed.
Photo of Debbie Theobald

Debbie Theobald

  • 29 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
that still doesn't keep good pics from losing to people that cheat by using photoshop
Photo of Annette Flottwell

Annette Flottwell

  • 55 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Well I really like the idea of the extra category, I just think it is totally wrong to compare Topazed or HDR'd images to proper photos. I think there should be a tick box like in the challenges for photos, not PS work
I am relativly new here ( one week ) and in some categories the amount of filtered stuff that contributors try to 'improve' in filters is too much. They should never come up 'against' photos.
Photo of Claire ~ Chinchilla Photography

Claire ~ Chinchilla Photography

  • 140 Posts
  • 33 Reply Likes
there used to be an option for marking photos as 'pure' but it got misused, people started marking images as pure when they weren't. also so many people shoot raw now (including myself) that you HAVE to process in photoshop, it's just part of the development of the image
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
also in the ye olde days of film you had to process every shot as you started with a neg , and you would adjust the exposure , the contrast by choosing deferent papers, dodging and burning very similar to what i do now in raw . so the concept of a pure unprocessed shot is unrealistic and historically never happed its only with digtal that you can do that but why would you that . but some shots are photoshoped to death
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Mr RJ, good point. To me photoshop is a multiplier of personal taste...If you have good taste to begin with then photoshoping makes your work better, but if you have bad taste to begin with and you get your hands on photoshop...UUH OOH!
Photo of Paul Nelson

Paul Nelson

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Images that come from a most digital cameras already contain metadata, camera make, iso and, zoom for example so it may be possible to add a 'pure' flag if this data exists in an image file. I'd like to see something that does make the distinction for the purist and recognition for the art of photo processing for the budding 21st centuary Man Rays.
Photo of Annette Flottwell

Annette Flottwell

  • 55 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Processing RAW is not the same thing as heavy filtering. It is the same as developing your film.
What I mean is manipulation , as in TOPAZ glow, simplify, etc. HDR to death. Topaz adjust is one of the worst, you can tell it from far.
If the picture you present is possible on film or paper then it is pure. I would never object to a person removing dust, a blemish, a pimple. But sunlight from the front and bright light behind a building at the same time, white halos round the tops of mountains or buildings, fake stars etc.. that is not real. Weird saturation or toning can also be very annoying .
Of course, yes Digital ART has its merits , can even be beautiful but it is not a PHOTO.

So I think if you did something else to you photo than white balance, levels curve and despeckle, denoise or remove a speck, yes you should mark it.
It is only fair to those who wonder 'how on earth is that possible'
here is a topazed version of this image :


and here is the original
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Hey all, not trying to open old wounds or beat a dead horse here, but there was a much heated discussion about post processing a while back which led one member to begin calling some other members who do post process rude names, and this person also began leaving snide remarks on other member's image pages. So this is just my humble input, no hard feelings if anyone disagrees.

I used ektachrome and kodachrome for 40 years and still find modern digital pics to have washed out colors and to be dull of contrast comparatively. If I post process my images it is only to put back the natural color and contrast of the original scene that modern digital sensors take away.

Folks who are masters of post processing produce images which look very natural. It is the folks who are bad at post processing that should be criticized. The call should be for no "BADLY" post processed photos, not for no post processed photos at all. Most folks can't recognize post processed photos if the work is done correctly. So can we start criticizing BADLY post processed photos, And leave the well post processed photos that can't be recognized anyway out of the conversation?

This is what I find frustrating...No one produces a "non-processed" photo. Your digital camera processes your image before you even see it. Even the old masters of Photography didn't use the image "right out of their cameras". They all had to process their "negative image" into a "final image". The old masters used dark room tricks like "masking" and "burning" etc, to post process their images just as we use photoshop today. The big difference is the old masters were good at it!..Today anybody can get a free photoshop trial and produce badly processed nightmares to their heart's content.

One of my favorite photography quotes comes from Ansel Adams when asked about post processing his images, he chuckled and said...Without post-processing, photography would..."Make the world look like an ugly place", and he added, "None of my images are realistic".

That interview is available on youtube.
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
New here, so no old wounds to open.

Sometimes we need to compensate for a cheap lens or a small, over megapixeled sensor. What comes out of the camera isn't always what we saw when taking the photo. Nothing wrong with realistic adjustments.
Photo of Debbie Theobald

Debbie Theobald

  • 29 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I agree. I just get upset when they are so phony that its obviously not a pic anymore but digital art.
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
You're right... problem is that, judging by some of the duel scores a lot of folks seem to like them like that.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Calling some of it art is bring kind...A lot of it should just be called "artifacts"
Photo of Annette Flottwell

Annette Flottwell

  • 55 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Yes, you are perfectly right about Kodachrome and Fuji Velvia which we put in instaed of Ektachrome or Provia if we wanted vivid colours :)
Applause for Ansel Adams, it was his books that I followed in the darkroom making my own humble attempt at the zone system.

The most important thing was in his books though that you took care whilst taking the picture.

I have only been here for less than two weeks and the times I heard things like ths one makes me sad :

""Thank you for your comment.The original image was very poor due to bad weather, so I was a little challenged with HDR"

Tim, that is why, for processing, please try Alien Skin's Exposure 5,6 or7 or DXO Film pack after you have done the gentle bits of leveling, exposure etc in Lightroom.
You'll love it. You can choose again between Ektachrome and Kodachrome :)
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Really? Thank you! I didn't know about the processing things you mentioned. You're right, that was a sad comment about the HDR and the weather. But at least those type of pics can serve as a good "bad example"!
Photo of Annette Flottwell

Annette Flottwell

  • 55 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Here is the above mentioned image which won an award!!
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

Tim, it is FINE to use LR for the basics after you took a decent shot in the first place and this is what I like to use
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/
The demo version works for 2 weeks, must admit I was hooked when version 4 was out :)
here is one for you it is the 1960 Kodachrome :)
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
and my volcano went through the Velvia setting,
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
the bright coloured ladies got an Ektachrome treatment
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
well I just don't like that image I just delete ones like that but that is my humble opinion and thousand would and do disagree
Photo of Annette Flottwell

Annette Flottwell

  • 55 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
RJ that is exactly what I would have done... what really shocks me is that he got an award for it!
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Thanks again, you are full of good info!
Photo of Michael Manning

Michael Manning

  • 16 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
I've read through this thread and while I understand the arguments pro and con, I have to come down on the side of those saying we need a category for photos that are "pure."
By that I mean nothing done digitally that would not have been routinely done in a darkroom, no composites, no bright orange overlays of silhouettes at sunset that we are to believe were produced with a mobile phone and no post processing.
It's really tiresome to see an image that you worked hard to get right in the camera lose to something somebody tossed off quickly then processed to death.
Photo of Bridgette Rodriguez

Bridgette Rodriguez

  • 813 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
I also recently suggested the same about 2 weeks back or else put photos that are extensively processed in their own category. All Pixoto ever says is "Thank you for your suggestion", but I don't know if things will ever change.
Photo of Pete Bobb

Pete Bobb

  • 193 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
ALL JPEG images are processed by the computer program built into the camera
There is no such thing as an unprocessed JPEG.
My pocket Panasonic camera has a better program to make JPEGs than my Canon 5D Mark II camera, and the Panasonic including lens cost less than 20% of the cost of the Canon Body without any lens.
And even with my cheap Panasonic, I can choose between a few different ways for the camera to generate JPEGs.
I shoot 14-bit RAW when I use my Canon 5D Mark II.
I must manually process the RAW files into 8-bit JPEGs.

I agree that many images on this site are to my eye over processed.
But since there is no such thing as an unprocessed JPEG, how do you propose to limit the amount of processing to make a JPEG, especially seeing that different camera manufacturers use different programs with different settings to generate their JPEGs?
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Hey Mr. Pete Bobb, I said what you said in my last post before I read your last post. I should have just said "I agree with Pete", would have saved myself a lot of typing!
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Micheal. I have respect for your opinion, (and everyone else here please forgive me for yet again beating this poor dead horse)...but the question remains...how do you know if an image is pure if you can't tell it's been added to or edited?

I've had folks tell me my pics are pure when they have all been edited in some way. I'm sure I could upload hundreds of pics to a "pure" category and no one could tell otherwise and all I use is outdated windows software. Folks here who are masters of Photoshop and Lightroom are way more skillful than me. You'd never guess their pics haves been edited and processed...And you would happily accept them into a "pure" category and they would likely win because they have been skillfully fixed by master editors and processors!

The other question is how do you get a "Pure" photo when your digital camera is editing your image before you even see it? Choosing vivid mode is adding color saturation just as lightroom can Choosing sunset mode as well. Choosing portrait mode adds saturation to skin tones just as Photoshop does, Do we accept these camera edits into a pure category?

The list of exposure value choices goes on and on. If you choose a wide f/stop your pic will have an un- naturally blurry background and is not "pure"... your aperture choice has edited that background for you. Do we keep all F/5 and wider stops out of the pure category because they are editing our backgrounds for us?

The truth is there is no such thing as a pure image.

What you are complaining about are "badly' or "poorly" processed images. because you and everyone else here sees lots of images everyday on Pixoto that are skillfully edited and processed and you think they are pure and untouched.

If we get a category for "pure" images, how do we keep out the heavily edited and processed images which have no sign they have been edited and processed?

(...poor dead horsey...)
Photo of redwar

redwar

  • 470 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
I have to agree here. I am using a Nikon 7100 and by default 80 percent of my Images are dull, flat and boring.

I literally have to pull out what I saw when I took the image using Lightroom.

There is no way I could compete here without Lightroom.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Yep, I don't have lightroom and I've been here three years and still can't get an image score of 700+ on a landscape...(not my fault folks don't recognize great work when they see it) :P
Photo of Michael Manning

Michael Manning

  • 16 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
I am not talking about ordinary level tweaks. That's no different than dodging and burning in a darkroom and I have quarrell with that.
I'm talking about stuff that's obvious - composites, false color, addition of elements that were not present - that sort of thing.
Look, I have only been on this site a few days and I have only a few images up. A couple of them were made years ago with an old Canon point and shoot digital camera that was the first digital camera I had and I used it on a trip where I didn't want to haul a lot of equipment around. I had to work at it to get the exposure in the ballpark of where I wanted and get the composition where I wanted. Even then the comparatively low resolution shows and in one case, slight motion blur from a long exposure from a bridge that was vibrating with traffic.
Newer stuff has had nothing but minor tweaks - setting white balance, a burn of the sky. Nothing I could not have done with a negative and a darkroom.
There is a place for heavily altered images. It takes skill to do it well.
But I think there ought to be a place for old school work as well.
Yes, people will cheat. They cheat now. Is that a reason not to do it?
Photo of Bridgette Rodriguez

Bridgette Rodriguez

  • 813 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
I suggested the same two weeks back at http://community.pixoto.com/pixoto/to... and mentioned in the comment stream under about National Georgraphic's restrictions on their photo contests, etc.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Can someone please tell the rest of us which types of edits and processing would be allowed in the "no edits and processing category"
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
To answer your question...yes it is a good reason not to do it...why beg for more cheating?, why give the Pixoto staff more fits to deal with...can't you hear it already?...

"This image is in the pure category and I see a pebble that doesn't naturally have that smooth a surface..."THAT PEBBLE HAS BEEN PHOTOSHOPPED!"

Thread posters like us have to be making the staffers nervous wrecks already, poor things...give em' a break.
Photo of redwar

redwar

  • 470 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Not a problem.

It is am image that accurately reflects the moment in time when the picture was taken without the aid of digital enhancement and the rest of the enhancements lightroom and photoshop or post camera effects.

In other words, it is a real damn picture!
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
There is no such thing as a real picture because pictures aren't real...I wish pictures were real...then I could take 10.000 pictures of a hundred dollar bill and be a millionaire! ...(then I could afford this Photoshop thngy everyone's talking about!
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
I think the problem here is too many folks are getting camera skills confused with photography skills.
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
Michael, since you are new here, you probably don't realize that this topic has been rehashed and rehashed and rehashed. The bottom line is that Pixoto encourages digital manipulation, with the only stipulation being that if an image looks painterly or surreal, it should be placed in the Digital Art category.

Pixoto used to have a "pure" designation we were on our honour to check off -- it was eliminated, if I remember right, because it became meaningless. Abused extensively.

Anyway, art is subjective, and art also looks different depending on the device you use to access Pixoto and the settings you've chosen on the device. People also edit on devices like a mobile phone and don't realize how over-processed their image looks if viewed on a computer monitor.

Getting back to the "art is subjective" point -- it's great that you don't like some of what you see here. Life would be pretty boring if we all liked the same thing. A lot of what you or I might think is over-processed might look fantastic to someone else. Most of the top-charting music nowadays is music I greatly dislike. :-) But it's all good. We are all free with our votes to choose the photos we appreciate the most. If the ones we voted against rise to the top, well, that's life. Our favourite movie may not win the Oscar, our favourite song may not win the Grammy, our favourite photos on Pixoto may not make the top either. That doesn't mean they all shouldn't compete against each other. In fact, I think they should. What people vote for is what SHOULD rise to the top, even if I don't like it, think it was over-processed or even badly processed :-)
Photo of Joyce Andersen

Joyce Andersen

  • 1078 Posts
  • 254 Reply Likes
Lenore, you are so right...who decides what is a pure photo? it can not be done... I wish this could be put to bed too....
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Joyce, you are so right...I think the problem here is not some folks opinion of what makes a pure image...I'll just say it like I think it is...envy, jealousy, selfishness, etc, Yeah, I'd like to work for Nat Geo myself, but I don't let that affect the enjoyment of my hobby.

I think most folks have bad taste so bad photos will always be liked by the crowd, I've always found that what the crowd likes and does is usually in bad taste anyway...just look at the popularity of reality TV shows versus quality documentaries.

Category definition on Pixoto will not change human nature one iota.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
No disrespect intended but I'm lost again...So now a "pure" photo can be processes or edited as long as the editing and processing can be called "minor tweaks"?

Again no disrespect intended, but no one who wants a pure category will call bad processing just that...bad processing. Everyone says "extensive " processing, even though some photos look completely natural because they have been extensively processed.

"Pure image category"?... "Minor tweaked image category"?. Non-extensively processed image category"? "Heavily edited but doesn't look heavily edited image category"?..

What will the new category be called?
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
Below I have linked to a thread that is the PERFECT example of why this type of attitude cannot work. Too many people don't understand photography -- they don't get lighting, they don't get camera settings, they don't understand which camera settings cause specific effects. People would be reporting every single great photograph because they think it must have been manipulated. Notice the accusatory language used in this thread, comments like "over processed" etc.

The Report Team here at Pixoto is bogged down as it is. Can you imagine what would happen if they had to deal with all the additional reports? LOL

http://community.pixoto.com/pixoto/to...
Photo of Michael Manning

Michael Manning

  • 16 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
It looks to me like I may the only old timer here who went into a darkroom, played with enlargers and chemicals and made a photo look like what I saw.

That's what I am talking about here. Not getting hung up on the fact that JPEG processes an image.

I guarantee you that 90% of the pictures at this link didn't look anything like that when they came out of the camera.
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

That's fine if that's what you like, but I don't think they need to be competing with photos like this
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
But "out of the camera" nowadays is TOTALLY DEPENDENT on what settings you chose before you pressed the shutter. You can oversaturate your heart out by changing the saturation levels yet your photo is still "out of the camera"....
Photo of redwar

redwar

  • 470 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Which is why digital photography is a way to lie about photography and true images of reality.
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
And therein is the modern dilemma. Photography cannot be online then ..... because even when I dig deep to perhaps post photos I shot with film, I still have to scan them to create a jpg to upload here. And when I scan them, my scanner settings allow for manipulations, let alone the fact that once the photo is scanned, I can open it up in any image-editing program I want. How could I be trusted? :-)
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
What's the difference between the photo links you posted? They are all photographic images produced by people and devices...The water doesn't look like that waterfall in real life.

What does this "right out of the camera" stuff mean anyway. Photography has never been about right out of the camera images...I would be more than willing to debate anyone that the idea of a "right out of the camera" mindset is not photography at all. It's the "right out of the camera equals photography" folks who have least understanding of photography.

Photography is and always has been a two step medium....Step one, expose your film or sensor. Step two, process your negative or final image.

Folks who think producing an image with a camera constitutes photography are a little misguided. Getting an image from your camera is as easy as accidentlly dropping it on the shutter button...Great editing and masterful processing are learned skills.

So where do we draw the line concerning how much editing is not allowed...I've never been so enamored with myself as to think my opinion should be put upon others...If someone thinks a hellish HDR nightmare scene beats my calm and natural ocean waves then so be it, to each his own...freedom is good!
Photo of Michael Manning

Michael Manning

  • 16 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Lenore, I could oversaturate with Kodachrome by underexposing a stop or so. I could make the sky bluer by adding a polarizing filter.
But I could not slice and dice and pick a whole new background or foreground.
Pixoto has categories for darn near everything else. I don't see the harm in having one for minimally processed photos. The over the top cheaters would be obvious. I don't even care if there are prizes. But I'm already tired of looking at hundreds of orange sunset silhouette pictures that have obviously all been blasted by some filter inside photoshop or lightbox.
Make a quiet place for grumpy old purists please.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
So why do all the purists here start out by saying, "No post processing at all" and then when confronted they change it to just this or that processing is allowed, The amount of processing or editing that is okay seems to go back and forth every time a new argument is posted.

Obviously the "allow all editing and processing" idea is winning because the "purists" keep changing their ideas of what a pure photo even is. Sounds like some folks think their opinions should rule all others and will change their stories as needed to get control.
Photo of Michael Manning

Michael Manning

  • 16 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Tim, I think I have been pretty clear about what "pure" means and I haven't changed one bit.
I come from a photojournalism background. My work HAD to reflect reality. I could not move anything or do anything to alter what the camera saw beyond exposure, dodging and burning.
The rest was all composition, timing and skill. And I was good at it with a lot of peer awards to show for it if not money.
I don't know why people feel so threatened by a single category that stresses those things - composition, timing, lighting and skill above the ability to manipulate images inside a program. If you don't want the challenge, don't post in that category. Same way I don't post pictures of birds, bugs and flowers. I don't care a flip about them but I can appreciate the great technical ability seen there.
Photo of redwar

redwar

  • 470 Posts
  • 93 Reply Likes
Totally and unanimously agree. As a photo - journalist myself I had to constantly push the bar up higher and higher. Perfecting my technical expertise and paying atten t ion to details around me so I could get the type of images that would either stand on their own or make the prose attractive.

Perhaps, that is the primary reason why I captured exact images in black and white that at were published in Time Magazine in color.

Between 1976 an1979, I was published in Army Magazine, Army Aviation Digest, Army Aviation Magazine, EurArmy Magazine and many others.

A TOTALLY OF OVER 500 IMAGES.

I did these things as an unofficial Army writer and photographer.
Photo of Michael Manning

Michael Manning

  • 16 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Yes Redwar, I understand completely where you are coming from. You either got the shot right then - or you didn't. No darkroom do overs.
Back in the 80s I worked protests, presidential visits, football games on both dimly lit high school fields and in stadiums with 80,000 screaming people. I rolled on fires, accidents, dead people, feature photos and the inevitable grip and grins and Castro shots (if you ever worked a small town newspaper you know what I mean.)
The only place I had any latitude to play with the subject was editorial illustrations and even there, it was a get it in the camera thing.
I got some incredible images that got me accolades long before Photoshop was invented. I would hate to be a photo editor these days. You can't take any image at face value anymore.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
So then tell us what kind of processed image would be acceptable in a no processed image allowed category.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Hey Mr. Micheal, I'm an old geezer myself. Here's a question ...Back in the 80's you say you didn't have any dark room do over. did you publish your work in negative form, or did you use polaroids?
Photo of Michael Manning

Michael Manning

  • 16 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Tim, you know what I meant. If you are prepared to discuss this seriously, I'm all about that. I won't respond to sarcasm.
Photo of Pete Bobb

Pete Bobb

  • 193 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
Only people who want to change the image from what was captured in the camera on the film need to go into the darkroom.
Otherwise you would simply run your film through the machine and accept what the machine gave you.
Dodging and burning is CHEATING for people who don't like what the camera captures, so only machine processed film is acceptable....
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
Michael, this particular subject here in the Pixoto forum is, and has been, never-ending.

What you are seeing is not people being threatened, only people who regularly frequent this forum being tired and frustrated of this same argument popping up over and over again, with nothing new being said on the topic.

It's a moot point anyway, one suitable only for those who never tire of debate.
:-)
Pixoto management have made their official stance quite clear. If you're trying to convince them otherwise, good luck to you, but you might have better luck getting McDonalds to serve filet mignon and a nice merlot. If you only wish to debate the topic with those who feel differently with you or commiserate with those who agree, go for it :-)
Photo of Annette Flottwell

Annette Flottwell

  • 55 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Good comparison to cooking!!!
I prefer to pic veg in my garden, make a proper stir fry with fresh ingredients, add herbs and dried spices and fresh meat.
Others buy pre'spiced meat, a fancy sauce in a bottle and get deep frozen veg and serve it all on a fancy plate.

I had been on Pixoto for about 4 weeks and the processing really put me off.
Once too often I had heard when I commented : but the original image was way too dark with horrible colours so I HDR'd it.

Again. Photography is about taking pictures correctly. There was a pic with a white blurry oversharpened smudge in the sky, i said 'What am i looking at, this is really too blurry?' and the guy had a go at me, can't you see it is the space shuttle. What?

Pictures that are lacking in basic CAMERA adjustments and skill should go into beginners or the cyber bin. Some folks can't be bothered to focus , others obviously can't see the lack of composition or definition.

I had two or three of my best pics zapped after a month on pixoto because somebody decided to change category. It is quiet strange that they can go out of the way to downgrade a perfectly good, well received proper photo but hardly anybody ever took my remarks about improving the actual photo serious.

Isn't strange that they ENCOURAGE togs to use extensive processing to create a striking image? How did Henri Cartier Bresson ever create a striking image? Or Tim Morrison? or Ansel Adams?

I still prefer proper cooking so I went back to 500px and a fellow member here who was seriously peeved about the preference of sauce in a bottle recommended ViewBug.

There are some wonderful people here but unfortunately I also like to learn from others and I like to improve my PHOTOGRAPHY. So I don't post here at all now.

but then again, I just decided to give it one go, with a good, honest picture.
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

we'll see whether it does OK against some of the dark side :)
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Please don't go, Annette... Pixoto needs folks like you! I have images on 500px as well, and the problem is Pixoto shows all uploaded pics in the duels, (which includes the really bad ones)...With 500px they don't show the poorly done images unless you click on "fresh " images...And the "fresh" category of 500px has some jaw-droppingly bad pics you wouldn't normally see, (Some are as bad as my spelling of jaw-droppingly)..but if you must go...happy shutter clicking!

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.