Archived and Closed
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Answered
In my admiiteddly short time here I've noticed something that confuses and troubles me. As follows. Should one take a look at the leaderboard in the " flowers " category it would become clearly obvious that the top 95 % of the leading photos there have been heavily computer enhanced and staged.There is also a dearth of any creativity. It's the same thing over and over. It would seem that the highest score a photo of a flower photographed in it's natural state and outdoors can receive is in the mid 400's to the high 500's and they must be extremely good to attain that score. I would like to know how those of us that do excellent photography of flowers in their natural state and outdoors are supposed to compete with those that do " photography " of flowers using these computer enhancement and staging techniques ? I realize that the opinion I'm about to express is my own personal opinion but I also know that many agree with me. As follows. I subscribe to the theory that any "photo " that has been computer enhanced is not of the photographic art form at all but should rather be considered as " painting with a camera ". In short Sirs / Ma'ams these types of " photos " need their own category. I would suggest that they more appropriately belong in the " Digital Art " category.
I would very much enjoy the feedback of my fellow Pixoto members as to my observations and idea. I would also enjoy a reply from The Pixoto Foto Geek Wizard Administrators.