photoshop in the fine art, ranking # 3

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 8 years ago
  • Implemented
For me, this photo is a photoshopped one and is third in the yesterday fine art category. Reported a few times already
Photo of Michelle Meenawong

Michelle Meenawong

  • 1297 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes

Posted 8 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
Which one would that be then
Photo of Michelle Meenawong

Michelle Meenawong

  • 1297 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
It was this one, but the team moved it already to photoshop.
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
Whilst we're on the subject of rules were you aware of this?

"Trademarks are not verbs.

Correct: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
Incorrect: The image was photoshopped."

"The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun."

REF: http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html
Photo of Joseph Vittek

Joseph Vittek

  • 75 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Although Edward R. Newman would agree if he were alive, photoshopped, like xeroxed and other nouns have become verbs through common usage and clearly communicate a concept, which is the purpose of language.
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
Whilst I agree that it is used commonly the point I was making here was people love to accuse others of cheating where in fact in some cases no rule exists and yet those same people are happy to use words that the owner of said trademark has requested not to be used.
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
I will call Adobe right away and beg their forgiveness for infringing on their word. :) LOL.
Photo of Michelle

Michelle

  • 146 Posts
  • 27 Reply Likes
Will...

I do see your point but to be honest I dont think Adobe are too much bothered about this, they havent yet taken anyone to court that I know of regarding the wrong use of their trademarks, neither have they ordered urban dictionary (like some other companies have) to remove the words "photoshopped" and "Photoshopped" plus the array of derivatives that are there.

Michelle is simply trying to make us all aware of the fact that cheaters still and always will try to get away with abusing and bending the rules.
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
To cheat is to break the rules and as far as I'm aware there is no rule that says pictures in any category cannot be edited. I think the only rule is that composites should be in the photoshop art category but I could be wrong
Photo of Michelle Meenawong

Michelle Meenawong

  • 1297 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
It was this one and it was moved already, the team was quick
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
Will, do think this photography was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software?.
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
Yes absolutely it was enhanced using Photoshop. However in this case the enhancement included composite work and therefore you are right it should have been placed in the Photoshop Art category.
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
It really does not matter if its photoshop or not. A composite is a composite. Enhancement is ok. we all do it. It is adding any image to another image using ANY program that is being referred to by the term "photoshopped". I looked at the photo ( thanks for posting it ) and it sure looks like a composite to me. I would like to hear from the photographer so he can say how he did this without layering. Many people use photoshop for adjusting lighting and contrast and removing backgrounds.
As far as not using photoshop as a verb or noun is about the funniest thing I've heard in a while.That's like saying I cant call any tissue I want a Kleenex. They can always sue me if they want. :):):)
Photo of Michelle Meenawong

Michelle Meenawong

  • 1297 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
lol
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
Not using Photoshop as a verb is not my idea it is that of the Adobe company. Out of interest do you wipe your nose or do you Kleenex it? In the UK we use the word tissue but to be fair people tend to Hoover their carpets :)

Using layers within Photoshop does not constitute a composite picture. I have taught Photoshop classes for many years and the use of layers to enhance pictures is something that majority of the people who attend the classes are very keen to learn. Building composite pictures , whilst it may use layers, is something different.
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
My apologies Will. I meant to say " I would like to hear from the photographer so he can say how he did this without making a composite"
Do you feel better now? Why are you making such a big deal out of this? The problem exists no matter what words we use or trademarks you say we are infringing on. And the important thing is to stop people from taking advantage of the system and other members. If there were no law that says you can't steal would you say it was then ok to steal? This is called common sense.
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
I'm making a big deal out of it, not because of a specific composite, but because there are so many people on these sites that object to photo editing and go on and on and on about it getting on their high horse as if it's the work of the devil. The same people seem to think that their pictures are straight from the camera when in truth most of them don't have the first clue that their camera is doing a good deal of processing for them and that in fact it's not their outstanding photographic ability.

Photo editing is simply a part of the photographic process in much the same way as developing was.

I've taught photoshop classes for many years now and the majority of the people I meet that think you shouldn't edit pictures are simply those who have poor editing skills and are trying to level the field in their favour

I do object to cheating of course but I hold an equal objection to those who accuse people of cheating by breaking rules that don't exist.
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
It is NOT photo editing we object to. If you go and read the old posts almost everyone is against breaking the rule of composites. We happen to call a composite as the term "photoshopped". If anyone is on a "High Horse" it is you by accusing us all of "trademark infringement". Every single one of my photos is edited in some form or another so I believe this has been a misunderstanding Will.There is a rule that says "No composites" I have pasted it below in case you missed it. Please be sure of what you are saying before you go accusing people of things especially when you are the ONLY one making the accusations.
"Composite images (images composed of multiple images but excluding multiple exposures of the same subject) and images that include graphic renderings must be entered in the “Photoshop Art” category. Reported composite images placed outside of the Photoshop Art category will be recategorized."
You are making an argument and you are the only one arguing. No one is disagreeing with you on anything other than "trademark infringement"
Photo of Joseph Vittek

Joseph Vittek

  • 75 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Let’s say you have a landscape picture that is a really great piece of “fine art” except the sky is blown out.

By using Photoshop, one can add some blue and some cloud effects if one has the right brushes (often downloaded) and the patience.

On the other hand by using Photoshop, one may skifully layer in a great original cloud photo that would also enhance the work.

In the end, both pictures are very similar. Is one prohibited from the “fine art” category because it is a “composite” but the other is acceptable because it used strictly Photoshop techniques to create a similar picture?

Or how about a “fine art” piece that is created totally within Photoshop without any photo being used at all? Should those be prohibited from the “fine art” category?

The goal is to create fine art, not to haggle over how it was produced. The issue seems minor compared to the sudden increase of really bad Instagram and other really sub-par photos that are showing up, taking away from the value of the other works on the site and the site itself (my big concern right now).
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
Andrew I apologise if I haven't been clear here.
As I said I do not have a problem with the composite rule and in point of fact I don't mind if people use Photoshop as a verb, I was simply making a point.

The reason I commented here at all is that certain people continually object to any picture that they consider may have been processed in photoshop, composite or not. In fact the same people appear to spend hours trawling the site looking for pictures that they think may have been edited just so they can post an objection.
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
Thank you for the explanation Will. I tend to get a little passionate about my believes sometimes. :) We are all in this together.
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
I too get a bit wound up but you are correct, we are all in this together :)
Photo of Michelle Meenawong

Michelle Meenawong

  • 1297 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
Everybody plays a little bit with sharpness, levels or whatever, this is normal. Maybe they should change the name of the photoshop category and call it "composite pictures" (precessed with 2 or more images) or something like this. Would this be better?
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
I think that's a very good suggestion. It would avoid much confusion.
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
A composite in my opinion is not a true photograph because you are adding a new element rather than altering what already is there. Once you add an object to a photo it becomes a collage, a combination of more than one image. Plus any photo can be submitted into the fine art category according to the rules except a composite.
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
Question:
Into what category do we think this should be posted?

Photo of Joseph Vittek

Joseph Vittek

  • 75 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Looks like Fine Art to me.
Photo of pacquiao

pacquiao

  • 475 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
fine art for me too. I don't see this as a composite. this is pure fine art and unique visual skill.
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
I think it is fine art but it could also be commercial advertising as well. This would make a nice ad for Apple. It is hard to tell if this is a composite or not. Technically It looks like a photo with the background removed and possibly the screen image inserted. But I would not report this unless it was put into wildlife or landscape. :)
Did you take this Will?
Photo of Will...

Will...

  • 291 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
I took this for a competition where only very minimal editing was allowed, sensor dust removal etc.
I took one picture, then displayed it on the screen before taking the picture as you see it. I posted it to demonstrate that it is sort of possible to create a composite in a way that doesn't really break the rules here eh :)
Photo of Andrew Halpern

Andrew Halpern

  • 769 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
Very well done Will.
Photo of Michelle Meenawong

Michelle Meenawong

  • 1297 Posts
  • 138 Reply Likes
Brilliant, very nice commercial advertising pictures. We should have a teaching blog on pixoto, a "how to" page.
Photo of Joseph Vittek

Joseph Vittek

  • 75 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Hi Michelle,

I have started another discussion under Why do People Cheat to explore the issue more broadly. Your suggestion fits in with what I hope you and others contribute.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.