Van Gogh vs Ansel Adams

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Answered
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

Dear Sirs :
I would like to know if it's possible to get a refund on my pro subscription. The reason I'd like a refund is because I don't feel that it's fair to have traditional photography compete in the same categories as photo stopped / computer enhanced photos. They are two separate art forms.One is photography and the other is " painting with a camera " Even an Ansel Adams photo wouldn't beat a Van Gogh painting were they considered as the same art forms. I will readily concede that I did not do my homework as regards Pixoto policies regarding the " painting with a camera " issue however the issue remains that they are not the same art forms and if Pixoto represents themselves as a photography site then they are being misleading at best. Failing a resolution of this issue I'm forced to conclude that this site is not for me. I would like a refund of my money please. By the way just so you'll know I have made an entirely reasonable , in my opinion , and to date apparently dismissed out of hand , suggestion that would resolve this problem.
I would appreciate a prompt response to my request from the Pixoto Photo Techno Geek Wizard Administrators please.

Warmest regards

Paul Stanner
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 18302 Posts
  • 1329 Reply Likes
Hello Paul, I'm sorry if I was unclear. Photo post processing is allowed in all categories, but if work looks more like painting then photograph or if it looks unreal or surreal it should be categorized as Digital art.
If you can please post an example of photo that you feel should be categorized in Digital art rather then other categories please post link to the photo and we will check it.
If you would still like to close your account and refund, please send e-mail from the email address listed on your Pixoto account to DISABLE@PIXOTO.COM and request the account deletion and refund.

I hope his helps.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
At last, someone agrees that those types of photos should be in digital art, thank you..
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Jasenka :

You were very clear about what Pixoto allows as to computer enhancement but you did not even address my suggestion about where computer enhanced " photographs " should be posted nor my concerns about how those of us that do not computer enhance are supposed to compete on an even footing with those that do. It's patently unfair that non computer enhanced "photos" be judged as the same art form as computer enhanced photos. As for which specific photos I'm referring to all you'd need to do would be to look at the leader board in the " Flowers " category and I'm 100 % certain that 95 % of the top 500 places belong in the " Digital Art " category since they are obviously computer enhanced. It is rare on the same scale as a Haley's Comet sighting that a non computer enhanced photo makes the top 500 in that category. As far as a refund is concerned I'd far prefer that this issue just gets resolved in a fair manner that would allow my art to be judged on it's merits in the PROPER category. I do basically like it here but if I don't stand an even chance at the benefits of being a member here than I have no other alternative that I can see. Please advise ASAP. Thanks for your kind and prompt attention to this matter.

Warmest regards

Paul Stanner
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Jasenka :

Considering that apparently neither you personally or The Powers That Be at Pixoto seem to care what their customers want I'm forced to request a refund. I'll give 2 -3 days for you guys to reconsider your customers request and then if the issue can't be resolved I'll request the refund.

Thanks

Paul Stanner
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
The retouching done by photographers in a darkroom is quite different from the current editing done on various software in which fake clouds and super saturated colors and faked textures, that personally, I don't consider appealing, such as fake graininess, or ridiculously fake HD looking to the point of looking over sharpened. This is not photography skills, this is editing technology savvy, and these should be in a category of enhanced photos with subcategories like flowers and such. Also I see a lot of fake water droplets on flowers, like either it's an editing filter option or they are taking a flower in a studio and spraying it with a spray bottle, because natural dew and rain drops are not consistent like that..so that should be a studio flower category.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Anne Santostefano I couldn't agree more. Photos that have been computer enhanced should absolutely be in a category of their own. Photographers that do not use these techniques should not be required to compete with those that do. It's patently unfair to force them to do so. Photography and " painting with a camera " are two separate art forms and should be treated as such. I suspect however that Pixoto does not give a damn about this issue.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Retouching is retouching...Darkroom or "Lightroom"...Some of the Masters of old talked about how an image took 1/100th of a second with the camera, and days in the darkroom to get the desired effect...Everyone who "points" a camera "paints" with a camera...Respectfully, that's just what a camera does! Pics can truly be over edited for sure, but no pics are un-edited...Every camera is a "light editor' The discussion should be how much is too much. And if you are informed enough to recognize over-editing when you see it then you have become a better photographer then some others...be happy that you are! I feel the most joy when I end up with an image that I am truly happy with. An Image that evokes the same emotion within me that I had while lucky enough to live the actual experience whether visiting one of the wonders of the world or enjoying a sunset with my dog in the back yard. Life is short! Preserve your life and times within the images you prefer and don't worry about someone who has no skills to do so without photoshop, or the folks who don't have the smarts to recognize bad images. I appreciate a site like Pixoto because it inspires me to get out and click my shutter! But what the voters here think of my work is not what I base my self worth as a photographer on, It is based on how pleased I am with my own work.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I hear ya, but I have given up trying to explain that what you are talking about, the exposures and shutter speed and such, that IS photography, I am strictly talking about post camera remodeling, I can't emphasize it enough but somehow it's not being grasped as the totally different distinction that it is...I think maybe you and I are referring to two very different types of photos in appearance...so let's just leave it at that, ok ?
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Jasenka :

This is the # 1 rated " photo " in the " Flowers " category as we speak. If you would have me believe that this " photo " has not been heavily computer enhanced then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

This is my top rated flower in the " Flowers " category. Now please tell me how exactly you view these as the same art form? Also please tell me how I'm supposed to compete against this ? You will notice that my photo was taken outdoors and completely free of any computer enhancement or staging. I didn't even sprinkle water on them to spark them up. This was how the flower looked on the day I took it so this was what I photographed since it caught my eye as beautiful just the way it was at the time.

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

Jasenka please be advised that my concerns are not rooted in jealousy at all but rather fairness. The " photographic " artists that use computer enhancement / staging are indeed very talented artists but they should not be allowed to compete with those of us that are not " painters with a camera ". They / we need our own category. Please advise ASAP

Warmest regards

Paul Stanner
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Anne Santostefano :

I agree completely. I've won 82 awards but have never won anything better than a top 20 % award. If you were to take a look at previous leaderboards in the " Flowers " category you'd see that my work is there in multiples. Unfortunately since " painting with a camera " seems to be so popular and so highly rewarded by Pixoto I never seem to rise above the top 400 or so. Imagine what would happen in that regard if we didn't have to compete with the " painters with a camera" ?

Keep shooting Ma'am I enjoy your work.

Paul Stanner
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Anne :

You may get a chuckle out of this little tidbit of information. lol Pixoto notified me last evening that one of my photos has been recategorized. It was a photo of the park at West Lake in Hangzhouzhou , Zhejiang Province , China. As I remember I posted it in " Cities -Parks "You can see it on my main page if you'd like to take a look. I'm wondering if their actions were retribution for my temerity in questioning their policies as regards the " painting with a camera " issue. lol

Paul Stanner
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Hi Paul,

Thank you for liking my work :) I enjoy yours too. You are very talented. Haha, yeah who knows. I noticed since I have made my suggestions, no awards this week and I have seen pics I have posted and entered in challenges this week shoot up the chart quickly, usually that is followed by an award, so I'm kind of suspicious. Paul are you on facebook ?
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Anne Santostefano Yes Ma'am I am on Facebook. Just search for Paul Stanner and send me a Facebook Friend Request.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
There's a ton of Paul Stanners :p It might be easier for you to find me, I have the same DP as I have on here
Photo of Joyce Andersen

Joyce Andersen

  • 1078 Posts
  • 254 Reply Likes
it would seem to me that the reason they allow any and all photoshopping and editing is because it would be impossible to start drawing lines as to what is acceptable and what is too much... I do not use photoshop, but I do use Picasa for simple adjustments. where do I stop? What is too much? And there are great photographers that really can produce some outstanding effects that the general public (your typical voter) can not distinguish from Photoshopping. It is difficult enough for Pixoto to keep up to the copyright cheats here... people that use others work and try to pass it off as their own. Who and how would you police photoshopping?
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Some are just too obviously fake looking to the point of looking like digital art and not a real photograph. It's very easy to see them, heck little children can find them.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Joyce :

As to how Pixoto could stop this behavior see my comment to Ann above. As to how much is too much I can understand the matter is subjective but sometimes it is plainly obvious how much is too much . My general rule is as follows -- " If it looks more like a painting than a photo then it's too much."
Ansel Adam would lose to Vincent Van Gogh EVERY time were their respective works judged as the same art form. How exactly could that be considered a fair assessment of their works?

Paul Stanner
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Anne Santostefano :

I agree completely. As I said above to Joyce " If it looks more like a painting than a photo then it's " painting with a camera and not photography.

Paul Stanner
Photo of Joyce Andersen

Joyce Andersen

  • 1078 Posts
  • 254 Reply Likes
Your solution then is the one that is already the standard that is used here : Digital Art – This includes photo montages, fantasy scenes, constructed landscapes, artificial scenes and any photo compilation that is surreal or unreal. If it isn’t even trying to look real – put it here. IMPORTANT: all components must be your creations. NO STOCK PHOTOS. Subcategories: People; Places; Things; Abstract; Animals. The problem again is the subjective "what looks real". Fake water drops still look real to some people... neon coloured flowers look real to some people. HDR halos to the nth degree looks real to some people. and when the technology permits we will be seeing 3D images and they will be the death toll to all others. if it looks like it belongs in Digital art... report it.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Joyce I plan to do just that. Once again though sometimes it's clearly obvious , actually it's clearly obvious to me in about 95 % of the cases I question.
Photo of Cailin

Cailin

  • 423 Posts
  • 71 Reply Likes
Joyce
I was going to write exactly the same thing. Any photographer, with the tools available these days, will logically try to make his photos look better, and as you say, how do you decide where it becomes "camera painiting" as Paul so poetically calls it?
The real problem and the major source of frustration on this site is that photographers are allowed to post the exact same kind of photo with just minor variations dozens of times, each time winning a prize, while other photographers make the effort to find various subjects and inspirations and show some originality, and are not rewarded for their work. THAT's the issue that should be addressed. If there were less of those super-photoshopped pictures that everyone has seen hundreds of times before and STILL keeps voting for (that's what I don't understand..) then the challenge would be less unfair.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Joyce :

That is indeed another aspect of the problem that needs addressing. It is boring beyond belief to have to keep enduring these " painters with a camera's " very repetitive and not very creative or inspiring work over and over and over and over and over again ad infinitum. The problem needs to be resolved. I gave a very simple solution to this problem in my comments above.

I enjoyed your very prescient observations on this topic. Keep shooting kid.

Paul Stanner
Photo of Cailin

Cailin

  • 423 Posts
  • 71 Reply Likes
Actually, Paul, it was MY comment, not Joyce's...but never mind.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Cailin what was your comment?
Photo of Cailin

Cailin

  • 423 Posts
  • 71 Reply Likes
The one that you answered "Dear Joyce" an hour ago, about the other aspect of the problem that needs adressing...
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
I stand corrected but my comment stands only re-addressed to you.
Photo of Graham White

Graham White

  • 122 Posts
  • 13 Reply Likes
Since the age of the darkroom Photo enhancement has been carried out, added grain, enhanced colours, adding stuff that was not in the original photograph, double negatives, the list is endless. I am old enough to have used a Box Browning up to the most modern Digital Camera and there are very few photographers that don't do some form of enhancement. With today's camera's unless you switch off all the settings the camera has it will do some form of in camera enhancement before you even download it. There is only one photographer that I know that never did any dark room enhancements and that was Henri Cartier-Bresson who was the Master of Street Photography and he even left the border of the negative on his images to prove that it had not been cropped. We live in an age of ever increasing technology and there is no escape from it. So I say embrace it, enjoy it and stop being a grouch.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Im not being a grouch, nor is it sour grapes, I've won 31 awards on here. But I think it is still unfair and needs a separate category. Yes a lot of enhancements are used today and we sometimes need to make little adjustments, but some are just plain overdone. I rarely use any effects, I might just occasionally lighten a photo who's exposure wasn't the best.
Photo of Martin Dunaway

Martin Dunaway

  • 587 Posts
  • 64 Reply Likes
Tell that to Andy Warhol.Pretty sure Photoshop wasn't a glimmer in anyone's eye then!
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Graham :

It's not about being a grouch or sour grapes as Anne says above. I've won 82 awards and I agree with her. It's about having your efforts judged fairly. They are completely different art forms and should be judged as such. The practitioners of " painting with a camera " are indeed very talented artists in the artistic realm of Computer Techno Geek Wizardry however NOT photography.

Ansel Adams would lose to Vincent Van Gogh EVERY time were there respective works judged as the same art form. Thank God that didn't happen then or nobody would have ever heard of Ansel Adams.

Paul Stanner
Photo of Graham White

Graham White

  • 122 Posts
  • 13 Reply Likes
I agree that there should be a separate category for Pure Photography but like I said that unless you switch off all the settings in your camera you will not have a Pure Photograph and how would you prove that you have. It's all down to what level you are enhancing your work, some people like it and others don't but to compare Gogh to Adams or any other photographer is just plain silly.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I never have filter settings on on my camera. Only on a rare occasion for fun and I don't submit them to contests.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Graham THAT is my point exactly. You have an acute sense of the obvious and not just the merely obvious but rather the incredibly obvious. lol
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Ann Santostefano It's really not all that complicated . If you computer enhance your photos in any way they should be submitted as Digital Art and ONLY as Digitial Art.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I'm not sure where you are getting this concept that untretouched photos are not traditional photography, but you have been improperly instructed or misunderstand what you were taught. But it seems this is what you are comfortable thinking. Retouching has always existed, and pretty much every photographer uses it at times, but not for every photo, not if they are good anyway. Yes you implied that there is no unretouched photography in history. Photography without processing is a new thing ? Ok, I guess we live and study photography on a different planet. My spleen is following yours.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
First you say I "insisted" then you changed it to I "implied" I never did either. Can you make up your mind which it is i did? I think what's got me bugged here is how many folks don't care what they said in their last post and change it willy nilly when needed in their next post, Then they want respect for their current post. Paul is fond of doing the same thing. Sorry, but It's been my experience that the double talkers are usually the ones on the wrong side of the issue.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
OMG, stop getting hung up on wording to avoid the real issue, excuse me if I don't keep to exact script, My MAIN point is the difference of light,
normal editing vs heavily changed frankenphotos., truthfully, to be fair, I don't think your photos fall in the category of frankenphoto digital art..I am NOT on the wrong side of the issue, you are just not grasping the issue, and I will leave it at that. You, as well as many others here, are obviously very touchy about and attached to heavy editing and can't be objective, not to mention not making the proper distinction. My point and only point, was is and will be, heavily edited, fake looking photos belong in a separate category, Digital Art, and should not compete against normal photos that look like photos, be they edited or not, is that clear enough ?....As is said in Italian, basta...meaning enough already !!!
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
@Paul, you say photos enhanced in any way should be categorized as digital art and that's not true either. Light, normal adjustment type editing, such as dark and light, getting out a little flaw, the type of things that restore a pic to what you saw when you took it, as sometimes it doesn't translate when downloaded. Converting to B & W, is ok too. That's a normal part of photography, granted I only use it when absolutely necessary, but to say no editing at all is not fair either, because adding an invisible copyright would then classify as enhanced. My policy, and to each ihs own, but my way is, if it needs too much enhancing, I scrap it as anything I would submit and move on to the ones that need no work or very little. I save the ones that need too much, for posterity.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Anne you have either misunderstood what I've said or have not read the whole thread. What I actually said was that of the categories that Pixoto provides the Digital Art category is the most appropriate category for the " painters with a camera " to post. I also said specifically that I did not mind " editing " as you put it or " painting with a camera " as I put it. Actually I rather like it when done correctly. The problem comes in when the " painters with a camera " insist on doing so much " painting " that they've effectively changed their photo to a " painting " as I call it or a " Frankenphoto as you call it. To expect a true photo to compete fairly with a " Frankenphoto " is a patently unfair fight Anne. I can't for the life of me understand Anne why the " painters with a camera " insist on getting so damn insulted when somebody credits them with evolving photography into a whole new art form that is distinctly theirs nor can I understand why they are so resistant to having their own category / genre / art form. I should think they would want to be judged against the work of their peers and ONLY their peers. Wouldn't that give them a far better sense of the value of their own work? But then again a fair fight is so much more difficult to win Ma'am.

I submit to you Anne that ALL of the " painters with a camera's " objections to my points and suggestions are rooted in good old fashioned American egomania.They all need to seek therapy. It's not healthy to be that psychologically disturbed.

By the way I'd be happy to provide you links to what I consider to be the best " painters with a camera " if you'd like. Please advise on that matter ASAP.

Paul/
Photo of John Larson

John Larson

  • 617 Posts
  • 382 Reply Likes
Paul, every great photographer in the modern era, with the exception of perhaps one or two, enhance their photographs. That's an indisputable fact. If it's a matter of not wanting to or not being able to spend the money for an editing program like Photoshop, I can understand why you rail against having to compete against photos that have been post processed. Other than that I really don't think you make much of a case.

Pixoto is never going to ban post processing and they are never going to create some mega digital art category where 99.9 percent of all photos submitted on this site will end up. To answer your question as to how you can compete against pp photos, my suggestion would be to give some thought to the old adage: If you can't beat them, join them.

Then perhaps you will move upwards from that top 20% award level, and Pixoto members will see the true "hidden" beauty of your work and vote on it accordingly.

Just a thought.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
John Larson I disagree completely about EVERY photographer in history has enhanced their photos. That is a foolish argument considering that the type of computer enhancement we're discussing has only been around for a few years. As Anne Santostefano noted what was done in the darkroom 30 - 40 years ago isn't even close to what is being done now. In short the " doctored " photos of then still looked like photos while the computer enhanced " photos " of today actually look in the vast majority of cases like paintings. That is why I coined the term " painting with a camera ". As far as Pixoto banning computer enhancement I don't expect them to. All I expect them to do as regards this problem as I've repeatedly said is to give " the painters with a camera " their own category and to reward them for " photos " that are posted in that category and ONLY that category. I don't dispute that these " painters with a camera " are very skilled but they are skilled in the realm of Computer Techno Geek Wizardy NOT in the art of photography. As far as your " if you can't beat them join them " suggestion what makes you think I can't do that already? I assure you Sir I have the computer skills necessary to be a " painter with a camera . but to date I've chosen not to display them. I can also assure you that if / when I do ALL of that sort of work will be displayed in the " Digital Art " category. I want no awards issued to me for my work of that genre that are not posted in the appropriate category. I do not cheat the photographers of the world out of their chance for their work to be judged fairly against competition from the same genre. Nor do I want to cheat the Pixto photographers of their chance yo enjoy the benefits that come with being a Pixoto member. Their money is as green as anybody else's Sir and they deserve the chance to compete fairly.

Paul Stanner
Photo of John Larson

John Larson

  • 617 Posts
  • 382 Reply Likes
If you read my statement, I referenced "the modern era" so your opening salvo is rather meaningless. As for not wanting any awards for photos you have used your "computer skills to be a "painter with a camera" that are not placed in digital art, you know full well if your photo gets the votes it will be given the appropriate award..so for me that's just empty bravado. As far as calling 99.9 % of the members of this site "cheaters" by submitting post processed photos to compete against the .1% of unprocessed photos, you might want to rethink that statement. If you are so against the policy that site owners describe in weekly contest rules, then perhaps you can find a photo site that only accepts sotc photos. And good luck with that.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
John Larson well perhaps if you'd be a little more specific about what time period constitutes " the Modern Era " we could discuss it at more length. As for me not wanting / accepting any awards for my " painting with a camera " efforts that I post here I guess it's a moot point assuming that I post them only in Digital Art. Who exactly is making the specious argument here? As far as me alleging that the " painters with a camera " are cheating the real photographers if they are winning awards by submitting to incorrect categories then I'll stand by that comment. Why should two different art forms be judged as the same?
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
It's sort of like entering a baking contest with a cake mix cake as opposed to your own recipe.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Anne Santostefano that was an excellent analogy Ma'am. I've never said once anywhere in this topic discussion that Computer Techno Geek Wizardry was not an art form. In fact I've been saying that it is indeed it's own separate art form and should be judged as such. I think all these " painters with a camera " that accuse us of being " purists " and not being able to keep up with the times have another agenda. I wonder exactly how much gold they would take home were they confined to compete in the appropriate category I.E their own? I would also remind the " painters with a camera " that Computer Techno Geek Wizardry is not a difficult skill to master. It's not rocket science. I know grade schoolers that are LEVEL 10 CTGW's.

Keep shooting good Lady.

Paul
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Haha, yeah I especially laugh at the keep up with the times thing, since I have never used a dark room. I started being fascinated and passionate about photography as a little girl, and the film was sent to be processed, most of it on the kodak disk, disposable camera, or regular roll film, and then I got a Polaroid Spectra, fun, but don't get me started on the photo quality or perspective on the viewer of those :p But by the time I was grown enough to buy my own camera, it was a digital, and most cameras were already digital. And I grew up in an already fairly techno age, so there goes that hanging on to yesterday theory. :p
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Lol, what a surprise, I no sooner post that last reply, than I get a notification that my image was reported for wrong category, I smell a conspiracy :p
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Anne Santostefano :

Have you noticed that I seem to have angered the " painters with a camera "? lol Talk about having your panties in a bunch. lol Perhaps their guilty consciences are troubling them.

Paul
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Jasenka as of today Sat. 23 , 2014 the highest rated non computer enhanced , at least to my eyes , photo in the Flowers category is this one. http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... It's currently in the 104th position. Why should this artist who does excellent photographic work be deprived of the # 1 position by the Computer Techno Geek Wizardry of the " painters with a camera ?

A note on a related topic here Jasenka. If this photo is indeed highly computer enhanced then this is what the " painters with a camera " should be striving for . This image looks like a photo as a photographer would express his art NOT like a painting that a " painter with a camera " employing Computer Techno Geek Wizardy would do and then pass off as photography.

Is Pixoto about photography or Computer Techno Geek Wizardry Jasenka.

Paul Stanner
Photo of Ralph Harvey

Ralph Harvey

  • 896 Posts
  • 215 Reply Likes
All through history there have been the "purists" the ones who fight to hold on to the past and demand there way is still the right way because that's the way its always been done ! But they always fall away and are forgotten, as most people end up using common sense and embracing modern changes ! so i will just wait and carry on using common sense !

And as for "painting with a camera" you need a good image to start with not a blank canvas ? so there is more than an average knowledge of photography to begin !
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Ralph I would suggest to you that you are the resistant one. What is the problem with acknowledging that Computer Techno Geek Wizardry has evolved into it's own art form? Perhaps you're scared of what the future holds? As far as needing a good image to " paint with a camera " can you honestly say that with the technical advancements of today's digital cameras it's virtually impossible not to get a good enough image suitable for a very high degree of computer enhancement? I'm sorry Sir but you'll never convince me that the skill involved in " painting with a camera " doesn't lie with Computer Techno Geek Wizardry in spite of the fact that you " painters with a camera " would love the world to believe that you possess photographic talent rather than computer skills.. Nice try though.

Paul Stanner
Photo of John Larson

John Larson

  • 617 Posts
  • 382 Reply Likes
Paul, I thought you were going to leave this site and are requesting a refund. Instead you still hang around and beat the proverbial dead horse, presumably so that people will somehow find you and your work relevant.

I suggest you carry out your "threat" and stop babbling on and whining about an unwinnable topic. Referring back to Jasenka's initial answer to you:

"If you would still like to close your account and refund, please send e-mail from the email address listed on your Pixoto account to DISABLE@PIXOTO.COM and request the account deletion and refund."

Warmest regards, John
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Here we go folks, feel free to chime in. I won't be offended, I promise... Here is a pic of mine from a recent bucket list trip my wife and me took, hiking Southern Utah...It was nine in the morning and the sun popped over a ridge and lit up the desert floor. Here is the pic I took...



The problem is I had only a cheap point and shoot camera in my backpack. Here is the same pic right out of the camera, with no editing...


Should I be stuck with the poorly exposed, unreal depiction of the scene. Or should I have done the retouching to make the scene as realistic as it was to be there at that moment in time? Truly interested in what anyone and everyone has to say. I like the resulting image so you won't hurt my feelings...thanks all!
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
PS..I don't have Photoshop or Lightroom...I use an old version of Windows Photo Gallery that came with my computer...cheers!
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Actually photoshop and lightroom are geared more to just tweeking photos, though you can do more, there are other editing programs that are not so much aimed at pro photographers as the general public who want to pretend they are. These include fake skies, fake cloud formations, fake background, other fake items added to the pics and things taken out of them..and yes that is an "art" unto itself, but once done, now belongs in the digital art category and not the regular photography category. It's kind of like people who create computer illustration, but can't draw with a pencil, vs those who can draw and paint with their hands...yes each are a category and each useful and have their place, but by no means should be in the same category when judged. I hope that clarifies.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
and I might add, I make the analogies from experience because I am both a photographer, and I draw and paint as well. I started drawing at 2 and taking photos at about 5 or 6 :)
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
You just really tweaked the color saturation...but truthfully, when you were there, was the color of the clay hills that intensely orange, or somewhere between what it shows in the bottom, but a little less intense than the top. But it does look good, and it's not over the top refurbishing. Yes I do agree, sometimes conditions aren't ideal for the shoot, so you have to try to recreate with adjustments post camera, but still not a frankenphoto with fake clouds and textures, and maybe even items, that did not exist. But I have to say, some of my award winning shots on here, were taken with a cheap point and shoot.. no editing :D Sometimes with cheap point and shoots you can adjust a setting to allow the camera to "see" and capture it as you see it, or close to it. Sometimes it's angle and position..they say it's not the camera, but the photographer behind it...but when you're good, of course a better camera helps.. it's like trying to draw with a dull pencil as opposed to sharp.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Thanks Anne for your honest opinion! The Park ranger said it had rained the night before and we were lucky because being wet makes the colors of the valley richer. I have also noticed there is a difference between the color saturation on my computer and the color saturation displayed by Pixoto's server. After I upload a Pic the color saturation seems to get washed out a little so I overcompensate a little before uploading...Strangely, this pic is a little less intense displayed on my Pixoto profile.then here in this post. thanks again.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Also I forgot the morning sun added to the color, by noon the color was much less warm.
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
You're welcome. Yes that's true, colors vary for so many reasons, I find sometimes what I saw in my camera and on the display screen viewer on the camera and what I see on the computer, might be either a little darker, lighter or less colorful and yes, different web sites as well. Yes it varied from here to there too.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear John Larson :

Is your guilty conscience bothering you " painter " ?
Photo of John Larson

John Larson

  • 617 Posts
  • 382 Reply Likes
Is that all you've really got, Paul? Why don't you do us all a big favor and leave. I'm sure there's a site out there where you can rant and babble on about your stupid "painter" complaint.

And to answer your question, my conscience is very clear concerning the work I produce. You sound like a spoiled little kid who is jealous his work can't measure up to others so he has to come up with some excuse as to why his work isn't being accepted. Time for you to grow up and stop blaming others for your lack of success.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Question for Paul Stanner...You consistently refer to post processors as "painters with a camera" and you say their work belongs in a different "art form" then unedited photos. If you use the pic right out of the camera, and add nothing of your own value in post processing then how is that an art form at all? Your camera is merely copying the scene before it, That makes your camera a copy machine. It copies what it sees, Please explain how is using a copy machine is an art form? A three year child, or a baboon for that matter, can point a camera at something and trip the shutter...does that make the baboon's work an art form? If you want to use the flat contrast and washed out colors that digital cameras produce it's okay, but you shouldn't complain about folks who want to produce artistic images that evoke emotions. We don't complain about folks who only want to produce copy machine photos.So I might agree to a different category for unedited photos. Edited post processed photos would go into the "art form" category. And unedited straight from the camera photos would go into the "copy machine" category.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Cailin " painting with a camera " does not take artistic talent it takes computer skills. Anne has artistic talent and more importantly excellent artistic taste while assuming that you are solely a " painter with a camera " have computer skills. As far as whether or not you have photographic artisitic talent I couldn't judge that before seeing the picture pre " painting " although I have my suspicions.

Paul
Photo of Anne Santostefano

Anne Santostefano

  • 95 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
had to add, the fact that you say point and shoot says it all..no focus, iso, or fstop adjustments ? hmm.. and as for copies, most heavily edited photos look like copies of each other...
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Tim Hall actually what I really said if you were following the whole thread was that " painting with a camera " belongs in the Digital Art category and NOWHERE else since it's heavily computer enhanced and thusly not a fair competition for photos that have not been heavily computer enhanced. I'm sure though that since you are apparently a " painter with a camera " you've chosen to dismiss my idea out of hand rather than give it the serious consideration it deserves. We both know the reason for that, As far as what my definition of " painting with a camera " is it's as follows. Any photography than has been so computer enhanced as to now look like a painting rather than a photograph is " painting with a camera " and should be posted in Digital Art and ONLY in Digital Art. Artistic works can only be judged fairly against works from the same genres. Judging Kanye West's " music " against Dianna Krall's as jazz is patently unfair to both artists . The reverse is also true. I'm reasonably sure though that since the " painters with a camera " would not win quite as much and thusly have their financial rewards curtailed they will fight this entirely reasonable idea to their dying breaths. I hope fervently that I'll be able to contribute to that process.

Paul
Photo of Cailin

Cailin

  • 423 Posts
  • 71 Reply Likes
Paul and Anne, get a room already and leave this site if you hate it so much...then you can discuss us nasty camera painters until the end of times and we don't have to read your rants any longer.
Photo of Paul Stanner

Paul Stanner

  • 161 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Dear Caillin :

How nice to see you Sir. It's been minutes since we last spoke. I'm honored that you'd take time away from your ' art " to speak with me. I do so look forward to our little chats.
Be seeing you soon I'm sure. Probably in minutes. lol
Now get your butt back to the easel OOOOPPPPS I meant the keybord.

Paul

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.