PP gallery....would anyone be interested?

slip · 02-22-2007, 09:38 PM

If there was enough interest, what do people think?
we could share with others how we did it.... from simple PP to complex.

just an idea, what do you think Mo?

thanks for your input

cheers

randy

Ole · 02-22-2007, 11:16 PM

Great idea! There is so much to learn that we can go on for quite a while!

Photo Tramp · 02-23-2007, 02:16 AM

It would be a good idea.

Matjazz · 02-23-2007, 02:28 AM

Hmm... almost every image is post processed so where would one put postprocessed portrait?? Besides that to demonstrate postprocessing one must see original and postprocessed version of the same image while gallery is designed for single image posting.
I guess we could have a postprocessing forum but than again one can already post postprocessed images in the "post your images" forum.

**jfdavis58** · 02-23-2007, 06:55 AM

It's good the general consensus is that it's a good idea, I lean that way too; with a few conditions.

Original sources should be sought and correctly identified. This is purely practical because people drop lines in long recipes. Next thing you know, twenty people flood the thread with 'you're wrong', messages, and thing go down-hill fast from there.

A consistent color space must be universal-this is probably self evident, but...

A new nomenclature should be adopted where file size and image size are obvious. The term 100% crop should be run out of town on a rail! To me a 100% crop is nothing left! The original image is 'h by v' pixels should suffice for truly full sized images. This is 'h by v' pixels from the upper left, middle , or this is actual pixels from the region around the mouth/nose/left eye, building, etc. Notes that something is from the image file or a screen snapshot are also important.

We need to be mindful of 'bashing'. Saying something is broke, bad, off, wrong MUST require quantification! Just because the 'out-of-box' defaults don't work for you, doesn't make the software busted!

We need to keep 'up-to-date' and 'open-minded'. I have favorite software and hardware; some of it isn't in production any more. I'm 'over-it' and 'have moved-on'. Hashing a dead/defunct item is just noise-unwanted noise.

Experiments fail; but one or two or three samples hardly make an experiment. Especially with no control item. Experiments of this sort are 'partial' and would need dozens of samples added to prove something good or bad, right or wrong.

Bashing, timeliness and experimentation are three areas-recklessly and hysterically out of control-on this and several other photo forums; these and playing any equivalent of a Godwin's Law trump card. People are entitled to both their opinions and their emotions; after all this photo stuff at least borders on art. In just the last few days I've given serious consideration to chucking the whole mess of forums I visit for something more sedate-like explosive building demolishing or needlepoint.

roentarre · 02-24-2007, 01:16 AM

John's arguments are always succinct and authoritive. They do make sense. I am just not sure how serious we are in post processing techniques because there is a big crowd of "purity" belief, preferring "non-processed" images.

I would love this kind of forum and this would open another path for creativity.

Cheers

Rolly · 02-24-2007, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by jfdavis58

In just the last few days I've given serious consideration to chucking the whole mess of forums I visit for something more sedate-like explosive building demolishing or needlepoint.

You're not alone on your island Mr. Crusoe. I've been considering freelancing in Afghanistan or the middle-East for a couple of christian evangelical magazines as a possibly quieter alternative.

Photo Tramp · 02-24-2007, 07:03 AM

After reading Johns reply I can honestly say I'm sorry the forum upsets you so much.
However I do feel Post processing is part of photography and photography is very much a part of art. I think if those new to Digital photography and RAW shooting would like to learn more about post processing then those of us who do more then just adjust levels and shadows / highlights would be more inclined to give an offering of help. But since not everyone has the same software it might be a bit tricky to explain. So setting aside a post processing thread might be asking a little much.
Now if and when you post a photo and say you want an opinion and you use XWZ for post processing and would anyone care to help you make it better in post processing the thread would be open for those who have knowledge for that software. I think this would be a better solution.

slip · 02-24-2007, 08:30 AM

I was only thinking it would be based on people's creativity. If someone thinks it is creative enough to post on the pp forum it would be up to them.
as someone viewing this person's work, if that someone thinks in is not worthy to be put in a PP gallery, all they have to do is look at the next one.

just my soap box opinion

cheers

randy

aabram · 02-24-2007, 09:06 AM

I almost always postprocess my images, exept summer outdoor pics and/or documentary style pics (was there, did that). I often correct contrast or brightness, even if for just one notch. I'd have to post all my pics to PP forum then?

If we need to draw the line then I'd suggest separating PP (post-processing) from PM (photo manipulation). PP for me is altering the image information: darker, brighter, enhancing reds/greens, (de)staurating, levels etc etc. PM is adding or removing to/from image. Removing power lines is PM, enhancing blues of the the sky and whites of the clouds is PP.

Recent PP contest had both types of contributions, enhanced and manipulated photos. If anything then I'd suggest a separate area for photo manipulation. Simple PP is natural way of producing final shot, in my opinion.

benjikan · 02-24-2007, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by slipchuck

If there was enough interest, what do people think?
we could share with others how we did it.... from simple PP to complex.

just an idea, what do you think Mo?

thanks for your input

cheers

randy

I'm sorry...But what is PP? I know that as a child what that meant, but, I doubt if that is the subject matter. I suspect it means Pentax Photos?

**Marc Langille** · 02-24-2007, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

I'm sorry...But what is PP? I know that as a child what that meant, but, I doubt if that is the subject matter. I suspect it means Pentax Photos?

In this case it's "Post-Processing" - your sharpening techniques are a great example.

I've been away for a while - how goes the new gear?

Regards,
Marc

slip · 02-24-2007, 04:01 PM

thank you to everyone who made an opinion on this.

sounds to me like it wouldn't fly.

once again thanks

cheers

randy

Rolly · 02-25-2007, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

I'm sorry...But what is PP? I know that as a child what that meant, but, I doubt if that is the subject matter. I suspect it means Pentax Photos?

You know very well that it means "post processing" _ which is exactly what my mate's old hound does whenever it gets taken out 'walkies' for a pipì!

02-22-2007, 09:38 PM	#1
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	PP gallery....would anyone be interested? If there was enough interest, what do people think? we could share with others how we did it.... from simple PP to complex. just an idea, what do you think Mo? thanks for your input cheers randy

02-24-2007, 12:26 PM	#11
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Good Idea..I think... Originally posted by slipchuck If there was enough interest, what do people think? we could share with others how we did it.... from simple PP to complex. just an idea, what do you think Mo? thanks for your input cheers randy I'm sorry...But what is PP? I know that as a child what that meant, but, I doubt if that is the subject matter. I suspect it means Pentax Photos? Last edited by benjikan; 03-14-2007 at 05:54 AM.

02-24-2007, 03:06 PM	#12
Marc Langille Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NW Arkansas, USA Posts: 4,710	acronyms... Originally posted by benjikan I'm sorry...But what is PP? I know that as a child what that meant, but, I doubt if that is the subject matter. I suspect it means Pentax Photos? In this case it's "Post-Processing" - your sharpening techniques are a great example. I've been away for a while - how goes the new gear? Regards, Marc

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Interested in Self Portraiture...	LIGirl	Photographic Technique	8	01-24-2011 04:11 PM
Interested in Macro Photography but...	Praestigium	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	36	05-19-2010 06:48 PM
An investor is interested in me.	MJB DIGITAL	Photographic Industry and Professionals	36	02-08-2010 05:01 PM
Declined in the Pentax Gallery (gallery members only, please).	HowLowCanYaGo	Post Your Photos!	18	12-14-2007 11:04 AM

02-22-2007, 11:16 PM	#2
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,408	Great idea! There is so much to learn that we can go on for quite a while!

02-23-2007, 02:16 AM	#3
Photo Tramp Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lancaster, PA. Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,041	It would be a good idea.

02-23-2007, 02:28 AM	#4
Matjazz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: EU/Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 774	Hmm... almost every image is post processed so where would one put postprocessed portrait?? Besides that to demonstrate postprocessing one must see original and postprocessed version of the same image while gallery is designed for single image posting. I guess we could have a postprocessing forum but than again one can already post postprocessed images in the "post your images" forum.

02-23-2007, 06:55 AM	#5
jfdavis58 Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 13 S 0357397-3884316 Photos: Gallery Posts: 887	It's good the general consensus is that it's a good idea, I lean that way too; with a few conditions. Original sources should be sought and correctly identified. This is purely practical because people drop lines in long recipes. Next thing you know, twenty people flood the thread with 'you're wrong', messages, and thing go down-hill fast from there. A consistent color space must be universal-this is probably self evident, but... A new nomenclature should be adopted where file size and image size are obvious. The term 100% crop should be run out of town on a rail! To me a 100% crop is nothing left! The original image is 'h by v' pixels should suffice for truly full sized images. This is 'h by v' pixels from the upper left, middle , or this is actual pixels from the region around the mouth/nose/left eye, building, etc. Notes that something is from the image file or a screen snapshot are also important. We need to be mindful of 'bashing'. Saying something is broke, bad, off, wrong MUST require quantification! Just because the 'out-of-box' defaults don't work for you, doesn't make the software busted! We need to keep 'up-to-date' and 'open-minded'. I have favorite software and hardware; some of it isn't in production any more. I'm 'over-it' and 'have moved-on'. Hashing a dead/defunct item is just noise-unwanted noise. Experiments fail; but one or two or three samples hardly make an experiment. Especially with no control item. Experiments of this sort are 'partial' and would need dozens of samples added to prove something good or bad, right or wrong. Bashing, timeliness and experimentation are three areas-recklessly and hysterically out of control-on this and several other photo forums; these and playing any equivalent of a Godwin's Law trump card. People are entitled to both their opinions and their emotions; after all this photo stuff at least borders on art. In just the last few days I've given serious consideration to chucking the whole mess of forums I visit for something more sedate-like explosive building demolishing or needlepoint.

02-24-2007, 01:16 AM	#6
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	John's arguments are always succinct and authoritive. They do make sense. I am just not sure how serious we are in post processing techniques because there is a big crowd of "purity" belief, preferring "non-processed" images. I would love this kind of forum and this would open another path for creativity. Cheers

02-24-2007, 05:31 AM	#7
Rolly Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 295	Originally posted by jfdavis58 In just the last few days I've given serious consideration to chucking the whole mess of forums I visit for something more sedate-like explosive building demolishing or needlepoint. You're not alone on your island Mr. Crusoe. I've been considering freelancing in Afghanistan or the middle-East for a couple of christian evangelical magazines as a possibly quieter alternative.

02-24-2007, 07:03 AM	#8
Photo Tramp Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lancaster, PA. Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,041	After reading Johns reply I can honestly say I'm sorry the forum upsets you so much. However I do feel Post processing is part of photography and photography is very much a part of art. I think if those new to Digital photography and RAW shooting would like to learn more about post processing then those of us who do more then just adjust levels and shadows / highlights would be more inclined to give an offering of help. But since not everyone has the same software it might be a bit tricky to explain. So setting aside a post processing thread might be asking a little much. Now if and when you post a photo and say you want an opinion and you use XWZ for post processing and would anyone care to help you make it better in post processing the thread would be open for those who have knowledge for that software. I think this would be a better solution.

02-24-2007, 08:30 AM	#9
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535 Original Poster	I was only thinking it would be based on people's creativity. If someone thinks it is creative enough to post on the pp forum it would be up to them. as someone viewing this person's work, if that someone thinks in is not worthy to be put in a PP gallery, all they have to do is look at the next one. just my soap box opinion cheers randy

02-24-2007, 09:06 AM	#10
aabram Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Estonia Posts: 261	I almost always postprocess my images, exept summer outdoor pics and/or documentary style pics (was there, did that). I often correct contrast or brightness, even if for just one notch. I'd have to post all my pics to PP forum then? If we need to draw the line then I'd suggest separating PP (post-processing) from PM (photo manipulation). PP for me is altering the image information: darker, brighter, enhancing reds/greens, (de)staurating, levels etc etc. PM is adding or removing to/from image. Removing power lines is PM, enhancing blues of the the sky and whites of the clouds is PP. Recent PP contest had both types of contributions, enhanced and manipulated photos. If anything then I'd suggest a separate area for photo manipulation. Simple PP is natural way of producing final shot, in my opinion.

02-24-2007, 04:01 PM	#13
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535 Original Poster	thank you to everyone who made an opinion on this. sounds to me like it wouldn't fly. once again thanks cheers randy

02-25-2007, 10:40 PM	#14
Rolly Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 295	Originally posted by benjikan I'm sorry...But what is PP? I know that as a child what that meant, but, I doubt if that is the subject matter. I suspect it means Pentax Photos? You know very well that it means "post processing" _ which is exactly what my mate's old hound does whenever it gets taken out 'walkies' for a pipì!