So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Wysiwyg | 02/28/2006 @015 | edit post

There's been alot of discussion on the subject of how/when a photo has crossed the line into manip. There was even a thread not to long ago. As it stands in the Submission Guidelines: Photo Manipulation 6.1 Works composed solely of other peoples' imagery, unless technically very well executed. Detail: We value originality and encourage members to manipulate their own photos, rather than other people’s photos. If photos of other people (like widely available stock photos are used) the image is expected to be put together in such a fashion that its value exceeds the single originals. Obviously copyrights are to be considered when using other peoples work and the source images need to be linked to. 6.2 Work including other people's imagery without providing links to this material, unless, obviously, links to the used material are provided. Detail: If image material of other people is used, provide links to the used material. Please do not link to, for instance, the main stock photo source, but link to the individual images. Obviously copyrights are to be considered when using other peoples work. If links to the resource material aren’t provided, the artwork will be unpublished. 6.3 Work consisting mainly out of computer generated effects and filters. Detail: Certain filters, effects and automated processes can aid the photmanipulation process. Photomanipulations where these filters, effects and processes have started to rule the look and feel are generally rejected. Here's the definition on the catagories page: Photo Manipulation This category is for all works incorporating photographic material and (a mix) of other techniques. Both compositions or works using fragments of photos together with pen or brush strokes belong here. Unfortunately this definition is very vague and inconclusive, as not all manips include more than one image...The mods have discussed this for some time and the conclusion we came up with (emarts pretty much hit it...I've expanded on it) is that: Any time the edits/manips/changes etc. take precedence over the orignal source material to 1) completely alter it's appearance so as it doesn't represent the original shot 2) take focus away from the subject and put emphasis on the effects instead, then it's considered a manip. Some examples of manips (in a subtle sense) would include: Examples for part 1: Intertwined by  eowyn (included an inverse and gradient map) Sin Titulo by  amuscaria-x (heavy dodge/burn) Examples for part 2: Diabolical eye by  DeathEssence (select desat, combined with an unrealistic eye color sat) Boarding Station by  chmichnga (the lighting added is more the focus than the scene itself) Now selective desaturation doesn't automatically mean manip... Pink Bits 03 by  Klayemore is a good example of that. The main subject is originally the girl, and remains so. The selective color was an asthetic choice to help with the layout. Now classifying something as a 'manip' is not a derogatory act. Some folks have taken much offense to this, but to do so is a discredit to the manip catagory, as the work itself doesn't lose any quality when moved to a different catagory I want to also remind you that all of these examples have NO FILTER WORK involved. As I wanted to express that it doesn't take filter abuse to make a manip. As common darkroom techniques can do it's fair share amount of manip creating.  Martin was about to publish the new guidelines, but some other recent discussions have had us deciding that some other aspects are still in need of revision. But as it stands, this is the guidance that we are following for the classification of what is manip and what isn't. Some of you may disagree, and some other sites may have different rules, but this is the GFX standard for right now. As usual I'll put in my disclaimer that as an small volunteer force we don't catch everything, so again it's up to the members to aid in shaping this site and helping maintain the standards set forth by the admins. I hope this cleared a few things up. Wysi EDIT I HAVE UPDATED THIS POST TO REFLECT THE CURRENT GUIDELINES

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
bellas | 02/28/2006 @426 | edit post

buh... nothing here respect guidelines.

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Wysiwyg | 02/28/2006 @506 | edit post

quote:  bellas wrote on 02/28 @426 buh... nothing here respect guidelines. Just like you here eh bellas? Reference: http://www.gfxartist.com/about/FAQ/14848/ Rule #1 when posting in forums. Basically, if you have nothing positive/constructive to say (which you never do) then just go away....

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Inabottle | 02/28/2006 @530 | edit post

I prefer complete manipulations, I enjoy the works of http://absolute-naut.gfxartist.com/ and http://skulpturro.gfxartist.com/ I however am not a big fan of what http://acida.gfxartist.com/ produces. Its just an opinion. Textures and layer blends, and a model with his or face, jacked up might be a manip, but nothing spectacular. I think a manipulation is a series of stock photos put together, to create something completely different than what was photographed, or taking a photo and removing or adding elements. I dont think manipulations should always be aparent, but I do think they should be composed just like any other piece of art.

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
kittyKat | 02/28/2006 @562 | edit post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomanipulation http://www.pixeltool.com.ve/tutorialshtml/t_manip_en.htm http://www.worth1000.com/default.asp http://photoshopcontest.com/ just my 2 cents.. a minip is a PHOTO changed added or tweaked. not traced also using members as examples is only going to get them teed off.. and this will be a flame thread.. again my 2 cents.. may the meatball gods be with you all. bye [Message edited on 02/28 @566]

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
emarts | 02/28/2006 @645 | edit post

To me a good photomanip retains the qualities of a photograph. Some of those examples you show, Pam fall under illustration or even photo-illustration. If I could use my own examples (not meaning to toot my own horn), take a look at this image: http://emarts.gfxartist.com/artworks/73613. Also look at the source photos that were used. I categorized this image under photography because my intent was to produce a nice photograph. However, I clearly used elements from two different photos to compose the final. In the very technical sense of the term, this is a photo manip. But since my intention was not to showcase the manip, I felt it still belonged in the photography section. Although if I was looking for feedback on my technique, then I would place it in Photomanip. Here's another one: prehistory by  emarts The lizard's eye was completely out of focus, so I replaced it with another from a different photo. Technically, a manip, but the emphasis was on the image, so I put it in the photography section. On the other hand, there's this: A Kitchen Project by  emarts The final image could probably still be considered a photo, but I wanted to bring attention to the manips to get feedback on my work. So what am I trying to say here? I think you need to think about the subject of (reason for) the image. Like Bret said, if it takes the focus away from the subject and puts emphasis on the effects instead, then it's a manip. But if you wanted to emphasize the final image (and it's not immediately obvious that it's been manipped), then you could put it in Photography. On this site, the audience is gennerally more knowlegeable regarding digital photography and art, and is not the same as hanging an artwork on a gallery wall for general public vieweig. Keep that in mind. Personally, I think Photomanip can be broken down into smaller chunks icluding, retouching and photo-illustration. The two are completely different where retouching can still be considered a photo but photo-illustration is always a manip. Also, there's photo-collage where multiple images are blended without much manipulation at all. In that case, I think it would still be a manip. I also think that not everything is absolute. For instance, even if a painting contains trace elements of a photo, it may still be considered a painting depending on its use. For instance, let's say you paint a scene of someone standing under the marquee of a theater and there are movie posters on the wall. If the whole scene is painted but you added images of the posters (for some strange reason), I would still consider it to be a painting. Well ,those are my thoughts. I'd keep them to myself, but . . .

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
ARTOONATOR | 02/28/2006 @649 | edit post

A photo-manipulation shows photo-elements that are altered and combined to serve a personal concept.

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Juro | 02/28/2006 @790 | edit post

Most photo's need to be tweaked a little before posting to get the best results, however over using these tools to make the photograph into something it could never be in the first place I think would consitute a photo manip.

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Wysiwyg | 02/28/2006 @895 | edit post

@Pam All the artists mentioned had either conciously placed their work in manip on their own or it was moved and they understood/agreed with the reasons. No reasons for flame. This is a public website, to place artwork in it does not mean it's can't/won't be used as a subject for reference. Just like when you post photos...right miss Chop-queen? Thanks for the definitions as viewed by other sites also ...but remember that GFX has it's own rules by which it governs. Just like other art sites have different standards of quality/completion/subject matter for submission. @everyone else I want to also say I've gotten several PM's saying this helped clear up a bunch of confusion. I know I'm glad to hear that...I encourage everyone to place a link to this thread to those (in the future) may have some questions about their own work. Let me remind you this is not a stage for a debate but an explanation of policy. Still...discussion is healthy, but at least now you know the site's perspective and how it will be evaluating works in the future. P.S. I like Arne's definition too, but unfortunately if it's not spelled out here people begin trying to expliot the subjectiveness of a general statement. *edited for grammer [Message edited on 02/28 @899]

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Almost-Human | 02/28/2006 @918 | edit post

I would have thought a photo manip was or should I say is when you produce something using photos that you could not do in a traditional darkroom........... So Dodge burn, colour shifts b/w etc would simple be photos? I quote Brett here... I HAVE NOT READ EVERYLINE ABOVE>> so dont beat me... I BITE BACK> hehe

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Wysiwyg | 02/28/2006 @920 | edit post

If you read the first post I did, the actual policy we are using now, it will explain when using any tools (darkroom included) how/when it crosses the line to manip. [Message edited on 02/28 @921]

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Almost-Human | 02/28/2006 @922 | edit post

I am afraid to read it ! EDIT: ok I have read it... Now stick to painting or I will beat you with a large Banana.. [Message edited on 02/28 @927]

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
ThruMyEyez | 03/01/2006 @077 | edit post

The guidelines as stated seem very reasonable and should be readily understood by most.

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
ARTOONATOR | 03/01/2006 @728 | edit post

quote:  Wysiwyg wrote on 02/28 @506 [...] Just like you here eh bellas? Reference: http://www.gfxartist.com/about/FAQ/14848/ Rule #1 when posting in forums. Basically, if you have nothing positive/constructive to say (which you never do) then just go away.... Great comeback Brett You're so right. [Message edited on 03/01 @729]

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
uncle-xeN | 03/02/2006 @315 | edit post

quote:  Wysiwyg wrote on 02/28 @506 [...] Just like you here eh bellas? Reference: http://www.gfxartist.com/about/FAQ/14848/ Rule #1 when posting in forums. Basically, if you have nothing positive/constructive to say (which you never do) then just go away.... it was constructive. rules are worthless if no one goes sure that theyre used. [Message edited on 03/02 @315]

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Juro | 03/02/2006 @599 | edit post

"it was constructive. rules are worthless if no one goes sure that theyre used." What do you think we do? If you do think anyone is breaking the rules tell one of us.

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Wysiwyg | 03/02/2006 @963 | edit post

quote:  uncle-xeN wrote on 03/02 @315 it was constructive. rules are worthless if no one goes sure that theyre used. No constructive is offering a solution, rather than just listing a complaint.

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Graphuji | 03/02/2006 @982 | edit post

This reminds me of one my images (back when I actually used to post anything and not just lurk around the forums) I decided that the picture was un-representative of the original that it couldn't really classify as a photo any more. The Gateway [Message edited on 03/02 @982]

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Wysiwyg | 03/02/2006 @986 | edit post

Good point...and right decision

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Azurelle | 05/06/2006 @612 | edit post

Reading this thread is very interesting. But now it makes me wonder: What is with those guys who use a huge amount of textures for their painting? Would it be theoretically a photo manipulation then? (It would make much work to sort those works out anyways >_>

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Wysiwyg | 05/06/2006 @622 | edit post

Good point....as textures weren't really brought up. The biggest concern was in clarifying at what point does an 'enhancement/edit' of a photo cross the line. So far we haven't had much of a problem since. ...though I have been gone for a month so who knows what slipped by

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Azurelle | 05/06/2006 @656 | edit post

Hmm.. OK a further question then is: It could be that a handpainted painting includes an overpaint of an apple - so is it a manipulation then? And/ or would it be a manipulation if some texture was added to the apple to give it a better look? o_O

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Wysiwyg | 05/06/2006 @673 | edit post

Why do you hate me? Best hip pocket answer I can give is Paragraph 5.1 in the new guidelines... 5.1 Paintings including, or fully based upon photographic material Detail: Using reference material is one thing, but recreating or including photo material results in a mixed media work unfit for the painting section. These works are rejected unless submitted to Photo Manipulation or Design (depending on the work’s characteristics). Obviously copyrights are to be considered when using other peoples work and the source material has to be linked to when posting in Photo Manipulation or Design. This is my first day back in a month...and yer killin' me! *leaves to go use his newly purchased 9x12 Intuos 3 [Message edited on 05/06 @673]

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Azurelle | 05/06/2006 @744 | edit post

I'm killing you? An all mighty GFX moderator? That's like killing a "GoD" you know However, that would theoretically mean that most vector art which usually is sorted under drawings would have to be sorted as photo manip because most vector artists work with tracing? It would look a bit strange to me to see a huge a mount of vector pieces and paintings that include textures and such suddenly in the photomanip section because a photomanip usually is made in a way that shows that a photo has been manipualted with photoparts, sothat the final result still looks like a photo and not like a painting..? o_O Yes I'm killing you

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
ThursChild | 05/08/2006 @684 | edit post

Some of those earlier examples included were more in Illustration type.Acc. 2 me IMHO;photomanip must include complete taking away of FOCUS from the subject of photograph.

Re: So how does GFX define Photomanip?
Traff | 05/27/2006 @572 | edit post

If It walks like a duck, smells like a duck and looks like a duck... it probably is a duck.. This is just an ‘oddity’ I guess, but the following caused a little antagonism at the time it was published…. In the end, after the photographers technique was explained it was left in the photography section…. ...this odd dream I had... by  Giorgio however…. I’d suggest that this does in fact belong under Photo Manip. The author has used a photographic ‘fragment’ and re-photographed it. It is in fact a blending of 2 photographs made to look like a single image. The technique he used is irrelevant (ie re-photographed rather than Post Processing). If you were to take several cutout photos, (eg Bat’s Wings, Fly’s Bodies and Grizly Blood Dripping Axes, etc) paste them all together to make a complete fantasy figure and then, re-photograph it… I think this would more obviously constitute Photo Manip, but the process is exactly the same If you were to take REAL Bat’s Wings, Fly’s Bodies and Grizly Blood Dripping Axes, attached them to each other and photographed them… I think it would be 3D (since photographs of sculptures are admitted there. If however, you were to take REAL Bat’s Wings, Fly’s Bodies and Grizly Blood Dripping Axes, arrange them on a table and photograph them… it would be still life photography. It's hardly an issue now.... just wondering for future reference... Just one of those things that keeps me up at night… I really should get out more! Phill [Message edited on 05/27 @581]