This is absolutely incredible... and I agree with everything you said about photography. and I dont think it should be placed in manipulation. but Im sure you will have many a messages telling you it has to be moved

+10

• Mark

I agree with what you say, and I wish a wider definition of photography too... but, if this isn't a manip, then what is a manip?
Fantastic image though! Great mood and I like the cold, crispy colors. I've always been a fan of your works.

slaphapy5: Thank you!

SandraS: I only look at pictures as pictures. Paintings, drawings and photography is all the same to me. Whatever technique you use, I see it the same. These categories we make are just external technicalities.

But I feel there is no such thing as manips, or if so then every photograph is a manip. Pointless in other words. I DO reckognize the difference between my type of work and what you usually see in this section at Gfxartist. But from my knowledge of the early birth and darkroom origins of photography I see more likeness in my own work than these other "straighter" photography that we have gotten used to. (this has to do with photography being used as a family-snapshot and journalistic tool more than photography used for artistic matters)

Different sides of photography there obviously are. But it all equally deserving to be defined as photography.

If anyone wants to say "only straight photography in here, because this is how we like to work our pictures", -that is well and good. I can even relate to such a thought. But THAT is the subcategory of photography which should be (and IS sometimes) called "straight photography", not manip's (unless you choose to on a similiar basis)

Why I don't call mine manips? Because I don't have heavy post editing as a philosophy or goal in itself.. Sometimes things can be done easily in front of the lens, other times it is easier done in Photoshop afterwards. I just chose whatever method is simplest, cheapest or most amusing, with the goal in mind.

What I'd like to see in sites like GFXartist is a free-for-all Photography category, and additional categories like "Straightist photography" if people like to restrict themselves to certain tools.. (but for starters that I can put my images where it seems logical to me)

Way to much post editing, needs to be in manipulation. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... it's a duck. Cloning out a piece of dust or editing for contrast does not make a photo a manip. BUT, adding a considerable amount of textures does. I do work in a traditional darkroom and there are certain things you can do in there that are considered manipulations.

Anyways, I really like the mood of this and the surreal atmosphere.

Some of the white highlights are too bright though.

Sigh...Erland we've already had this conversation.

Every artist is entitled to interpret art, and all definitions therein in a way that's unique to themselves.

BUT, when uploading to GFX, you need to adhere to GFX rules and definitions.

The categories here are indeed need of some additional subcategories, but unfortunately that's outside my reach, and the programmers have made it clear they have other priorities (the projects they actually pay the bills).

With the advent of Adobe Lightroom and Camera Raw Plugins...HDR photography....The line between manip and photo, is becoming more blurred. In regards to post processing.

I do plan on working with the Admins in the very near future in regards to redefining what needs to go in the 'manip' catagory (strangely I was typing about this on Monday...what timing) and what stays in photo. Most likely it will be a combination of input from the Admins, mods...and yes members (I'll start a thread at the appropriate time).

But for now, the guidelines are simple. As GFX defines manips now, this belongs in that catagory.

I implore you not to unpublish or give reason to unpublish as it is a amazing work. I also ask you be on standby as I will be sure to contact you when this 'redefinition' discussion takes place as I'm sure you can give some unique insight.

I think it is a very bad idea that a site has such strong stances on what is this and what is that. It should be left to the individuals to define themselves. (And such works very well on other websites). Let the members fight it out, in stead of inspiring this severe lack of questioning what is photography. It's completely fine that you or most people don't agree with me. I just want the freedom to define myself when I enter images. Of course, it's your site to do with what you want and such. But I am tempted to make parallells with different types of political government here.. though this is a storm in a teacup in comparison. One might assume that you wanted to make the best site possible.

You mention Lightroom and the simple tool of ACR as blurring the lines of photography and manipulation. But let me guess, my work will never be defined by you as photography, as it is usually as post editied as it can get.

This kind of moderation makes for a very very poor climate.

Mork - if i took a pencil and drew on a piece of paper that doesn't mean it's a painting. Or photography. Or 3d modelling. It's a drawing.

This work is a photo-manipulation, as we have tried to tell you before. If you don't agree that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that at this site, that's what it is categorized as.

Yes I've been told numerous times before, but I've seen very little reasoning for "your" views, while I've put forth a lot of argumentation on my part. Pretty much I see automatons repeating the same old comfortable truth.

Great composition and surreal elements. It doesn't look like a photograph. It doesn't even look like a photo manipulation. But it does look like pixels on a screen.

Indeed they are.. 690 x 487 RGB pixels to be viewed and judged as such.

Always a pleasure viewing your work

Very Good

Excellent work. +10