RP is now accepting illustrations!

[Dennis A. Livesey]

I guess RP is now accepting illustrations. Or at least photos that look like illustrations.

PhotoID: 411547 Photograph © Chris Mohs

[JRMDC]

Wow, 2-3 "call-out" type comments for the same shot! I don't recall seeing that before.

[Joe the Photog]

I don't have a big problem with it.

[magicman_841]

This guy's highlights sliders goes to 11!

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by magicman_841

This guy's highlights sliders goes to 11!

"Like"

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by magicman_841

This guy's highlights sliders goes to 11!

Blinded by all that yellow.

Should have used a gray card for sure.

[Kyle Korienek]

I knew this would get called out, but I am impressed at how quick it was, I figured tomorrow morning at the earliest...

Well done...

[Holloran Grade]

HDR type shots are allowed too it seems.

PhotoID: 411576 Photograph © Chase Gunnoe

I like the shot BTW.

[JRMDC]

Not a fan of HDR, but I understand their place in photography and I don't have to like them. But those blue car sides in Chase's shot, wow that saturation is out of whack, that just throws off the entire shot. I can't think of any genre in which that makes sense. My harsh opinion. Obviously opinions vary and two forum regulars have already left positive comments on the shot.

As for the UP, I'm in agreement with everyone but Joe.

[trainboysd40]

OW, MY EYES!
(And that's saying something)

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

.....As for the UP, I'm in agreement with everyone but Joe.

Joe enjoys being contrary.

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade

Joe enjoys being contrary.

I don't agree with that statement at all.

[oltmannd]

It's pretty, but I'm not sure you can still call it a photograph.

[khalucha]

That yellow in the shot is like looking at a neon sign.

[Freericks]

I would agree with those who disagree with the fellow who disagreed with everyone else.

[magicman_841]

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by Freericks

I would agree with those who disagree with the fellow who disagreed with everyone else.

WORD!



This is filler because my reply is too short.

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

I guess RP is now accepting illustrations. Or at least photos that look like illustrations.

They've been doing that for some time now. Or have you missed Gary Knapp's photos?

PhotoID: 262095 Photograph © Gary Knapp

PhotoID: 262350 Photograph © Gary Knapp

PhotoID: 390917 Photograph © Gary Knapp

Honestly, the "offending" photo that started this thread has nothing on Gary's illustrations.

Jon

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

They've been doing that for some time now. Or have you missed Gary Knapp's photos?

I remember these fprums spent what seemed like weeks on a few of Knapp's photos. I bet my opinion may have changed somewhat if I were to go back and see some of those threads, but I love the shots you linked. Yeah, they may be crossing the line between photographs and digitally manuplated images, but I'd love to see them hanging on a wall somwhere.

And the people have pretty much spoken on his work.

PhotoID: 262095 Photograph © Gary Knapp

27,000 views
25 comments
188 favorites
Photo of the Week
#1 Peoples Choice

PhotoID: 262350 Photograph © Gary Knapp

12,450+ views
10 comments
89 favorites
#4 Peoples Choice

PhotoID: 390917 Photograph © Gary Knapp

8,000+ views
10 comments
85 favorites
#1 Peoples Choice

Numbers don't lie. Even the gold UP shot made the most viewed yesterday

[MDH]

Originally Posted by oltmannd

It's pretty, but I'm not sure you can still call it a photograph.

That would be because it doesn't even vaguely represent the reality you would see if you were standing next to the photographer (and thus flagrantly violates several of the long standard rules of this site - "overprocessed" just being one of several). So are we now allowed to overprocess the heck out of stuff and bend reality into a painting and have it accepted now, or is this just another to add to the list of one off "oops!" from a screener...

[Joe the Photog]

Photography is subjective, as we know, and it should also be about pushing the envelope. I woujld have processed the UP shot differentlly. (At the very least, I would have brought the brightness down.) But I don't have a problem with the shot being on RP. It doesn't discredit my shots or any other shot in the database.

The neat part of photography is that if ten of us were shooting the same scene, by the time we got finsihed with the whole process (shooting, cropping and processing) the "reality" we all see may not resemble that of the guy beside us. Foamfest at Spencer respresents that pretty well.

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by MDH

That would be because it doesn't even vaguely represent the reality you would see if you were standing next to the photographer

I have a lot that would fit that category.


The glow didn't look quite as pronounced as this.

PhotoID: 404092 Photograph © EL ROCO Photography

The sky and area around us was much darker.

PhotoID: 401856 Photograph © EL ROCO Photography

My eyes did not see this.

PhotoID: 384735 Photograph © EL ROCO Photography

I can go on.

[MDH]

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade

I have a lot that would fit that category.

Before I just smack my forehead and walk away...

Are you completely missing the point or intentionally trolling?

All of your shots are pretty "conventional" and other than maybe juicing the saturation, etc. there's nothing "unreal" about the results captured by the camera.

The original shot that kicked this off reminds me of some of the absolute crap that I see posted on Trainorders where someone shot the dark side and then jacked the shadow/highlights slider to the max to "make it look better". As a fringe benefit, the whole thing looks weird and pastel-painting like. Otherwise the technical elements are better than the usual garbage on TO, but the end result is still something that looks like... an illustration and not a photograph.

So what? one may ask... well, the image is contrary to the current established rules of the site - so have the rules changed or is this an "exception". That's a legitimate question for site administration.

I will say though that if stuff like this becomes common it will diminish this site overall. I may be speaking for myself but quite a few other photographer friends of mine don't care for these types of radically overprocessed shots either. I still visit TO for the news & information and try to avoid crappy looking pictures like this - but here the site is pretty much all about the pictures so if I have to wade through crap like this, why bother?

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by MDH

Before I just smack my forehead and walk away...

Might be a good idea.

Originally Posted by MDH

All of your shots are pretty "conventional" and other than maybe juicing the saturation, etc. there's nothing "unreal" about the results captured by the camera.

So say "you."

Where on that slippery slope do "you" want to draw the line?

Originally Posted by MDH

The original shot that kicked this off reminds me of some of the absolute crap .......

I think the pannel is in agreement with that assertion, but the discussion has moved on - many posts ago.

Originally Posted by MDH

I still visit TO for the news & information and try to avoid crappy looking pictures like this ......

TO ain't a photo site, it is for the rivet counters of which I am not one.

[Joe the Photog]

No one is forcing anyone to look at a shot. Don't like the thumbnail? Don't click on it. Since all of the shots mentioned in this thread have made the front page, it seems somewhat logical to assume that most people do like the shots in question.