Gallery Thoughts

[ch1]

A few days ago, controversy was rampant about the "appropriateness" of various photos posted to the Gallery that were taken at a political rally. For a time, they were removed from the site as "controverisal".

They were later "restored".

Setting aside the "controversy" - apparently all of those photos were taken with a RF - apprpriate to the purpose of this RFF website.

Now we find posted as the "picture of the week" an image taken with a DSLR and processed through Photoshop (check the commentary including the reponse of the image-taker).

When I first viewed the image I thought it was digital and heavily processed - hence my comment that it seemed like a "cartoon".

No one commented on this - but continued to praise the color etc.

Thankfully, the image-maker chimed in and noted that it was a DSLR image which had been also subjected to some degree of PS.

Why does this image remain posted on the website as a featured photo with the caption:

"Every now and then RFF will pick a photograph which represents an artistic and creative view captured on film by a rangefinder camera. This photograph will be the RFF featured photo. Please congratulate AlexC by clicking on the thumbnail to view the full size image and comment on the photo."?????

:bang:

 

[FrankS]

Good question.

I don't mind the photoshop work since that's a matter of degree - all photos are digitized and tweaked, if only automatically, by the scanning process. It's the digital camera part that has me baffled too. It's clearly not "an image captured on film."

 

[Nikon Bob]

It is a mystery to me too.

Bob

 

[FrankS]

Frankly speaking, there is no mystery. The 2 incidents simply reflect the bias of the site's owner. I can live with that, because otherwise this site is so excellent.

 

[ch1]

Frankly speaking, there is no mystery. The 2 incidents simply reflect the bias of the site's owner. I can live with that, because otherwise this site is so excellent.

Agreed!

Perhaps, most importantly, it is up to those who submit photos (images) to the Gallery to be "honest" as to their provenance.

I agree that all gallery postings here (since they have to be scanned) are subject to some degree of "imaging". And perhaps some "sharpening", or whatever, in PS is too tempting to resist by many (most?) of us before posting.

But this "photo" was posted to the RF Gallery despite the fact it was not a RF photo.

As a submitted photo on this website, Jorge was correct to assume that it was a RF photo.

But it's too bad the contributor of the image was not as forthright!

 

[JoeFriday]

approximately 5 or 6 months ago there was a general discussion about whether non-RF photos should be allowed in the gallery.. the consensus was that this site, and thus the gallery, is obviously dedicated to RF photography.. if I recall correctly, no one felt that non-RF shots should be banned, but at least kept to a minimum.. and there is the dslrexchange forum for digital images (altho R-D1 shots are certainly welcome here)

having said that, I agree with you, copake.. it's a very nice shot, but probably shouldn't be the feature photo, if only for technical reasons.. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, tho

 

[richard_l]

I agree that all gallery postings here (since they have to be scanned) are subject to some degree of "imaging". And perhaps some "sharpening", or whatever, in PS is too tempting to resist by many (most?) of us before posting.

If you don't do a bit of digital manipulation, then most scans will not do justice to the original photo. It's just something which may need to be done when digitizing images for the web. To be a purist when it comes to web imaging borders on the anal, in my opinion, considering all that happens to a photo between snapping the shot and its final appearance. (Do a little research on how Ansel Adams doctored his prints!) However, I invite anyone who views one of my images to compare it to the original. Except possibly for improvement due to cropping, or a bad print, the original will usually win.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Frankly speaking, there is no mystery. The 2 incidents simply reflect the bias of the site's owner. I can live with that, because otherwise this site is so excellent.

You are right, that is no mystery but the question still is how a DSLR image was chosen to represent a film image taken by a rangefinder. Sure pokes holes in anyone saying they can tell the difference between film and digital capture. I have no problem with a PSd image as I think the same as Richard _l on that subject. I do like the image in a graphic sort of way. Still the puzzle factor is still there.

Bob

 

[Nikon Bob]

Mango

If you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at. It is a little ooops that is humorous from several angles.

Bob

 

[Hektor]

Good point FrankS, and well done for speaking up.

Well done Jorge for running RFF, I's great and we all love it,

but it's the membership and conduct and content that makes it truly great,

This DSLR pic is innapropriately featured although it's a nice pic.

I wasn't offended by the by the political rally pics,

but was offended by the dog on the hook, - bad and unnecessary.

Try hard please Jorge, we all love RFF dearly.

John C.

 

[FrankS]

If there is going to be any censorship at all, it should have been of the dog on the hook. That is distasteful. Kinda weird how Jorge censored some political rally photos but was also the one to introduce this dog picture. I just have to accept that some people's values are different than my own and live with it.

 

[Hektor]

OT-

I saw "back alley" come up on the logged on list just, and it said he was pm-ing.

who got a message ?

JC

 

[MP Guy]

Can't seem to please anyone theses days. I had no idea it was a dslr pic. Than a few weeks back, everyone was complaining that the photos were all B&W. Now I post a color picture and it draws controversy as well. I think I will just remove the featured photo section in the near future and avoid the headaches.

 

[Hektor]

There there, - It's ok now Jorge, we all wanna play with your football.

Well done.

John C.

 

[yankeedoll]

Jorge, there is no way to please everyone all of the time. We should all be adult and appreciate the work of others. And it IS your board! Do as you please. They can always go to another forum!

Doll

 

[FrankS]

They?

RFF, love it or leave it.

 

[MP Guy]

There you go folks, one less thing for people to complain about.

I can't read every thread. If I could I would. So, spot them and let me or a moderator know if it needs attention.

 

[JoeFriday]

Good point FrankS, and well done for speaking up.

Well done Jorge for running RFF, I's great and we all love it,

but it's the membership and conduct and content that makes it truly great,

This DSLR pic is innapropriately featured although it's a nice pic.

I wasn't offended by the by the political rally pics,

but was offended by the dog on the hook, - bad and unnecessary.

Try hard please Jorge, we all love RFF dearly.

John C.

with all due respect, people.. it might behoove you all to think about the monthly fee Jorge is charging you.. or rather, isn't.. this is a service he's providing at no cost.. yet he pays a monthly fee to keep this site running.. no, it's not a perfect site.. if you want perfection, I suggest pnet.. they seem to spend a lot of time discussing how things should be done, thus the continual improvement there [/sarcasm]

I'm pretty sure Jorge didn't add the Featured Photo in order to annoy people.. it's my opinion that he doesn't deserve any criticism for his efforts.. suggestions, perhaps.. but I think it would be nice to step back once in a while and put things into perspective

sorry for this rant, but I truly do appreciate what Jorge and Joe are doing here.. I'd like to see them continue to provide this site.. sometimes features don't work out as well as they were intended, but personal attacks or 'suggestions' that the providers increase their efforts in order to please individuals is uncalled for

-now back to your regularly scheduled thread-

 

[ch1]

with all due respect, people.. it might behoove you all to think about the monthly fee Jorge is charging you.. or rather, isn't.. this is a service he's providing at no cost.. yet he pays a monthly fee to keep this site running.. no, it's not a perfect site.. if you want perfection, I suggest pnet.. they seem to spend a lot of time discussing how things should be done, thus the continual improvement there [/sarcasm]

I'm pretty sure Jorge didn't add the Featured Photo in order to annoy people.. it's my opinion that he doesn't deserve any criticism for his efforts.. suggestions, perhaps.. but I think it would be nice to step back once in a while and put things into perspective

sorry for this rant, but I truly do appreciate what Jorge and Joe are doing here.. I'd like to see them continue to provide this site.. sometimes features don't work out as well as they were intended, but personal attacks or 'suggestions' that the providers increase their efforts in order to please individuals is uncalled for

-now back to your regularly scheduled thread-

Joe et. al. (And most importantly - Jorge):

In carrying on with the thread only because it seems my point was lost.

It is up to the POSTER of pics/images to be honest.

In this instance, it seemed more than obvious that the image was heavily PS'd and almost assuredly not a RF film image.

I also thought that the fact there were "headlight" streaks on both sides of the traffic lanes somewhat "odd" - but that's another discussion about PS "manipulation". [Have you ever seen headlight streaks coming "toward" you?]

First of all, I do not in any way envy Jorge's "job" and I am glad he's willing to do it - for I certaily wouldn't!

More importantly, the pic poster, however, has some questions to answer - the most important being just: "Why?"

The requirement that one post a film-based RF pic seem to be quite unambiguous. So, what's up, sir?

I shoot both film and digital and both RF and SLR - life is too short for me to close out options. But I respect what folks want to see where they want to see it.

So, to the "poster" who claimed his wife "mistakenly" uploaded the image, given even your "explanation", why?

Sounds like spousal abuse/excuse to me.

And let's just leave it at that. :bang:

 

[Hektor]

I like the RFF home page better without the "featured Photo"

I like the gallery a lot and think that care in getting that right would be well worth the effort

RFF is already excellent and is still evolving, - and rightly so

We should all support Jorge with considered feedback, - if he wants us to.