Artistic category

[wwshack]

What is the artistic category for?
In the past I have used it to cover unconventional compositions such as the aircraft off center but is there more to it than that?

I had a trawl through the Artistic Category pictures today and most of them are fairly conventional even the monochromes although some are notable such as a sepia toned picture.

In the spirit of discussion I will submit four photographs. The original image is crap to say the least; it is backlit and the highlights are well and truly blown. This was just an image to play with and is not intended to be a serious contender for the database.

First one a straight mono conversion using channel mixer (my preferred method.)

Next up is the mono conversion with a spot of burning and dodging.

Next is duo toning - two tones are inserted into the tone gradient, one dark blue the other a yellow.

A mono with a spot of the original colour showing through. (This was a very quick and very dirty job.)

Lastly a sepia tone


So what do you think?
Is there more to the artistic category than mono conversions and off center compositions?

[Sam at MAN]

Its not for me to say but i'd say that the first one is the most 'artistic' there.The other few seem too edited if you know what i mean.
I uploaded this one as 'artistic' a while back.
[photoid=5746846]

[Electric-Jet]

I think photos that are B&W or that use slow shutter speeds, photos that use certain settings to archive some kind of effect is what I think is artistic. Also photos that use a sunset/rise to help get the photo results you want. Photos that dont necessarily need photoshop to create the effect. Here is a photo that I uploaded as artistic because i set the camera mode to black and white.

[photoid=5796133]

[McG]

For me the artisitic category allows us to upload photos that otherwise would not meet the normal criteria for upload.I don't think that it allows for the upload of photos with extensive manipulation of the base image in photoshop, like the B&W conversion with colour seeping through in certain areas. In my example the Jag pictured is performing a go-around over the threshold, and the heat haze produced by the engines makes most of the image appear like a watercolour.

[photoid=5798147]

[SkyNevada]

Airshow and stunt smoke

What about aircraft that are using smoke during an airshow. I keep getting rejected for 'too far away'. I know I've seen them in here before. I think the smoke is the same as the exhaust distortion in the above mentioned photo. Any thoughts?

[wwshack]

I don't think that B&W shots should be considered as artistic for in that case we were all shooting artistic shots some 30 years ago!

There is a whole bag of tricks in a photographers armoury that could be deployed to enhance a picture, I would call them artistic, not a B&W.
As for smoke shots, that's down to composition. Get your aircraft in the centre of the frame and fill as much of the frame as you can with aluminium without cutting any off. That's an unfair generalisation I know but there are photographers out there that think like that.

What about this?

This is a double RAW conversion, one optimised for the shadows the other for the highlights, layered together with a grad mask and a bit of dodging and burning.
Or a shot like this with edge enhancement.

Or even a High Dynamic Range picture.

I have to admit that I am never wholly 100% happy with the colour rendition of HDR images. In saying that it is in focus from the wing tip to the hill top an impressive depth of field.
Convert it to mono and it's not that bad a picture.

Or even a near infra red picture, this one has had the auto levels selected, giving an eerie effect.

Sorry if I have went on too much. The wife is painting the radiators and I'll blame it on the fumes..... off for a lie down now.

[McG]

Wallace,

I would think HDR might fit into the artistic category, although I think they might work better for night/dusk/dawn shots.

[LX-A343]

Wallace, I wouldn't accept any of them as "artistic". But I agree, that the problem is indeed, that we don't have any definition for the artistic category. Just one thing: changing the expression of the original photo during the post processing does not make it "artistic". When we started that category, it was meant for "artistic compositions".

I'm sure, if you browse through the db, you will find many photos not belonging to the artistic category. The reason is as mentioned the lack of clear definition and, that we don't reject a photo simply for having the "artistic" category, even if we feel, it shouldn't. Of course, serial offenders will get their rejections

Gerardo

[brianw999]

Quoting Wallace...The wife is painting the radiators
So...she's painting the rads and you're sitting at the computer. Hmmmmm!

Can you pass on your methodology for getting away with this please ? It's a trick that I need to learn.

[wwshack]

For my sins I have shifted six tons of sand and gravel. I need the rest!

[kukkudrill]

Just one thing: changing the expression of the original photo during the post processing does not make it "artistic". When we started that category, it was meant for "artistic compositions"

Perhaps some of the confusion comes from the artistic category check box title in the upload page, which says "artistic in nature (special effects etc)".

But I agree that manipulation in post-processing should not be allowed, whatever the category, beyond maybe sepia. To my mind the artistic category applies - or should apply - where jp's normal rules of composition, motive and exposure are broken for a purpose, as with these:

[photoid=5858442]
[photoid=5853674]
[photoid=5851902]

[wwshack]

Manipulation such as dodging and burning, has been done by photographers since Fox-Talbot was a lad. It is a natural function of wet photography and yet manipulation is frowned upon with digital. I suspect that it has been done badly so often in the past that a stand had to made somewhere.

[kukkudrill]

I have no difficulty with dodging and burning in Photoshop provided they are done to enhance the photo, same as sharpening, adjusting levels and upping saturation). As with these other forms of editing the key is restraint. In my opinion edits that fundamentally alter the photo are better suited for sites like Flickr than a photo database like jp.net: for jp conversion of colour to monochrome is the furthest I would go.

[BA747-436]

Id say the 'Artistic' catagory is there for composition when taking the original shot more than post processing. Please dont think just by hitting the de-saturate button in PS or similer, that you can go ahead and tick the artistic catagory.

Artistic...

[photoid=147563]
[photoid=5630654]
[photoid=391888]

Not so artistic...

[photoid=5843638]
[photoid=5774196]
[photoid=5747563]

[brianw999]

I think I have to agree with Dan on this one. His " artistic" example shots might well have been otherwise rejected, especially the first one from the beach, for distance. The sunset pics, while not showing enough to specifically identify the aircraft in the shot, capture the "essence"...the "dream" of flight and are the kind of artistic shot that may well appear in an aviation magazine.
The examples given by Charles Polidano of Ongyan Stefanov's work exemplify to me what is meant by "artistic" as far as JPnet is concerned.

The same cannot be said for a modern aircraft depicted in monochrome, sepia tone or infra red, certainly not as far as the requirements of JPnet are concerned.
The only exception might possibly be something like a Bleriot monoplane on a Shuttleworth Collection flying day. Not unreasonable to depict in monochrome or even sepia tone here as we are then going back to the days where the original aircraft were photographed in this manner. Again, we come back to my statement above about capturing the "essence"...the "dream" of flight. The picture then becomes artistic in nature when it is put alongside modern digital and film photography.