Nice one, but I think it belongs at photomanip

This should be in the manipulation catagory

please critique the pixels you see, and not as how they came to be And anyway I won't post in the photo manipulation category before someone can convince me why that category exists

Good manipulation...
Great use of light and amazing atmosphere.

Great mood and scary feeling!!....Very nice tonalities and perspective....
Hard to talk about photomanipulation withiut some description....are the root at the bottom on the border of a clift or on a flat surface?....just courious!
Nice work!!
Carlos

Mork - what is it you don't understand about the photo manipulation section? It's a different art form...

Thanks for all comments.

Madanapale: I don't know what kind of description you are looking for. I prefer to let images speak for themselves. The lowest half of the image is made with many overlayed pictures, mostly of stone and wood, if that is what you're asking

Alleggra: I understand perfectly *why* the category is there. But that reason is not because it is a another art form. It is the same. It might be perceived that they are different, but I am convinced the foremost reason is another; That many photographers need an excuse for not being creative. The photography-style that I guess you and many others would advocate as *photography* is an amputated one, where one half of the work (exposure/first manipulation) is seen as IT and everything, while the other crucial half (processing/postmanipulaion) is neglected to as much extent as possible. Actually I don't mind if people choose to prioritize one or the other, but take a look at the top images in this section every week, and see how it has all gone so terribly terribly wrong :/

Mmkay well this is a photomanipulation, the whole "the spoon isn't real" excuse is a fascade for your own complete ignorance. You can't simply choose to believe something exists or doesn't exist, and you most certainly cannot do that with an art medium. I mean if it was debateable then u could have an arument, but it is simply not in the ballpark of the world of the galaxy of the universe of even being remotely in the vicinity of debateable. If someone ever lumped my photographs into a category with photomanips i would completely murder them. Any person can tweak photos in photoshop, i mastered it when i was 13. But to take a photograph straight from the camera that shows artistic expression, mood, composition, and lighting in all it's purest forms is the only way photography can be defined. If you want to discuss it further don't, because there is no need to discuss this, you are completely out of line. You are seriously trying to fucking tell me that photographers are less creative than a person who steals images and manipulates them, or vice versa whatever ur insidious logic is. That is absolute horse shit and an artist who says that should be stoned to death. Please only preach about things that you know what you're talking about, or you will be repeatedly intelectually slain by myself and others.

• As for your PHOTOMANIPULATION, it's not bad but the low contrast kind of makes it a low impact image, kind of cliche as well

Thank you for your insightful and informative comment Mr Skateman. Actually your comment reflects what I should have understood by now, that I must be incredible dumb since I actually still struggle and have a hard time creating pictures the way I do. I somehow cling to the hope that I shall master it by the time I die, or at least remotely so. But I shall take your (and so many others) word that you mastered it as a kid.

More seriously; Take a look at the history of photography. Since when did photography *not* involve spending hours and hours in the darkroom? Yes it is a new phenomenon. In the childhood of photography it involved spending hours *wether or not* one wanted the final product to appear in the likeness of how we see things with our eyes, and a lot of energy invested in developing ways to achieve predictable results with chemistry. Then enter shops that process one's exposed films, and everyman forget what is really going on. The digital revolution further contributes to misconceptions like this by giving you "realistic" recordings straight out of the camera.

Well I realize I am tramping on toes here, but the whole photography world clearly need some beating. If it is any comfort I agree that using stockphotos will most likely get you nowhere.

mmkay now i think we are starting to find a middleground and land on the same page as one another, i think it was a combination of you not presenting your opinions clearly and my misinterpretations. Well that's an argument people have been having for a while. There will always be advances in technology and i'm sure easier ways of photo will come out in the near future, and it is difficult to draw the line where photography and manipulations belong. However this picture is very much on the photomanipulation side of the arguments spetrum. You must understand that just because there are still debates and grey areas on the topic, you can't just ignore them completely. There are works that display photography and works that display very much Photomanipulations, 2 very very very different categories. Feel free to private message me with any questions on the matter considering I myself have a firm belief/standpoint. Thanks

Looks like a photomanipulation to me!!!
I was just asking ....sorry if I bother you!
Carlos

Edit: Excellent work. Powerful atmosphere.

Thank you all for commenting

Skateman: I am not ignoring the debates, I am debating for justice right now

Madanapale: I don't mind your questions, sorry I you got another impression.

sdavis75: I think the comment about posting a painting under phototography is far fetched. If I thought this technique I'm using brought anything *new* to the field of photography, I'd posted it somewhere else. But in light of the fact that ever since the word photography was invented it included all kinds of trickery, like burning/drawing/scratching the negative, compositing many images and basically whatever anyone could think of, I think it is not only fair, but correct to call this Photography. After all photoshop is only the digital counterpart of the darkroom, like CCD/CMOS is for film. Both have disadvantages and advantages, and perhaps the digital ones offer more advandages, particularly control.

I agree also that this is a photo-manipulation, but only because every photo is by nature manipulated in every step of the process, which renders the new word superfluous.

Le me just repeat that I've got no problem at all if people prioritze different part of the process. But it is important to have the final image in mind, and use whatever techniques necessery without halting at all kinds of honor principles, which other forms of art does not bother with. It is this that has become the achilles heel of the photography-world in general.

I think that people at Photography-only sites where there exist no such categorical distinction are becoming more openminded. The digital revolution has made a lot of dedicated photographers take more control of the entire process, and maybe this makes them more aware of what they have been missing for the last decades.

Final note: the galleries and comments are not places to discuss this topic, the comment area is just for helpful critiques on ho to make your work better, there are literally 50 threads in the forum with this exact argument, however this is not the place for it

RESPECT MA AUTHORITI, lol

Kirk (UE) is correct as this is not the place. and watch your language Kirk

@Mork- Despite your personal views on what is/isn't a manip, GFX has it's own definition, and when you post here it will fall within those catagory guidelines. A series of overlayed images in itself fits the most raw definition of what is considered a manipulation at this site. See the definition here:
http://www.gfxartist.com/about/FAQ/43013/

As a long time member I wouldn't think this would be a clouded issue.

Further explanation can be found in the link below. Which does address the aspect of darkroom editing and computer editing, the extent of which before it crosses the line to manip and more importantly the way we catagorize this. When the new submission guidelines are through their final revision and posted this will be concrete to avoid further confusion.

link ---> So how does GFX define Photomanip?

*Moved from photo to photomanip accordingly

Wysiwyg
GFX Community Moderator

Well I can but say I'm really sad about this. I had honestly hoped gfxartist would let members choose between the two categories by their own understanding, and let the debates go undisturbed.

Further I wonder what reasons have made you leave 5 of my photos still under Photography? In the future I'll continue to place similar images under Photography, as posting under Manipulations is just a betrayal as I see it. Maybe that means I am not welcome here under such democratic terms :/ But you might want to consider how that will affect your attractivity for new and existing members with diverging opinions.

As a small volunteer force we don't always catch everything. We tend to try and trust members to make the right decision and be honest about their work.

In regards to your other works:
Nothing was specified to determine what it was or how created. The only one that edits are conspicuous is Xiilentium by  Mork to which the aspect of selective desaturation is discussed in the thread link I provided.

Now, if you are telling me that your other photos are indeed manips (by our standards I will be happy to move them )

In reference to new members with new opinions: Members come...members go, that's life on the internet. All the rules are there when they sign up, and checked as being read before each submission, if they don't like these rules then perhaps they would be happier at another art site.

If you continue to post what is determined as manip here in the wrong catagory (thus consistently violating the submission guidelines) then your account could be put on suspension. Your art is most welcomed here, but understand, when you come to someone's house you play by the house's rules.

End of discussion (in a public format) feel free to PM me or  Martin my boss, if you have further questions.

Mork, I think you are actually arguing whether or not your work is art. It truly is. It's the method that need defining.

As for the piece itself, it very nice, but a bit dark for my taste.

To add to emarts comment, we appreciate it when the members follow our suggestions regarding the categorization of the artworks. Our Photography sections contains photos with minor adjustments regarding color and levels, our Photo Manipulation contains photos that have undergone more drastic alterations.

Were more than happy to settle if an artwork walks the fine line, but when pieces of several photos are mixed, typography is involved, etc., the work would be out of place in the Photography section.

I'm a big fan of your work, and I even agree with your views regarding post production, yet the general public may not which is why we categorize work the way we do.

I hope we can agree to disagree and put the integrity of the galleries first.

I can agree to disagree. Anyway it isn't my intention to aggravate the admins, only the "photographers" And so with great pain and trouble I shall respect the guidelines set forth by the admin/mods here, for a while at least. And as the guidelines seem to be founded on the opinions of the majority, I must encourage everyone to reflect sincerely on the issue and vote for change

Alright... I think I will enjoy having you around

wonderful work as always...it'a a pleasure to see.

and, I have to say that I personaly feel that you, as the artist, should be able to categorize your artwork as you see fit. Having to put it where 'the general public ' feels is right is the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

Keep up the amazing work...

10 points to girl of the year for such an insightful and remarkably intelligent comment thanks

Ahhh...I see you are a pendantic Prima Dona No comment on the PHOTO MANIPULATION.

Now that was not so intelligent