I discovered NPN maybe 15 years ago and have participated on and off. In fact I haven’t been on site for a couple years and just found out I still had a paid up account…haha no worries. Anyway I noticed there is no longer a Photo Art category. I shoot primarily landscapes, floral and floral macro so how far can I take my editing? For example is compositing a sky allowed in the Landscape gallery? In the past it would be moved to Photo Art which is all fine. I do composites sometimes and I always disclose it. I read through the FAQ/Guidelines and didn’t see anything about it.
Hi Bruce and welcome back. Disclosing things like sky replacement and composites is always a good idea here and in Flora, if you really push the processing, I’d be ok with it so long as there was a reason for it in terms of expressing more about the plant or its environment etc. Otherwise, you can try the Abstract or Everything else categories.
Hi Bruce, welcome back to NPN! Great to have you with us again.
Kris’s summary was spot-on. To clarify, the “Photo Art” category isn’t separate anymore. We’ve streamlined the categories to make posting simpler. As you mentioned, transparency is the most important thing now.
For your landscapes with composited skies, the Landscape category is perfect, just be sure to mention the sky replacement in your description. The same applies to your floral and floral macro work – if the processing is extensive, just disclose it. If an image leans heavily towards abstract or the nature subject isn’t the primary focus, “Abstract Nature” or “Everything Else” are good alternatives.
The main goal is to clearly share how you created the image, allowing others to learn from your process.
We’re really glad to have you back, and we look forward to seeing your images!
Hi Bruce,
Welcome back indeed! Not much I can add, but like you and many others I was around in the NPN 1.0 days (2006 I think). Back then, yes, there was the Photo Art category. Soon after David took over from Jim and the focus became even more about nature photography, it was decided to change that category to the “Abstract Nature” category.
IMHO, the Photo Art category included and allowed many things, including images that were entirely created in Photoshop and had less to do with using a camera and certainly often not so much about nature. So the category and intentioned morphed a bit. Clearly today, Photoshop and images created in PS and manipulated are pretty much all based off of nature photographs and nature photography, for the most part.
So, the manipulation part, and specifically to composites, replacing skies, etc., the basic notion of being about nature photoraphy still stands. And as everyone mentions, it’s really all about disclosure. At least here at NPN, dislosure isn’t there to pry or judge anyone because they created an image compositing 2 or more images. It’s really because this is a critique based site and in order to comment/critique an image fairly, it only makes sense that the reviewer have a clue as to the origins of what is being presented, and the member posting is being honest about how the image was derived.
Good question and we hope you will post some of your images!
Thanks Kristen. My processing is pretty straight forward regarding floral images. I typical don’t include skies but I probably should broaden my horizons. Hmmm…
Thanks David. The site looks great and the magazine is a cool addition. I checked out the 1st issue and the writing and images were excellent.
I don’t get too crazy with editing and most of it is pretty basic Living in the PNW we get gray featureless skies 9 months out of the year and It’s frustrating having an awesome scene in front of my camera (and there are many) that is ruined by a boring sky. I don’t really replace skies that much but it seems I do more than I used to.
Can I share an image without asking for a critique? I’m going to stop sharing my work on facebook and I would like to post a link to my images on NPN instead.
Hello Lon good to see you’re still hanging out. When I discovered NPN in maybe 2009 you were using a view camera…still shooting film?
The site looks great but still familiar. I can honestly say I learned photography on NPN. When I got here I knew almost nothing. The critiques helped a lot but I’m not sure it still suits my purposes. Of course we all have room to grow as photographers but most of the time when I finish an image I feel is worth sharing I’m satisfied with it and if it’s not worth sharing I already know why. I hope that doesn’t sound pretentious. I think critiques will be most useful when I’m learning a new technique whether shooting or editing.
I’ve been talking to a couple other NPN old timers and they might consider coming back. I hope they do. It will be fun.
Thanks Bruce. Yeah, still hanging around although I’ve randomly gone long periods of time of inactivity… trying to remedy that. And no, I stopped shooting the 4x5 and film in 2015. I was a late-comer to the digital revolution. Well, I shouldn’t say that since I’ve been using Photoshop since like CS4… I learned much having to process scanned film images. I gave in and sold all my gear when I no longer wanted to pay $5-6 every time I pressed the shutter release… But I do miss it very much.
Not pretentious at all. Let’s be honest, many, many members are very experienced photographers. I’ve been seriously shooting since the late 1980’s. Perhaps like you, I am very proud of my work and I post mostly to share with others. Does that mean I can’t improve? Of course not. And I too have learned SO MUCH from critiques, comments and interactions with other members. EVERYONE can learn, I don’t care who you are. One of the big things I’m learning and continuing to develop, is the “WHY”, or the meaning of what I photograph, or learning the why and intentions of other photographers. What I had long been too comfortable with is the “HOW” of the photograph; the technicalities, up to including compositional aspects. So in the end, there is always room to grow and learn.
I do hope that those “old timers” you’re talking with do come back to NPN. IMHO, many left for the precise reason that they wanted to share their “art” and not be bothered with the technicals; ie. “I think the blues are a little cyan…” or " your horizon is tilted by a degree," or, “the highlights are blown out.” These things are very helpful for the beginner, but perhaps not so much for the seasoned photographer. I think there needs to be a balance between the two.
Anyway, I’m rambling. Thanks for the thoughts and welcome back!
1 Like
Yep…that’s exactly why I left. Sometimes I want critique but more often I don’t. I’m stepping into B&W so I’m fully open to guidance.