Maturity, ratings and stuff?

[Nyll Bergbahn]

Absolutely Phil. I think we pretty much agree on most things we've discussed on past threads even if sometimes it takes a little while to establish that! :smileyvery-happy:

[Madelaine McMasters]

I'm an amateur photographer (hoping to become avid ;-) and have run into this same thinking, particularly about digital post processing. When I bring up all the odd things Ansel Adams did to his negatives and prints in the darkroom, the purists make arbitrary distinctions in an attempt to hold their ground.

As you've seen, there's a lot of nostalgia here. Technology has made it possible for anyone to achieve, in seconds, on their phone, effects that Ansel worked for hours to achieve by the light of a 25W red bulb. I have friends at Pixar. They truly revere the pioneering hand drawn work of Disney's "Nine Old Men". But they also understand what pioneers do, and they honor the traditions by... continuing to pioneer.

In the end, the goal is to tell a story. And therein lies the art.

[Tamara Artis]

Its interesting to see where this thread left lol

I have no need to discuss about photos and terms, as long as there's someone who likes it I'm happy. But I read all  

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Light does not fall on a medium? What do you think produces the images you see on your screen?

---

Light doesn't fall on of the screen to enable us to see the images. Light is emitted by the screen. The screen is the light source. That's what produces the images on the screen so that we can see them. Even if you took an RL photo of the screen, your camera wouldn't get the image because light fell on the it. It would get it because the light for the image is generated and emitted by the screen.

---

True.

[Melita Magic]

I think you and I are talking about two different things. Or you didn't understand my point.

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Melita Magic wrote:

To the topic: On the subtopic of photography in SL (I usually read the OP and then read backwards thorugh a thread, and I don't read all posts, but in an opinion thread it's OK I think, if more than one person posts the same thing in essence...that's to pre-empt someone saying 'but I just said that' or 'read my post you are wrong' Lol...)

Of course it's photography. People keep denigrating SL 'skills' as if they are not skills. They are skills. Some are better at it than others, so, it's a skill. Pretty simple, I think. Also there is more to it than point and click - windilght settings, and composition and framing of the photograph even if nothing else is done to it post snap. But even pre snap you can adjust settings, lighting, composition, choose the framing (what is seen or included), choose the pose, choose the props, even change the dimensions of the snapshot. 

Just like in real life.

I don't see any difference except the equipment. And the newness of it so the lack of reputation (outside SL and it seems for some, inside SL too.) But in RL when photography first came out it was looked at with sideways glances and not included in gallery shows, etc. Not respected at first.

JMO

---

 I don't think it's a question of skills or the lack of them.    

Clearly photorealistic or hyperrealistic

drawings

and

paintings

 require a great deal of skill and artistic ability to create.  However, they are not photographs -- that's the point.

---

[Melita Magic]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

Sorry Innula, my reply was for Phil rather than your post in the context that you can photograph light emitting sources, they don't need to have light falling on them. I clicked the wrong post.

---

In that case, we aren't in disagreement. Of course we can photograph light sources. Melita had written to the effect that light falls on the screen and so we can photograph it. I corrected the idea that it can be photographed only because light falls on it. I could have added that light falling on something does not allow us to either see it of photograph it. It's light refelecting off something that does that - except light sources, of course

Overall, I've posted that, imo, a photographer in SL can be called a photographer. I think you're saying the same thing.

---

No, light falls *within* the image, within a world, and is controlled from within the world the photo is taken in. I wasn't talking about light falling onto the computer monitor screen itself, from behind the person, from a lamp in their real life room. 

Just in case that wasn't clear. 

Simulated light, but how is that different from making the lighting or shading different in film development rooms in the old days? Photography never was 100% natural except in the very beginning, when there were no other choices, other than to leave the aperture open adn hope for the best.

So if 'completely natural' with no post snap manipulation counting at all, is the criteria, then anything like color or light balancing even in old fashioned chemical laden red light bulb developing rooms doesn't count either.

 

[Melita Magic]

And by the way...Innula...the very first photograph ever taken? Was of a painting.

[Qie Niangao]

---

And by the way...Innula...the very first photograph ever taken? Was of a painting.

---

Presumably not this painting:

(which is, of course, not a painting, but rather a jpg of a painting. :smileytongue:)

[Drake1 Nightfire]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this a thread on what you can have in various rated sims and or profiles? How did it devolve into whether or not a digital artist is a photographer or not? Personally, if they are capturing images, and not adjusting them in photoshop, I would say they are a photographer. Of course, 99.9% of all photographers today use a digital medium anyway. Does that make them digital artists?

[Tamara Artis]

You are absolutely right, the thread started with questions about ratings. And stuff;) The ultimate beauty of the world we live in is its constant change, right in front of our eyes. For some of us, the question about ratings can't be answered before clarifying what exactly we need to review. Is it a photo or a work of art? Because it seems there are different maturity ratings for each of them. For me it doesn't really matter how you call it, I just want to be free to do what I love, of course by respecting the rules. It is why I started the thread.

 

Now, all SL "photographers" take in-world shots. Our manipulation starts with avatars - make sure their attachments fit the way we want them. Then make avatars pose the way we want. And last, not like RL photographers who's outside shots pretty much depend of a weather, in SL we have the ability to control the weather, we can have sunrise at any time lol

 

But taking snapshots is just a start, the real manipulation starts after opening the raw snapshot in our editing program. 

• cut out avatar from our studio background
• use liquify tool to fix any SL shape imperfections (square body parts)
• draw hair
• repaint the skin to make it look smooth
• draw eyelashes, lips, hands and feets, fix nose and eyes
• if the avatar has less quality clothes - repaint clothes to make it look more realistic
• big problem with half naked guys - most sl tattoos look like crap when applied on the whole torso and hands - repaint!
• find a nice background, free for commercial use, that fits the mood of a photo and play with it until it starts to look like avatar is actually there.
• Finally, meet with your "client" to see if all this work  you did was for nothing or they like the final result.

When you are done, repeat the whole process with the next client I hope I made it more clear, what is it that we do. 

I use the term photography because I want my business to show in search, and most people in SL still search for photography service.