***discussion Thread, Photomanipulation***

<div align="CENTER">Discussion Thread Photomanipulation

Please follow the same rules as SOTW found HERE

1st place: 1000 credits.
2nd place: 500 credits.
3rd place: 200 credits.

Please make sure images are attached
</div>

 

This outta be interesting, I will try to try, and are you gonna allow the manips like you add a gradient and filters?

we should list the stocks

 

if ya can make a manip without using gradient that would be great, and posting of the original stocks might help too

 

yayyayayaya manips

But these so-called "manips" with just colour adjustment's/few filters and what not arent really manips :/

 

Wow, It is good

 

What is a "photo-manipulation" then? Take a look here before you start making the rules. A manipulation is simply to manage or arrange something to your liking and in this case to a photo.

If I edited a photo to my liking by using tools, in this case photoshop, it is a photo-manipulation. Please do not act like you are so smart when you really have no clue what you are talking about. My entry sucks anyway, just deal with it.

Edit: Also I noticed you said "with just colour adjustment's/few filters and what not". If you care to explain which few filiters I used, please tell. I changed the color to blue because I thought it looked best. But since I didnt use any filters, I am going to assume this will be hard for you. From your entry, it sounds like you just stole a bunch of DeviantArt work and put them together. If I am not mistaken the work on DeviantArt is all copyrighted and I highly doubt you got permission from all of those people.

 

I'd just like to raise the point that, from the looks of things, Tass got the majority of his stocks from actual 'Stock Providers' on dA...People who upload stocks made by themselves, purely for public use. Normally, all that's required to use their work is a credit in the picture's description, which Tass actually did do.

I'm not sure if all of them are 'SP's, so to speak, but the majority of them most certainly are. So, hypothetically, Tass would only have had to ask a couple of people about using their artwork.

Doesn't really sound like stealing to me.

 

How about get a clue before making such accusations?

First of all, regarding the whole "what is a photomanipulation" question, here's something posted by the Photomanipulation Gallery Director on deviantART (I can't wait to see your rebuttal on how this site is not deviantART) regarding certain cases like yours:

Surely, a Gallery Director of such a high status would not have a clue of what makes a photomanipulations, but hell, you'd seem to know everything seeing as you got a whole dictionary reference!
Yes, I know that yours wasn't taking another persons work, as you drew it yourself, but the reason yours in a photomanipulation because it's just one of your drawings being revised for a new version. Regardless if it was filters or not, I don't really care.
If I had a drawing, then I did some adjustments for a newer revised version, would this make it liable to enter in the Photomanipulation category? I think not. It'd still remain in the Drawing category.

Second of all, regarding my work, they were from stock providers who actually take the photo's to be used in such manipulations, not stealing. And yeah I did get a lot of images and had them put together, but the funny thing is, is how easy you make it sound. That's what people don't understand, that manips are A LOT harder than they are made out to be, and it's so frustrating when all this hard work is degraded by something as simple as a few color adjustments, and thus bringing down the whole category of photomanipulation to the extent of the whole category being redefined.

So before you make such accusations of me "stealing work" from stock providers, or want to argue what an actual photomanip is, please do your research first. -_-

 

Ok you do not seem to understand my point. A photo manipulation does not have to be stocks put together. Manipulation of a photo is all you need. I didnt use any filters and I did use other techniques so by that "Gallery Director's" description, mine fits.

Also, I was simply saying that DA images are copyrighted and I doubted that you had gotten permission from them all. If they are not copyrighted and allowed for public use, then I am sorry. I still think that it would be better to use your own work. But since you do not seem to view manipulations in the same way as me so using your own work would probably fall into some other category.

 

No no, it's not that you're using your own work, it's just the fact it's minor changes to it which really doesn't change the overall result that much. :/

 

When a Christian and a Muslim are arguing over who's right, ask the atheist. I think that's fitting.

Brotherhood:
You made a nice sketch, changed the colors, made it blurry. I'd consider that "digital darkroom" more than a photomanipulation. As for Ni using copyrighted work -- art submitted into the resources>stock section of deviantart.com is up for grabs to anyone who wants to click download, right click, save as. The only copyright that someone can claim if they submit it is that you do not claim the stock as your own work unless it has been heavily manipulated. Ni gave credit to all of the stock artists and did manipulate the photos. He is therefore not infringing on any given rights to the stock artists. The argument that he has done so is mooch. You quoted the definition of "manipulating". You forgot the parts about art, photography, stock, and such.

ni ft y:
Although you're right about DA stock photography, try to keep quiet when it comes to commenting on other peoples work in a negative way. For instance, if I called a painting a sketch, the artist may be a bit angry at me. Only offer critique, not opinions. (Never say "I think that this should be different" without proper artistic reasoning.) People that don't want to improve won't. People that want to will. In the end, what you say won't matter.
That's what I've learned.

Now you two should stop "debating" before it begins to look like someone dropped a lit cigarette in here and started a fire.

 

so its just puting and aranging pics into one pic???

 

god, i hate to say this but some people are just absolute retards, do you people not know the definition of manipulation? its basically controlling something to sum it up, now lets add that with Photo
Photo+manipulation= control of a photo. which basically means any controlled change made to something, which varies from collaging different images you made together to adding a gradient to someone elses photo, which in some cases are illegal, but you have to accept them if you're theme is photomanipulation, which is why its to broad a theme and bad imo.
also tass, can you enter that work? since its a collab? i didn't know you were allowed to lol.
and also, i looked at you're recent work, how are you getting the effect on your pieces? was shutupandwhisper speedpainting the stocks

 

yeah it's allowed =]

and also with the effect, it hasn't been speed painting or anything, it's just a little trick i've picked up over time =D

 

isn't your entry in the slashthree artpack?