Over-saturated, over-sharpened, over-everything = best scores!

where do we draw the line?

Oh, well, that's easy. Don't.

Just ignore the stuff you don't like, and don't pander to an audience that likes stuff you don't like by butchering your own work if you don't like those results.

"the age-old question: where do we draw the line?"

How about drawing the line at 'crap?' For a definition: Crap is what falls short of having redeeming value of any kind. 'Failures' or near misses are valuable for containing information that can be helpful in getting closer to the mark next time. On the other hand crap is lazy or sloppy thinking or relying on 'mental motor drive' for results.

But limiting ones' appreciation of imagery according to how it was created is short-sighted. If it moves you, go with it. If not, pass it up. Technology will always be in flux. Merit is timeless.

Camera clubs do the same thing. Join PPof A if you want to compete with profesional photogs otherwise the judging standards are screwed up.

I agree with Matt, don't even think of drawing a line, but on the other hand I would never suggest to ignore the stuff. I believe in fact that Steven is putting his finger on a phenomenon that also I immediately noticed when I started interesting myself for what I could learn from from PN. I noticed not only that a great number of portfolios on PN are marked by a very heavy hand of color saturation - I see it as a hang up from the Kodak days much more than an evil effects of Photoshop - but I also rapidly learned that without strong color saturation you would have little chance of getting the attractive 7/7s.

I have at earlier occasions tried to link the strong attraction to saturated colors on PN to a cultural bias (those of you that have some anthropological training would know of the theories of the use of colors in different cultures) but with little success. Normally, according to my experience here on PN, these discussions end up as discussions on over-attraction to PS facilities against nostalgic good old film sentiments.

This however does not kill the subject matter. I'm convinced that Steven mentions a real phenomenon that either just characterizes what currently happens with photography on PN or it should be denounced like other bad habits.

As mentioned I don't think a line can be drawn but on the other hand if over-saturation of colors becomes a criteria of good photography we have crossed something like a line and the phenomenon should be strongly questioned by us all.

Personally I have drawn the conclusion that the rating system on PN is flawed and I don't participate anymore. One of my main reasons for that decision was what I see as the attraction of raters for over-saturated photos.

The trend toward the oversaturation started in the '80s when Fuji began to oversaturate its c print materials in order to compete more effectively with the already shrinking Kodak empire. Changes in transparency materials followed and the popularity of the oversaturated and shorter scale film prompted Kodak to go in the same direction albeit not so overboard as the Fuji.

But part of this phenomenon is the over-reliance on camera club style contests and ratings. What is this? Olympic figure skating? There's got to be a better way for colleagues to help each other out on the road toexcellence.

The kind of digital photography seen on this site is a different medium than traditional film work. Whether it is better or worse is up to the individual point of view, and it does not really matter. What should be noted is that it is a different, and very interesting medium, somewhere between photography and painting. There should be a different word for it.

It takes more than digital processing to get the attention that snags the upper echelons of the TRP, or the equivalents around the web. There's also a cult of personality at work. If you read the comments on many of the popular photos you can see many folks would like to cultivate some sort of relationship with the photographers, apparently in hopes that some of their mojo will rub off on the worshipful followers.

But it's no different from the world of working pros. Wedding, event, celebrity, etc., many of the more successful photographers have developed something of a cult following, which tends to reinforce their popularity through the effects of imitation by others.

Occasionally the same effect can be seen among photographers who use a more "naturalistic" approach... if they're successful in engaging the attention of enough viewers who will elevate their work to prominence through repetition of a name on search engines.

"if over-saturation of colors becomes a criteria of good photography....."

It is not a criteria, it is not a requirement, it is not necessary. It is -- very simply -- an option.

Some love it, others hate it. If you don't like it, just ignore that stuff. I find it very easy to skip over things I don't enjoy viewing, whether photos or movies or books or ...........

Actually I don't think it has anything to do with good or bad photography. Is just is what it is, perhaps an art form to some, but discussing about what criteria make 'good' photography is an exercise in total discourse. Interesting topic but no agreement.

Just a small counter to this... I generally use fairly saturated colours in my pictures. I normally slide to around +5 on the PS saturation bar. I like strong colours, simple as that - no other reason for doing it.

However, the series of photos that I've got some of the best feedback on (and I am one of the large group of average photographers on this site) was a set of Nepali sadhus where I had heavily desaturated the colours so that they almost looked washed out.

I think in the end it should just be whatever floats your boat. If you like a picture great, if you don't, oh well, look at the next one. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

I know the rating system is frustrating at times, especially when you get a 3/3 dangling in amongst the 5s 6s and maybe even 7s, but there is really is no other way to do it. I'm sure we all know that there are many trolls floating around cyberspace who get pleasure from pissing people off, but you have to hope that most people give marks because that's what they generally believe the picture is worth. I've certainly seen plenty of pictures on here that fall fully into Jeff's category of 'crap', and on a few occasions I've told people that (in a much more polite way of course).

As for what Lex says about personality cults... I certainly agree. Plenty of times I've seen some photographers, who generally publish impressive work, put something on here that is way below their normal levels, but still have praise heaped on them. It often seems apparent that some photographers will get high ratings whatever they put up. It would be an interesting experiment to swap some of their pictures with a member of the 'pack' and see how the marks come back!

Finally, this thread has, for me, brought into clarity one of the strengths of this website and one of digital photography. For the website, it has made me think again. Am I saturating my pictures too much? Am I going along with the pack when I should be trying to be original? My fiance (who is also a photo.net subscriber) keeps telling me off for putting too much store in the ratings I get, perhaps it's time I listened. For digital photography, I am now allowed to do this. I have a big store of all my original RAW files clogging up my hard disc just waiting for more messing around.

All the best,

Rob