mallige wrote:I have just joined your group. I am still confused about the posting guidelines. I have read it a couple of times. I am told that it has to be creative,different and original. But I see mostly images that are 'different' not necessarily original. I also looked at the section which gives examples of what is not 'creative'. I see images of mostly birds and wild life. Is this forum biased towards wild life photography ? How is it creative if you get a shot of combating snakes that happened serendipitously ? Luckily the person had a camera on hand to shoot this' rarest of rare shots'. So what is original,creative or different about these shots ? Definitely there a bias towards photos showing wild life which in turn shows the bias by CNP photographers all of whom seem to be wild life photographers themselves.
I also get the feeling that it should not be a 'postcard shot'. That means the shot doesn't have to meet any aesthetics of beauty. This is what happened in Contemporary Indian art. Paintings that are grotesque,ugly fetch the highest prices because they are 'different' 'creative'.
So the confusion continues.
Would you call the attached photo artistic ? Or is it too pretty to be called creative ?
Hi Usha,
I think it deserved a separate thread - probably could you have started a new one. Let me try to share some of my perspectives. You may want to see a related thread
here.
>>I see images of mostly birds and wild life. Is this forum biased towards wild life photography ?This forum is for nature photography in general, not specific for wild life photography. Several of the members are indeed wildlife photographers so you may see lots of wildlife images here. We do encourage nature photography in general. Members choose what they want to post as long as it is an image of a subject in nature.
>>Definitely there a bias towards photos showing wild life which in turn shows the bias by CNP photographers all of whom seem to be wild life >>photographers themselves.Do rare images count to be creative ? In my view not at all. We have made it very clear in the posting guidelines itself (we shared a rare bird image and clearly mentioned it does not count to be creative). Do we rate rare images higher ? I can speak for myself - I certainly don't.
>>I also get the feeling that it should not be a 'postcard shot'. That means the shot doesn't have to meet any aesthetics of beauty. This is what >>happened in Contemporary Indian art. Paintings that are grotesque,ugly fetch the highest prices because they are 'different' 'creative'.
>>So the confusion continues.This is a forum for nature photographers who want to express their original visions or attempt at such expressions. It is not for
documenting images of nature. An image however
beautiful it is may receive low rating if it does not score high on originality.
While I am not qualified to comment on what happened to conteporary Indian art, what is grotesque, ugly are very individual views - so are views on what is creative. What counts (or may not) however is
how many people think so. It all depends up on how many images/perspectives we have seen in our life so far - at least that is what I think. Personally I would love
Black Square and
thought process behind it than a
beautiful painting of a photograph. Here in CNP we encourage photographers to show their own perspectives/creations than just beautiful images - there are millions of beautiful post card images any way. What makes an image outstanding in my view is it is both creative/original
and beautiful.
>>Would you call the attached photo artistic ? Or is it too pretty to be called creative ?Please don't get me wrong. Honestly, for my taste buds it is neither. I do think you have far better images of nature which are creative and as well as beautiful. One of my choice is
this one. I am sure most of it is personal preferences and to do with our own taste buds.