The post processing dilemma .

Perhaps PP could offer an optional paid service whereby those images which get ejected from the FPI queue receive feedback from a cohort representative of the fairies as to why the images didn't make the cut.

IMO I'd just get rid of fpi's - would make the site better as all it is currently is a popularity contenst based on follower count mostly. Most days I see super average images up there or ones that are overdone theme wise and it's usually down to follower count or years active on pp.
Dont get me wrong there are also some great fpi's that deserve it but I would just lose the section personally.
The whole site needs a modern/up to date overhaul that appeals to more people but that's a different topic

Edited by Jay Harrison Photography

I switched off the FPI thing as it wasnt anything to do with the type of image but more to do with the same few people always getting them. Therefore if these people are doing over edited images (plastic skin) then that is what you will keep seeing. Maybe the FPI's need to be shared out more and then you will get great diversity in the images being showed??

Wondrous said

Disagree with the thoughts written by OP.

Edited by Wondrous

I don't think the O.P will be too concerned by that.

Having just endured 16 hours of being efficiently mauled and clubbed in to quiet submission by  the "usual suspects" he has promised never to criticise the FPI selection system again, and has just signed a document pledging only to shoot "interesting things"...   with the additional clause that he will edit every image he uploads from now on.  ;)

I think it would be helpful if people explained what they mean by "editing" when expressing an opinion.  It can vary from removing the odd zit (or sensor dust!) to a full-blown fantasy composite and everything in between.

I raised this question because whilst out shopping with my wife I picked up a book called Peter Lindenberg on Fashion. It was clear going through the photographs how little retouching had been applied. I have a book by John Swannell and again it shows how little retouching has been applied yet both of these are famous photographers considered artists and its the composition and lighting that makes the key statement with the subject.

Edited by playwithlight

playwithlight I think there's a lot of FPIs like that, certainly my recent one yesterday.

There's always been a good mixture I think

By the way it was not a criticism of the FPI system more about the direction that images are going down and how far processing can change the finished result.

There are now AI algorithms that can do a complete skin retouch with just the severity of the application controllable the world of post processing has changed radically with AI and were only at the beginning of the technology.

playwithlight I'm not sure how I feel about AI editing, from what I've seen people do with it so far always looks nothing like the model originally photographed

When I first seriously started using a digital camera, I joined the local photo group.

It was the second week of a two-week of a photoshop tutorial that gave everyone a quick tour of PS, showing the members non-destructive editing etc.

The second week was show and tell.

There were little old ladies and men in their 80s and more, showing off how they had edited their photos, giving the before and after.

I knew right then if I didn't edit my photos, I could not compete with them.

A few months later, an old guy, who was a photojournalist all his working life, did a talk on darkroom techniques. He had some fantastic examples from the 50s where they had edited the photos to improve them, add selective contrast, added birds and clouds to a boring sky, dodge and burn, removed litter and graffiti etc.

Holly Alexander

Ive watched quite a few tutorials by Vera Change on YouTube on beauty retouching.

Everything from subtle spot removal, dodging & burning to resizing and spacing eyes, changing lip colour etc. etc.

On some of the heavily retouched images they are hugely different to the original image. Its not considered AI but neither is it natural. Im not saying its wrong its how the advertising industry in beauty works but to your point in AI it looks nothing like the model originally photographed yet we have come to treat it as normal.

playwithlight said

Holly Alexander

Ive watched quite a few tutorials by Vera Change on YouTube on beauty retouching.

Everything from subtle spot removal, dodging & burning to resizing and spacing eyes, changing lip colour etc. etc.

On some of the heavily retouched images they are hugely different to the original image. Its not considered AI but neither is it natural. Im not saying its wrong its how the advertising industry in beauty works but to your point in AI it looks nothing like the model originally photographed yet we have come to treat it as normal.

Quite interesting you mention Vera since she's the person who taught me beauty work back when she did 1-1 teaching, I was her first pupil haha. 

There's stuff she taught me that I decided against using, for example changing face/feature shapes and the like and I don't tend to go as far on my dodging & burning, I happen to enjoy some of the natural texture of skin. I do have an album on my port though (before/after) including some beauty work to reflect what I actually do to images and how they look before editing for this reason, I worry people think I do more to my images than I actually do haha. 

It's due to Health and Safety laws - for our own protection, all FPIs have to be sterilised before publication 😆

Also, if the photo isn't a true representation of reality, no-one can be sued 🤐

Art Acumen said

Wondrous said

Disagree with the thoughts written by OP.

Edited by Wondrous

I don't think the O.P will be too concerned by that.

Having just endured 16 hours of being efficiently mauled and clubbed in to quiet submission by  the "usual suspects" he has promised never to criticise the FPI selection system again, and has just signed a document pledging only to shoot "interesting things"...   with the additional clause that he will edit every image he uploads from now on.  ;)

Maybe I'm one of the usual suspects but... The FPI system is what its - a bunch of volunteers who are selected because they will choose the stuff that site likes to have chosen. Anyone can apply to be an elf, but you only get selected to be one if you put up a collection of pictures which shows what you would nominate is roughly in line with what existing elves nominate. A rogue elf who puts up things which the other elves think isn't right soaks up their time and wastes his or her own. 

I've had a bunch of my pictures suggested and passed over by the elves, and other pictures which have made it to FPI status. A couple of suggestions I've looked at and said "no the elves won't go for that" and the rest... I have no more idea why did select one than why they didn't select another. And the same applies when I suggest other people's work, some gets a rosette, some doesn't. If I knew what would get picked I'd save time and not suggest the un-pickable.

I think the image is processed does have some effect, and always has. If a shot looks like the cover of vogue, it's got a better chance of being selected than if it looks like the readers' wives page of Razzle (I've no idea if Razzle still exists or had a readers' wives page.) And if you're into a grungy aesthetic and work hard to get that, you're probably putting yourself at a disadvantage if you covet FPIs. If you leave a model's skin blemishes in you probably should be at disadvantage over an equal shot with blemishes cleaned up, but the person who dials the fixing up to 11 should also be at disadvantage. 

If the OP thinks the ideal level of processing is "dial it to 3", and observes that 3 steps too few (direct from the camera) fares worse than 3 steps too many (a 6), he may well be right. Possibly the elves think the ideal is 4 or 5 so the out-of-camera JPG is 4 or 5 too few, and the one with hours of photoshop is a forgivable step or two too many.
No single view is "right": the OP thinking for himself and saying he'd draw his optimum is to do a bit less, is normal, it doesn't make him an idiot nor does it make the elves wrong. I'm one of those who says the elves do, what they do, the result is what I'd expect, you can live with it or hate it but there's little chance to change the system.  

I've sided with the Ansel Adams idea of the "The negative is the score and the print is the performance" since I first learned darkroom techniques in the 1980s; there's the captured idea - the score, the negative, the raw file,  and there's what people experience - the sound of the orchestra, the print hanging on the wall, the JPG posted on line. Hours of work in darkrooms or in front of photoshop are put in to "improve" what's experienced at the end, and that work wouldn't be put in if there wasn't an expectation that people would prefer the version after the work was done. 

Complaining that people use some tool or another and get results that some other set of people prefer doesn't get anyone anywhere. Whether that was darkroom and airbrush, filters, or photoshop. If you're making stuff for you, then get to results you like and don't use tools you dislike. If you're making stuff for others get to results they like using which ever tool gets that "best" - however you define best.

Art Acumen hi Art acumen you could be viewed as a usual suspect in objecting , perhaps you are just disappointed in yourself that your photography is not recognised and that's understandable.

There are great examples on the FPI page of photography that is not edited over the top but just fine and this idea of there being an FPI aesthetic is not provable because various different photographers and creatives of different styles have been recognised. Perhaps less on the art sector though.

Edited by Wondrous