I'd love that. It would teach people what's still out there, that there still are plenty of possibilities to get these things done. It would teach some people that Photoshop is not the only way to alter images. Perhaps it would even make more people fall in love with the wonderful world of analogue
I'd def. go for that. If I were still in my old photography class, all my photography would be 'alternative process' right now. And currently things like Holga prints are mixed up all over the place - like 'hotography>Film>ortraits'. Need something more like, 'hotography>Alternative Processes>Holga'.
I think the category system needs a total workup - there should be two categories for each photo: One technical (macro, film, darkroom B&W etc.) and the other artistic (conceptual, nude, journalism, nature etc.). The current system is confusing, which is why I put almost everything in conceptual...
Absolutely. Though I agree that people should use their keywords to their best, keywords aren't the best way for a search to work. For example "silver prints" might lead you to a deviation of something silver that's also available as a print, and actually has nothing to do with silver prints.
Yes. These are all great categories.
I actually wish deviations could be submitted into 2 categories. I have no idea what a technical nightmare that would be, but it might help people get noticed, better.
It already exists, if you post in Photography - traditional - darkroom then it implies work in a darkroom (for the silver prints , toning , etc) as for the pinhole and toy cameras well it's not so necessary...i don't see the use, someone can post a pinhole portait in "people and portraits" and in the description write that it's shot with a pinhole , what's wrong with that?
some of us chemistry/history freaks can all be rounded up in one place - of course, it really is the quality of the image that matters in the end, not how you got there - but...as a learning experience, the path is very important, and dA is nothing if not about learning about various types of art
I have always been one for enjoying the trip - the destination is just icing on the cake, and sometimes the icing is melted and tastes like crap, but it was fun getting there - other times it simply knocks your socks off or knocks you on your ass I think of my darkroom as a playground - a place to explore and get lost in - silver, lith, salt-prints, uranium prints, carbro and carbon, etc...not everything works in the end, but, as you say, the end isn't necessarily what I cared about - a lot is "what if I try this?" or "what happens if I do this?" I answer the question and maybe move on in a completely different direction or am now absorbed in another interesting exploration
I've been finding doing that when taking my pictures quite fun, especially if I haven't read the manual to the camera yet. It can be fun taking shots and figuring out what does what, and how to do it again.
Mhmm. That's what I like about art. THere are certain 'recedents' that are usually pretty standard throughout the art type, but you don't have to follow them. Some of the more interesting shots break the 'rules' of that particular art type.
I think it's a great idea but as ~nachts said it would be nice if they had the ability to "tag" a deviation with the appropriate processes used. Of course that would take a lot of coding for the deviantart crew. So in the meantime a gallery would be great. haha.
Its interesting that the way the question is asked one might almost think that film is an offshoot of digital photography rather than the other way around. As one who has spent many hundreds of hours in a darkroom I can understand how one might wish to have that effort recognized but is there really any real difference between the two forms? If there are those who wish to submit work that is to be viewed solely as having been produced with the use of film I have to say that it is their right to say how they are to be recognized and if a separate gallery is what they feel is appropriate I would support that. The truth is that I dont really see the difference. Photography is photography as far as Im concerned.
There is a fundamental difference with some of these techniques though. There is a reason people shoot time zero film, do transfers, make drip prints, it IS the technique, that makes it what it is. It's not really about respecting or giving thanks to how things were, but people just want a place to put work, and right now they feel they don't have that place.
i think it's a great idea. it's very hard to wade through everything in the darkroom category right now, since it's so broad. this would help to narrow it down and would alleviate some of the frustration that comes along with searching for alternatively processed images.
This is a very interesting question that I think has a lot of pros and cons to it.
I have a lot of respect for analog photography and fully agree that anyone should be able to look through the photography section and find all the polaroid/plate/pinhole work that they want. I would gladly welcome that.
However, I don't know about adding new categories/galleries for it. There are currently quite a bit of galleries on dA as it is, and right now we have a complete mix of content vs process categories. In photography specifically, the galleries are mainly organized based on content. Adding a sub-category based on process might lead to quite a bit of confusion actually.
What about adding a feature to select which alt process (if any) was used in the submission process which would allow for easy searching within the search engine? Even if new categories were added, not all who use the process will submit to those galleries (perhaps they'll put their work in Emotive, or Conceptual) and you still wouldn't have all that work in one place. But if there's a box that you check during submission for "Pinhole" and then were able to search by it, you would find all the Pinhole photography in all of the photography galleries.
That's just my thought process on the whole thing. I think that mixing content and process based galleries leads to confusion. I think there needs to be either one or the other.
Also, as an FYI, there are currently around 90 photography galleries. That's a lot already.
I think a search topic in the category would be awesome, but I never heard anything notions about implementing such a thing. But I do know that with categories like artisan crafts, traditional photography is no different. A drip print is not the same as a digital print, there is nothing similar about the two, so putting both in a similar category makes no sense. If traditional had a gallery, then it would be filled with traditional and alt photography, just like artisan crafts have different cats for different crafts. There are more galleries because there are tons of different styles and ways of doing things, and I don't see any drawback to making more, I know hundreds who would easily volunteer to look after them.
Well and I do see your point, although the way that artisan crafts is broken up is about the way that photography is broken up, it already has subcategories. I'm not really concerned with people looking after the galleries because there are always a ton of volunteers, one of the great things about this place I'm actually concerned about new deviants who are already confused as to where to submit.
But I recognize a need for this since so many are asking for it and, yes, you are probably right that getting that integrated into the search is probably less likely than getting new galleries. In that case, then yea, breaking up the traditional darkroom into the different categories would certainly give a lot of people a place they can call home