PDA

View Full Version : January Discussion: What Constitutes OOTB?



Julie Kenward
01-11-2010, 08:02 PM
Okay, I promised we'd talk about this after the first of the year and it's after the first of the year! So, let me get the ball rolling by telling you a few things first and then I'll open it up to anyone who wants to leave a constructive comment.

As far at BPN is concerned, the OOTB (Out of the Box) forum is a place for images that are outside of the "normal" in-camera techniques, compositions, or post-processing workflows. Since BPN's inception, this forum has hosted everything from black and white & toned images, in-camera blurs and pans, images where multiple filters or techniques were used, and any image where the photograph took on more of a "painted" feel or became more of a "digital art" piece. One of the big guidelines was "if you use a third party plug-in, it almost always goes in the OOTB forum." Even just a year ago this was very true as you really couldn't use many plug-ins and still retain the original look and feel of the natural image - and there are still many plug-ins out there where they almost instantly change the image from "natural" to an OOTB image. Plug-ins like "Fractilius," "DAP" or "Fotosketcher" certainly come to mind as they instantly change a photograph with even a minor tweak.

But in between all these "special effect" plug-ins we have others that do the same kind of normal workflow that the big boy, Photoshop, does. Plug-ins like Nik's Viveza which allows you to alter the tones and lighting on an image like Photoshop's levels and curves; Neat Image or Noise Ninja that help with noise reduction (and do a better job in most cases than Photoshop does); Nik Sharpener or FocalBlade which can be used for very natural looking sharpening are also ones that come to mind. Even Nik's Silver Efex can create very natural and beautiful black and white images and, in the past, we've allowed those who post black and white images to leave them in whichever forum they've chosen to post them in.

As the world of digital photography progresses, new techniques come to light - many of these make for some pretty beautiful images, especially when combined with macro and floral photography. Textured overlays, vignetting, bi-colored filters, filters that zoom or do radial blurring - they can add a special touch to an image that still looks pretty natural - OR - they can take them to the extreme and really create something entirely new.

As a moderator, I'm finding it harder and harder to find that line where an image goes from being artistically beautiful in a natural way and one that becomes more of a "digital art" piece. I've tried to define what plug-ins are acceptable in this forum and which aren't but, truth be told, you can lightly and delicately use almost any of today's plug-ins and still retain a natural look to your image so I don't think we can say "if you use 'X' plug-in you have to post in OOTB" because it simply isn't true. Using Nik Adjust to simplify a busy leaf pattern can either leave an image with a little less detail or it can leave it looking like a glossed over painting...it's all in how you use it.

So what do you think? What constitutes "normal" in-camera and post-processing procedures and what doesn't? What if an image doesn't follow the ROT's or we use Nik Viveza to tone down a hot spot...does that mean it belongs in OOTB? What if we take the rules of photography literally - will we ever grow then as artists? So what say you? How do you know when you are working on a photographic image that you just "crossed that line" from being "cutting edge" to being OOTB?

Let's hear your thoughts...

(And I trust we're all going to maintain a great deal of civility as we voice our artistic impressions, right? Right!) ;)

Ken Childs
01-12-2010, 01:38 PM
LOL! I don't see anyone jumping into this discussion and I truly understand why.

Every time I think of what constitutes "normal", all it takes is a few seconds of running it past my feeble brain to realize "that's not right!"

Julie Kenward
01-12-2010, 01:42 PM
It IS hard, isn't it? I'm sure some others will chime in after they think about it for awhile but it is certainly not an easy thing to define!;)

Dave Mills
01-12-2010, 05:22 PM
Hi Jules, Your right...it's not easy. I'll throw one out.
Any image that has been manipulated to the extent whereby it no longer represents what the human eye can see in it's natural form is OOTB.
See what others have to say!

Barbara Kile
01-12-2010, 05:34 PM
I recently saw a collection of images by a person that gloated that their images were 'right out of the camera' and didn't use any post processing at all. One look and you could see that. Digital images ALL need something! They are flat, lack contrast, and often are dull and uninspiring! So, it does become difficult to draw the proverbial line, as all images have something done to them in the conversion from raw to whatever. In addition, there are cloning, contrast adjustments, lighting adjustments, etc. On one of my posts, had I not mentioned I used Nik software, (which obviously got someone's panties in a wad - which is ok - I don't really care), no one would have likely noticed. My image got moved, and within a few days I noticed that someone else's image got moved too, as they happened to mention the use of Nik.

Viveza, one of the Nik plugins, should not count as a significant 'edit' any more than a curves layer should. Topaz Detail or sharpening? Both can be over-done! Subtle adjustments that enhance the image should not be relegated to the OOTB forum. Not sure everyone will ever agree, but you might have to hire some 'edit' police! Personally, I see few 'natural' images that I really like - I prefer a more 'artistic' look - and that's just me. And, the OOTB forum is fine for me. Everyone there is very helpful and the expressions of art there keep me coming back for more!

So, no real answers here, except to express the opinion that subtle software enhancements that help the appearance of an image should be allowed - regardless of software used. We are artists - why not present the best image we can? The plugins are getting better and better. We should all list them and why we used them. Then the edit police can decide?

Don Lacy
01-12-2010, 05:39 PM
If the image looks like a photograph even a blurred limited DOF photograph then I think it should be posted in the regular forums when the image starts to look like it was painted then I think the OOTB is the right place for it. One thing to consider is that some techniques start at as OOTB and as they become more popular start to become accepted as standard techniques I am thinking along the lines of pan blurs that give an impressionist look to landscapes. I do not think software should have any role in determining how an image is classified it is just another tool in creating the artistic vision the finale image should be judged on its on merits and not on how it was created.


On one of my posts, had I not mentioned I used Nik software, (which obviously got someone's panties in a wad - which is ok - I don't really care), no one would have likely noticed. My image got moved, and within a few days I noticed that someone else's image got moved too, as they happened to mention the use of Nik.

Viveza, one of the Nik plugins, should not count as a significant 'edit' any more than a curves layer should
I can do everything Viveza does in PS with layers and masks and before PS photographers were doing the same adjustments with chemicals in darkrooms. People tend to forget are do not know that any image shot on Velvia or Kodak VS slide film has little resemblance to the colors as seen by the photographer when the image was created the only thing that has change is the way we manipulate images not the manipulation it self.

Julie Kenward
01-12-2010, 07:51 PM
All excellent points, everyone. Dave, I think you found a way to say what I was struggling to...

Any image that has been manipulated to the extent whereby it no longer represents what the human eye can see in it's natural form is OOTB.

I tend to use this as the rule of thumb when I try to make that hard decision about whether to leave an image in this forum or move it to OOTB.

And, although the use of some plug-in features definitely do alter an image to become outside what the natural eye would see, what about the other issues? What about unusual angles, compositions, lighting? Ever create an image of a flower from behind the floral head with the stem showing? What about putting the point of focus in the LRC instead of the ROT's position? Do THOSE images belong in OOTB (many avian images end up there for this very reason...) Anyone feel those same guidelines should apply or should we encourage OOTB compositions here in the macro forum?

Ken Childs
01-12-2010, 08:22 PM
Hi Jules, Your right...it's not easy. I'll throw one out.
Any image that has been manipulated to the extent whereby it no longer represents what the human eye can see in it's natural form is OOTB.
See what others have to say!
How would cloning out a branch or a blade of grass fit into this? Or am I taking what you said too literally?

Barbara Kile
01-12-2010, 08:37 PM
What about cropping? I rarely crop an image.
But, you know........ no matter what is decided, I want to view an image for its artistic quality, it's beauty, the qualities that take my breath away - and not through the legalistic eyes of which forum rules its placement. Put my images where you want - I plan to visit all the forums and just enjoy the photography and the lovely art. I want to spend my time creating and enjoying the creations presented here. What an opportunity for growth this site is!

Dave Mills
01-12-2010, 09:31 PM
Hi Ken, Remember, no one but you knows what your original image looked like. If you cloned out a branch or a blade of grass convincingly IMO it should not be considered OOTB. I would give the same answer regarding cropping.

Julie Kenward
01-12-2010, 10:02 PM
Dave is right and I am only playing devil's advocate here...I'm certainly not saying that an image has to be pure and pristine in order to fit into the Macro/Flora forum - I'd never be able to post here again if that were true! I'm simply trying to get us to open our minds and ask the questions - do we have limits as we create our images? Are they good limits? Do they make for technically good photographs but not great art - or the other way around? Don't worry so much about what is or isn't allowed in this forum - but, instead, ask yourself how would you make that distinction?

One additional thought I had tonight was this: I often start to work on an image thinking it will undergo what I would consider to be a "normal workflow" but about half the time I end up finding that's not enough to bring out the best of the image so I start playing around - trying black and white or a duotone - or a texture - or a bit of gaussian blur or vignetting - and if that doesn't work then I really bring out the tricks and try filters and masking and running the image through multiple processes. At that point I now know this is no longer going to be a "normal" image but one that will either end up a disaster or end up in OOTB. ;) So, for me, the line is when the normal processing doesn't bring to fruition what I envisioned the image to become - then I know to head on down to the OOTB forum.

Ken Childs
01-13-2010, 07:40 AM
Hi Ken, Remember, no one but you knows what your original image looked like. If you cloned out a branch or a blade of grass convincingly IMO it should not be considered OOTB. I would give the same answer regarding cropping.
How about convincingly adding something to the image that wasn't originally there? If I were to do this, I would let everyone know but where should something like that be posted?

If I post a shot of a flower that's been treated with the Orton effect, where should I post it? Orton is commonly used on flower edits so is it really OOTB?

I'm also playing the devil's advocate. ;)

Dave Mills
01-13-2010, 07:44 PM
Hi Ken, Your starting to venture into the ethics area which is a whole other topic. I still feel if it looks natural it's not OOTB.
Most orton effects I have seen look manipulated and should go in OOTB...

Ed Vatza
01-14-2010, 06:48 AM
OK, I have stayed out of this discussion long enough. Its time to add a radical (albeit friendly radical) element to the discussion. I believe it is MY art. I am passionate about MY art. And MY art represents MY vision. In some cases it may look NORMAL to YOU and it other cases it may look OOTB to YOU. Likewise, some of my art looks NORMAL to ME while some of it looks OOTB to ME. YOU and ME may not agree.

What am I trying to say? I am saying that in a perfect world, I, the artist, should decide whether what I have done fits MY definition of Macro or Flora or Landscape or whatever and that is where I should post my image.

Radical idea, I know. But I believe allowing others to define art or categorize art for the public is the first step in stifling creativity. It says YOU are right and I am wrong.

That doesn't mean that I have to like all art or even profess to understand it. So critiquing is a valid activity. But we must also recognize that when we critique we are often, without even thinking about it, squashing the artist's vision and replacing it with our own. Another line I don't think should be crossed.

Let me address two specific images that I have recently posted to the Macro/Flora forum. The first was the simple red carnation image (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52594) that seemed to be where some of this discussion began (I know the thoughts were there prior to my post). That image admittedly had some problems but as the artist, I did feel comfortable placing that image in Macro/Flora. MY vision... a red flower. Similarly, I viewed my Winter Teasel image (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=54234) as appropriate for Macro/Flora despite the fact that I used just about everything I had available to me in processing it. I gave you the option of moving it but was clearly Macro/Flora to me.

I understand that the powers that be wish to establish order from chaos. But creativity is by definition a messy proposition. There is a quote from David duChemin's e-book "The Inspired Eye" that I really like. It says "Creation is risky stuff. It's at the whim of lunatics with a bad habit of asking, What if...?"

So I am asking... What if? What if we just let the artist decide whether their image goes into macro/flora or OOTB? Would the world end? Would chaos overtake BPN? Somehow I think not. But then it is not a perfect world and BPN is not MY toy. So I will just leave you with the above ramblings and my warm regards.

As artists, we should take the time to think about and discuss our art from a more philosophical viewpoint every now and then.

Julie Kenward
01-14-2010, 08:08 AM
And here's my reply: Fine by me.

If the artist wants to make that decision, so be it. I have no qualms with doing that 99.9% of the time. That is, in fact, exactly why I'm asking this question - because if we, as artists, don't know the difference between what looks "natural to the eye" and what doesn't - if we can't decide between what processes are normal workflow and what aren't - if we can look at an image and not be sure that we DID cross that "natural" line then we, as moderators, can't do that.

I also believe that the artist owns the piece and only He knows what was in his heart when he created it. So I guess my question is now not what is the difference between Macro/Flora and OOTB but are you all sure as artists that you understand and respect the difference?

Personally, Ed, if I had created either of those two images you referenced, I'd have gone straight to OOTB with both of them because of all the extra steps you took to get them to that point. The leaves on the carnation were beautiful but I have never seen a carnation with those soft of leaves in a natural setting. For me, the texture of the leaves set "I stepped out of the box." I also thought the background on the second image was not something you'd normally see behind a teasel so, for that reason, I also would have put that in OOTB. Just my two cents worth...

As for the question about taking things out and adding things in that was addressed earlier, I think cloning out a distraction IS part of normal workflow - we do it all the time to create a stronger image. However, IMO, taking the bird out of the photo and putting him on a whole NEW background - that's not so much a "natural" image any more, even if the BG looks natural. So there's another conundrum! You can take out but not put in? :eek::o:eek:

One last thing before I head to work:

Remember, we are only pondering these things and discussing them. Nobody wants to have to 'police' an artistic forum but we also have to remember this: there are new photographers out there who are going to stop by our site and see some incredible images here. They need to be able to look here to see what is possible to capture in nature and what is manipulated in post-processing.

Okay... rebuttal? Anyone else? Great discussion, everyone!

Ed Vatza
01-14-2010, 11:23 AM
Personally, Ed, if I had created either of those two images you referenced, I'd have gone straight to OOTB with both of them because of all the extra steps you took to get them to that point. The leaves on the carnation were beautiful but I have never seen a carnation with those soft of leaves in a natural setting. For me, the texture of the leaves set "I stepped out of the box." I also thought the background on the second image was not something you'd normally see behind a teasel so, for that reason, I also would have put that in OOTB. Just my two cents worth...

NOTE: This is not me trying to justify placing these two images here rather than OOTB. Probably 75% of my posts do go to OOTB. Rather it is a discussion of how arbitrary such a distinction can be. And how OOTB is in the eye of the beholder in which case I would choose to defer to the creator's eye.

Let's take a look at these two images because they are examples of where I say Macro/Flora and you say OOTB.

And let's look at the second (Winter Teasel) first because to my mind it is the easier of the two. The focal point here is the Teasel which I did virtually nothing to other than a bit of sharpening. All of the PP was done to the background. If the background was the focal point (a landscape of sorts) then clearly the image goes OOTB at least to my mind's eye. But its not! It's a Teasel image and the Teasel is crisp, clear and except for sharpening, untouched. Teasel is a flower. So why not macro/flora? Would the image have been more "natural" had I draped a cloth behind the Teasel and used that for a background instead of manipulating what was there? Oh wait, a cloth is manipulating the background, isn't it?

Now for the carnation. You speak of how the leaves (assume you mean petals) look. I would actually contend that this is what you see when you look at a flower - color, form, line and, yes, texture. But I would also contend that the eye does not see all the detail. But the camera does! The camera doesn't lie and it picks up many details that I would contend we do not see.

Think of a face, your own, a loved one's, whatever. You see that face clearly when looking in a mirror or at the other person. Now take a photo and look at it. Looks different, doesn't it! All those lines, blemishes (I'm speaking of my own face! :eek:) that the camera picks up and our eye doesn't. So what does the portrait photographer do? Gets rid of all that detail in the "smoothing" process. Does that mean most portraits are OOTB? I would contend that I did the same thing with the carnation. Everything is there to say carnation except for the fine detail (think blemishes) that we don't see anyway. By darnation, its a carnation so I post it in macro/flora.

If you want me to talk through what ends up in OOTB, I can do that to. But again, both are my decision.

Love ya, Jules. And this is fun to me. But if others want me to shut up and crawl back under my rock, I could do that too!:D

Julie Kenward
01-14-2010, 12:22 PM
No need to crawl off anywhere, Ed...this is exactly what I wanted to happen...to get our minds around what we do and how we do it. ;)

Ed Vatza
01-14-2010, 08:04 PM
OK, I won't climb back under a rock but I sure would like to hear from other folks!:)

Mike Moats
01-14-2010, 08:59 PM
Hey All,

If it was up to me my only concern would be that an image posted conform to the style of macro/closeup photography. I don't get hung up on what someone does on the processing or what plugins they use to create their artistic vision. I wouldn't boot any image unless it didn't meet the macro/close-up format, but the founders that put this site together set up the rules so we follow them. So don't like to offend anyone if their image gets moved, but we just go by what has been established as acceptable for this forum by birdphotographer.net.:)

Ed Vatza
01-15-2010, 01:10 PM
End of discussion!

Anita Bower
01-16-2010, 04:01 PM
Hey All,

If it was up to me my only concern would be that an image posted conform to the style of macro/closeup photography. ...snip....:)

I would appreciate some clarification of what the macro/closeup style is.

Ken Childs
01-16-2010, 05:52 PM
I would appreciate some clarification of what the macro/closeup style is.
I was wondering the same thing.

Playing devil's advocate again but shouldn't it be the "thinking outside the box" forum? Out of the box is a general term that applies to a product that is ready to go as is. In other words, it doesn't need anything extra to perform as advertised.

Anita Bower
01-16-2010, 07:20 PM
On the one hand, it doesn't matter to me which forum my photos go into. I'm happy to abide by the guidelines, once we figure them out.

On the other hand, it does matter. I have come to form relationships with photographers on this forum. I know I can trust their helpful comments and that I will grow as a photographer. I would miss them if I posted to another forum.

Also, I don't think I can keep up with two forums. I want to comment on images, and have trouble keeping up with one forum.

Just a few more thoughts.

Mike Moats
01-16-2010, 08:53 PM
If someone posted a landscape or a image of a full size animal in a large scene you would not consider it a macro image. Macro formating meaning shot in close, very small subjects, which is what we do now, we just can't do any processing that makes the image look unnatural. As I said if it was up to me I would only be concerned that and image meet the macro format and I wouldn't worry about the processing as it's up to each individual on their own artistic look, but it's not up to me to make that call.

Desmond Chan
01-18-2010, 03:33 AM
Glad to see the discussion. :)



So what do you think? What constitutes "normal" in-camera and post-processing procedures and what doesn't?

One way to see it I think is: "normal" in-camera processing is what your camera-computer can do to your raw file to turn it into a jpeg file. Everything other than that you could consider them at post-processing.


What if an image doesn't follow the ROT's or we use Nik Viveza to tone down a hot spot...does that mean it belongs in OOTB? What Viveza does is part of Nikon Capture NX or NX2, the raw conversion program from Nikon for its raw file. Toning down or lighten up a certain area is kind of similar to dodge and burn done in the dark-room. Personally I don't see it much different than adding vignetting. It's nothing new. I would say: "No, it's not OOTB".


What if we take the rules of photography literally - will we ever grow then as artists? Personally I don't like the use of the word "rules." "Rules of composition, etc." What are they? Who set the rules anyway and why do I have to follow them? If you as an artist like to live by certain rules, it's fine. Should other be?


How do you know when you are working on a photographic image that you just "crossed that line" from being "cutting edge" to being OOTB? I read somewhere that to think about what a photograph is, or what a photograph should look like, start thinking about the word "photo-realistic." I think it's kind of what DMills suggest.

I think that whatever we think is OOTB today may no longer be so in the future.