When i first came to deviantArt i fell in love with how it’s opened towards every art form and devious artists. But now i’m in pain and feeling like they are taking something away from me after my long time visit – the two categories im mostly focused on; macro and darkroom.
I’m very surprised by the popularity of the previous article on this. This means that thankfuly im not alone with my feelings.

To those new that still do not yet know what’s the problem about. On “Artist Relations Newsletter: February 12, 2007” we can read about the upcoming changes on dA. I’m ok with changes but there are things that painfully hit me. First something about macros and later on the darkroom... Ok begin quote:

“The main change will be that we'll be more strictly adhering to our policy of subject-based categories. That means we'll be eliminating several technique-based categories and moving those photos to other categories.
(...)
In particular, these are the changes that we're planning:
All deviations from Animals Plants Nature > Macro > Animals will be relocated to Animals Plants Nature > Miscellaneous

All deviations from Animals Plants Nature > Macro > Nature will be relocated to Animals Plants Nature > Miscellaneous
(...) If you have a macro photo of a flower, for instance, please move it to the Flowers and Plants category.”

So if i understand correctly dA no longer sees the difference between macro photography and closeups? If i for egzample have a macro shot of a bug i should put it into my gallery along with insect closeups that are most certainly not macro photography? Those are separate types of photography! Different technique, different tools, different thinking... and different subject.

found on macrophoto [link]
found on flower-club [link]
Both flower photos... So now it’s ”what’s the difference?" right?

“All deviations from Photography > Darkroom will be moved to Photography > Miscellaneous
(...)We've been planning this move for quite some time. The Darkroom category has caused confusion for years and it's time to end it. From now on, if your photo does not significantly look manipulated, it should go in the appropriate subject-based category. If you've removed a blemish or a distraction from a portrait, for example, it should go in a portrait category. If you've added textures, layers, superimposed other images, changed the background, etc., that piece should be moved into one of the Photomanipulation categories.”

Now, i must agree that there are some righs and wrongs about it. For egzample ill quote how a certain deviant feels on the subject:

“i'm actually glad to see the "darkroom" category gone, because, well, it's vague, and i'd venture that the majority of the content has no place in it. i'm really not sure where dA came up with the notion that "darkroom" manipulation includes stuff done on computers that mimics darkroom techniques counts as a darkroom submission, but not only is it just wrong, it leads to a lot of bad submission choices.
for instance: in a darkroom, you can burn, dodge, crop, and enlarge; i do all of those to pretty much every digital file i have, but does that make them ALL darkroom submissions? no, it doesn't.”

Agree. I also noticed the confusion concerning the “Darkroom” category. And i always have been convinced there is something wrong with it. Many of the submitted photos was edited digitally and that’s in my opinion not the point of having it around. But it’s better to redefine it rather then getting rid of it. Many deviants suggest it should be splitted into two categories “Digital Darkroom” and “Darkroom”, witch i don’t agree with. There is already such a category as “Photomanipulations”. Also the idea of splitting photography into to main sections “Digital” and “Film” is not that good either. I must admit it was wrong of me to suggest that because i didint took into considerations the fact that this would ruin the entire submitted photo database , sorry about that... But here is another sugestion that in my opinion might work out well:
Photography > Film (or analoge) Photography > Darkroom (for non digitally edited photos made by deviants themself with the use of darkroom equipment)
Photography > Film Photography > Nature
Photography > Film Photography > People
Photography > Film Photography > Architecture
Photography > Film Photography > Still life
Photography > Film Photography > Misc.
A Golden Mean?


Now concerning the whole “policy of subject-based categories”. Like i said before, the techniqe can be a subject itself. Want me to prove it? Take a look on kuru93’s [link] gallery!

He likes to take pictures using toy cameras and expired old negatives, quote : “You never quite know how it is going to turn out.”. Love it

A forum quote:
“I strongly disagree that there is some fundamental distinction to be made between a photo produced on film and one produced on silicon. The subject of a photo is what's visible within it. The technique is how you make it look the way it looks. What difference does it make whether the manipulations are digital or analog?”

Film has a soul Digital photography is incredibly simple and many times do not require any skill or craft. You just take your digital camera, a big flash card and make thousands of snapshots hoping some will turn out fine, if you dont like them you just clear out the memory and shoot again. Im not saying it’s bad! Tools are made to help us but this is no the issue... Later you can edit it in every way in one click and if you dont like the resoult you press “undo” and try out some different filters for egzample. You dont have a “undo” option with film.

“Did the camera take the picture or did you? Did you print the picture or did the enlarger? Does the PC do the work, or do you? Machines, whether digital or analog, only do what we make them do. Whether you push silver grains or electrons is irrelevant.”

Irrelevant? With digital the machine is told to something for us, with film we do everything ourselfs! A Polish photographer once said “Give me a beer crate and i will make you a wounderful photo with it”. There are times when what we see on the photo is less relevant then the process.

Darkroom photography can be just a hobby or a matter of belief, that a photo created not with the help of electronics but rather with ones own hands has much greater value. No matter if it’s either of this, it is unquestioningly a separate art form and it deserves it’s own category.

The new way of things served to us by dA will be a pain in the ass for other deviants like me who like to seek out darkroom and/or macro photography. In the end we will have to view several categories random for what we seek instead of just one.

by vaporiss [link]

Let your friends know about this article, the more feedback we have the better. Thank you for your attencion.
Morda86