or maybe an implication of them.... there's nothing aliased or implicated with picture.

Maybe portrait -> picture and photo -> picture

Actualyl this raises up an interesting question.

photo's filled, mostly with REAL photographs.

but where do we put photos in pictures? should they lump under there too?

picture IS a very vague tag idea, after all.

and looking at it, some things are photos, some are paintings some are picture_frames...

Good point. Pretty much nulls out alias but a Photo should always be a picture, I think.

links for the lazy:
picture
photo
portrait

but what is what defined as? :)

portrait's defined as "Images that capture something of a person's likeness, personality or mood, from their facial expression or body language. Typically the face is dominant." which I think is reasonable... though the tag itself is messy.

edit: jsut scuttled through the portrait tag and untagged a number of images that.. well, diidn't fulfill the rquirements.

anyway, portrait doesnt' seem to matter into this discussion too much. :)

Pictture is the generic catchall. photo and portrait should imply it.

okay.. lemme try phrasing this differently.

What's the tag for a real photograph? post #142509
What'st he tag for a photograph in an image? post #140421
another thread says this post #82315 is a painting

picture contains real photos, shopped photos, characters holding photos, paintings/photos in picture frams on walls, posters, and characters doing this: post #21709

What does picture contain?

I don't think that it serves as a generic catch all, because post #144025 post #55163 and post #140347 have very little in common.

In post #82315 it has a painting and a photo- photo is on the dresser, painting above the bed.

For actual photos: tag it a photo or photograph; Maybe have photo alias to photograph.

For drawn art that looks like a photograph: photorealistic? drawn photoraph? Don't worry about it and just name it a photograph anyways, because that is what it's trying to emulate?

post #55163 seems like it shouldn't qualify as a photo, but it does emulate brush strokes like a painting, so I'd tag it that, though not portrait.

Portraits are generally types of paintings, aren't they? But you can do a portrait photo too. Thus I'd separate them from photo and portrait.

Picture should contain things that are generally contained within a framework, like photos and paintings are in real life. post #21709 just has a character doing that weird finger thingy people do when trying to frame a picture so they can see its dividing lines better, or something like that= it's not a painting, photo, or portrait, and shouldn't be tagged as such.

Well, the upload itself is a picture of course. Unless it's a Flash file... I might go for framed_picture for pictures / drawings / photos of art galleries and stuff hanging on walls. Just "picture" without any extra qualification is a bit of a rubbish tag really.

Yeah, photo is used for depictions of photos as well as uploads which are photos. I'm not bothered about inventing new tags to male the distinction though since we've used photo+real together for uploads which are photos of real-world things before now, and that suffices.

photography is both the art form, and the process of taking a photo.

portrait is something a bit special, something a bit characterful depicting a person, and most art forms can generate portraits. This is a nice thing to make distinctive.

painting is messy, yes. It's either an upload that is a painting - possibly including digital paint, possibly a scanned painted artwork, or a picture of the process of slapping paint on canvas, or a picture of the result hanging on a wall. Disambiguation tags may help.

painting, as in to paint, would probably best go under something like creating_art, which can be tagged to sculting, carving, blacksmithing, etc. etc. generically to show that that post is about art being made.

I can agree with it being framed_picture for the most part, but there's the issue of paintings or photos that aren't framed- perhaps just the canvas, or a photo on its own. Yes you COULD use picture to describe EVERYTHING here, but applying it specificalyl only to photos, portraits, and paintings to illustrate that it's about "images which contain images of pictures" rather than just "this is a picture". Any suggestions for something that we could use instaed of just picture to illustrate that point without making it frame-required?

Picture is way too ambiguous to be used as a tag.
How about:

• Using "real" for real images/videos, remove photo from all real images which are photos
• Alias picture to photo
• Edit the photo and real wikis to say that real should be for real images/videos and photo is used for when there is a photo is the picture, not when the image is a photo.

Riversyde said:
Picture is way too ambiguous to be used as a tag.
How about:

• Using "real" for real images/videos, remove photo from all real images which are photos
• Alias picture to photo
• Edit the photo and real wikis to say that real should be for real images/videos and photo is used for when there is a photo is the picture, not when the image is a photo.

Great voice of reason!!! why should picture even be a tag! Way too ambiguous! Kudos!!!

123easy said: For drawn art that looks like a photograph: photorealistic? drawn photoraph? Don't worry about it and just name it a photograph anyways, because that is what it's trying to emulate?

Wat? NO. as awesome as post #74754 is, it's NOT a photograph. in any regard, that is what the photorealism tag is for.

post #55163 seems like it shouldn't qualify as a photo, but it does emulate brush strokes like a painting, so I'd tag it that, though not portrait.

Painting was pretty well concluded to be art hanging on the walls in another thread. c_c;; (post #17139 actually) but no, emulating brush strokes isnt' good enough. we generally don't tag by medium (a shame), and I know i'd be pissed off if someone was putting a SAI painting and an oil/acrylic painting and trying to pass them off as the same thing. it's a portrait because it's a face/bust shot. go look through portrait and you'll see that it fits.

Anomynous said:
painting is messy, yes. It's either an upload that is a painting - possibly including digital paint, possibly a scanned painted artwork, or a picture of the process of slapping paint on canvas, or a picture of the result hanging on a wall. Disambiguation tags may help.

Painting SHOULD be (by the discussion had previously) the word used for any sort of art hanging on a wall, though I suposed the definition could and possibly should be adjusted. In any regard, though.. digital_painting_(style), painting_(style), creating_art, and painting, respectively, is how I'd quantify those.

Riversyde said:
Picture is way too ambiguous to be used as a tag.
How about:

• Using "real" for real images/videos, remove photo from all real images which are photos
• Alias picture to photo
• Edit the photo and real wikis to say that real should be for real images/videos and photo is used for when there is a photo is the picture, not when the image is a photo.

Also, I love this. :D

Additionally, to everyone here:

Tag Group:Art -- add things to it. Adjust definitions if need be. Photos can be art too.

Perfect way to deal witht he photo part.

snow: I did say photorealistic, which is a step away from photorealism. :P I just threw out a bunch of ideas.

As for portrait: I've never seen portraits to be those laying-down shots, ever; nor have I ever heard them called such before now. They've always been those upright shots where it either shows the whole person in profile, or like the paintings of the various kings and queens- the shoulders and up bust shot, but still presented in the portrait format where it's longer than it is wide. Like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Reproduction-of-the-1805-Rembrandt-Peale-painting-of-Thomas-Jefferson-New-York-Historical-Society_1.jpg

Or are we just using the absolute basic definition where anything that focusses on the character's expression counts as a portrait (in which case there is a lot of added tagging to do... x_x and it won't seem right. I mean, should stuff like post #135207 really count as portrait?)

As for the digital vs. regular painting styles... How can you tell? They aren't always easily distinguishable, especially in this age of tablet art where brushstrokes are digitally emulated by tablet pen.

snow: I did say photorealistic, which is a step away from photorealism. :P I just threw out a bunch of ideas.

XD

As for portrait: I've never seen portraits to be those laying-down shots, ever; nor have I ever heard them called such before now. They've always been those upright shots where it either shows the whole person in profile, or like the paintings of the various kings and queens- the shoulders and up bust shot, but still presented in the portrait format where it's longer than it is wide. Like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Reproduction-of-the-1805-Rembrandt-Peale-painting-of-Thomas-Jefferson-New-York-Historical-Society_1.jpg

Or are we just using the absolute basic definition where anything that focusses on the character's expression counts as a portrait (in which case there is a lot of added tagging to do... x_x and it won't seem right. I mean, should stuff like post #135207 really count as portrait?)

nope, I muse have missed that one.

Ah, face aliases to portrait. How doofy. *deletes*

No.. but i go off of the definition of the tag which is "Images that capture something of a person's likeness, personality or mood, from their facial expression or body language. Typically the face is dominant." and for the msot part, they're 'face shots' .. or body shots. I went through them very quickly the other day, and tried to nip out all of the ones that didn't seem to have some level of... well... "personality" to them.

As for the digital vs. regular painting styles... How can you tell? They aren't always easily distinguishable, especially in this age of tablet art where brushstrokes are digitally emulated by tablet pen.

I.... .. oh sweetness, I promise, there's a difference. tablet pens might let you emulate brush strokes, but very few programs let you emulate *paint*... some are better then others, but even so, one who knows what they're doing can generally tell the differnece between, say, photoshop, open canvas and sai... much less, digital media and REAL media. Just trust me on this one, okay?

I specifically mentioned that because I've seen some paintings done with tablet and photoshop that actually look like hand-painted art, not digital art. Thus why I put forth that question.

As for the other part: Okay then. :3

those are definetly the exception, not the rule, though :D

Wondering what the tag photography_(artwork) is for.
(72 uploads currently have this tag)

Wiki page for photo says
1) "Use this tag when there is a photo of something in the image "
and
2) that tag of real should be used "if you are tagging an actual photograph of something other than furry art as its primary subject."

(edit) That text for "real" tag made me wonder: What tag should be used if upload is a photo of furry art??

Currently photography_(artwork) seems to consist of
1) photos
1a) photos of art (including art painted on outside of a train)
1b) photos of fursuiters
1c) photos of animals
2) real photo included in art (including photo_background)
and possibly more

Look at this photograph
Every time I do it makes me laugh

ListerTheSquirrel said:
Wondering what the tag photography_(artwork) is for.
(72 uploads currently have this tag)

Wiki page for photo says
1) "Use this tag when there is a photo of something in the image "
and
2) that tag of real should be used "if you are tagging an actual photograph of something other than furry art as its primary subject."

(edit) That text for "real" tag made me wonder: What tag should be used if upload is a photo of furry art??

Currently photography_(artwork) seems to consist of
1) photos
1a) photos of art (including art painted on outside of a train)
1b) photos of fursuiters
1c) photos of animals
2) real photo included in art (including photo_background)
and possibly more

Buddy, this thread was five years old.

Furrin_Gok said:
Buddy, this thread was five years old.

So if i want an answer i should start a new thread?

Posted to this thread because the subjects in thread seemed to have some overlap with my question(s).

(EDIT on 2016 Dec 20: Copied question about photography_(artwork) TO forum #217423 )
Thread 217423 can be deleted, in my opinion.

Furrin_Gok said:
Buddy, this thread was five years old.

We've been over this. If it's still relevant, it doesn't matter how old it is. Not on the tagging subforum, at least.

Anyway, if it follows the standard of the other artwork tags, then photography_(artwork) is for actual photographs. Whereas photo is for images where there's a visible photograph, such as on a wall.

I'd assume that photo_backgrounds belong under photography_(artwork), might be worth an implication.

Genjar said:
We've been over this. If it's still relevant, it doesn't matter how old it is. Not on the tagging subforum, at least.

Anyway, if it follows the standard of the other artwork tags, then photography_(artwork) is for actual photographs. Whereas photo is for images where there's a visible photograph, such as on a wall.

I'd assume that photo_backgrounds belong under photography_(artwork), might be worth an implication.

Thank you.

So I take it that photos get tagged with photography_(artwork) when upload is real-photo of "furry art as its primary subject."

ListerTheSquirrel said:
Thank you.

So I take it that photos get tagged with photography_(artwork) when upload is real-photo of "furry art as its primary subject."

Yep. The *_(artwork) tags are for the medium.

Though that one mostly only applies to older posts now, since photos are rarely approved anymore. Except for photomorphs and high-quality photos of site-relevant drawn and painted art.