RcMacStudent: Statuary typically isn’t detailed to the point of being graphic, and I’ve showed the photo in question to other mods who felt it was SFW, so I think bobroberts is ok. Paintings could be more detailed, though if they’re truly classic art pieces, they should be ok, though everything’s judged on a case by case basis.
One semi-related thought I have about photographing art installations would be that I think statuary lends itself more to Farktography entries, as compared to just taking a picture of a painting, unless that composition includes something of the larger scene/context, e.g. the painting hanging in a gallery with people looking at it. With statuary, you can do creative things with the lighting and/or angles, but if you just shoot a painting with no other context, you’re in essence just copying the work, and I wouldn’t think that would be appropriate for Farktography. Just my 2 cents, and we haven’t had anything like that come up, but it could at some point.
soosh: We’ve discussed digital cross-processing before; monkeybort is fond of the technique, and I’ve done some autolevel stuff that resulted in a cross-processed appearance which really works for some photos. Regardless, IIRC, we had a weak consensus that if it was done evenly across the image, it’s in keeping with the rules. I say weak mostly because I don’t remember any of us having really strong opinions for or against, but I’ve slept since then, so my memory could be wrong. There’s a thread on it somewhere on here…I’ll see if I can find it. In your example above, I don’t see how it’s much different from a monotone treatment (which is certainly allowed)–it looks a lot like a cyanotype. Anyone else have an opinion on the technique?
.
