Posted under Tags
People already have enough trouble differentiating wide shot and very wide shot, if we really need an absurdly wide shot, it needs to have clear guidelines, cause the examples provided by very wide shot’s wiki already covers what’s tagged under absurdly wide shot. Compare post #2635986 and post #3757024.
Updated
They definitely need to be merged unless someone has specific criteria for the "absurd" version. Given its lack of a wiki and small number of posts, I have half a mind to just move them all now. The wiki definition for very wide shot pretty well describes the posts with the absurd tag.
If anything, a bunch of the posts under very wide shot should really just be wide shot IMO.
I think both wide shot and very wide shot are useful, absurdly wide shot seems dumb though.
Super_Affection said:
If anything, a bunch of the posts under very wide shot should really just be wide shot IMO.
I was just about to say this after checking just the first couple of posts.
Super_Affection said:
If anything, a bunch of the posts under very wide shot should really just be wide shot IMO.
Unbreakable said:
I was just about to say this after checking just the first couple of posts.
Which ones?
magcolo said:
Which ones?
Some from the first couple pages: post #6142486, post #6125856, post #6098159, post #5964067, post #5954564. A bunch more are borderline. (Or maybe my idea of "very wide" is in the minority and I'm actually making an argument in favor of the existence of absurd?)
The wiki mentions character(s) taking up "a vanishingly small portion of the frame" and "none of the individual characters are noticeable from the image thumbnail" and while those are both subjective, they make it sound rather extreme -- which it probably should be, or we'll never agree on where to draw the line. In fact I wonder if the "absurd" version was created because the "very" tag is diluted?
Even the wiki's second example post #2841187 probably shouldn't count. If it does, then very wide shot should imply wide shot -- and maybe it should anyway, given how subjective the difference is.
I think the wiki's first example post #2635986 is a good one, and some other good examples of very wide would be post #6074406, post #5945936, post #3757024, post #5259224. The last two are currently tagged with absurd, and one but not the other is tagged with very wide as well. At the very least we need some kind of implication(s) here.
The wiki for very wide also mentions Grand Scale (pool #1886) as a "see also" and that makes sense to me as the concepts feel similar in my head. The shot is so wide that it emphasizes the smallness of the characters compared to something else.
BUR #16443 has been rejected.
create implication very_wide_shot -> wide_shot
Let's start with this. A very wide shot is a wide shot and if we can't even decide where to draw the line they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. I can't see someone searching for wide shot being offended by finding a very wide shot, so I don't see a scenario where the implication hurts.
Separately, since no one has spoken up in defense of absurdly wide shot, I intend to move all of its posts to very wide shot in a few days if no one speaks up (or beats me to it). Not gonna do that, as discussed below.
Updated
Super_Affection said:
Some from the first couple pages: post #6142486, post #6125856, post #6098159, post #5964067, post #5954564. A bunch more are borderline. (Or maybe my idea of "very wide" is in the minority and I'm actually making an argument in favor of the existence of absurd?)
The wiki mentions character(s) taking up "a vanishingly small portion of the frame" and "none of the individual characters are noticeable from the image thumbnail" and while those are both subjective, they make it sound rather extreme -- which it probably should be, or we'll never agree on where to draw the line. In fact I wonder if the "absurd" version was created because the "very" tag is diluted?Even the wiki's second example post #2841187 probably shouldn't count. If it does, then very wide shot should imply wide shot -- and maybe it should anyway, given how subjective the difference is.
Super_Affection said:
Separately, since no one has spoken up in defense of absurdly wide shot, I intend to move all of its posts to very wide shot in a few days if no one speaks up (or beats me to it).
Very wide shot’s initial intend might be more extreme and not what it’s currently used for. But I think there’s still an obvious difference between post #6142486 and post #6242403, and I don’t agree that they should all end up in the same tag. And I can also see how they’re different from post #5590978. If not even post #2841187 is good enough for very wide shot then there’s no way to look for different degrees of wide shots. Maybe post #2635986 is the one that should go to absurdly wide shot instead.
Don’t have much to say about the implications, I guess they could save us some trouble trying to draw a clear line.
Super_Affection said:
The wiki for very wide also mentions Grand Scale (pool #1886) as a "see also" and that makes sense to me as the concepts feel similar in my head. The shot is so wide that it emphasizes the smallness of the characters compared to something else.
And afterwards? Not sure why you brought it up?
Updated
magcolo said:
Very wide shot’s initial intend might be more extreme and not what it’s currently used for. But I think there’s still an obvious difference between post #6142486 and post #6242403, and I don’t agree that they should all end up in the same tag. And I can also see how they’re different from post #5590978. If not even post #2841187 is good enough for very wide shot then there’s no way to look for different degrees of wide shots. Maybe post #2635986 is the one that should go to absurdly wide shot instead.
We could have an unlimited number of levels in theory, but since we're already having trouble drawing lines between them, and we have to accommodate taggers that won't see this discussion, I just don't know if we can really keep three separate tags defined well enough to be useful. And if there are two levels, I'd rather have post #6142486 and post #6242403 lumped together than have either one of them lumped with post #5590978.
I would be totally alright with post #2841187 staying in very wide shot. I think it's borderline but I don't strongly disagree with it.
I agree it makes sense to put post #2635986 in absurdly wide shot if we keep that tag.
magcolo said:
Super_Affection said:
The wiki for very wide also mentions Grand Scale (pool #1886) as a "see also" and that makes sense to me as the concepts feel similar in my head. The shot is so wide that it emphasizes the smallness of the characters compared to something else.
And afterwards? Not sure why you brought it up?
I was just trying to get across the way very wide shot feels to me -- or absurdly wide shot, if we're going to go that way. Like a more objective version of Grand Scale. I guess it's not very much more objective after all... Should we have a rule based on what percentage of the frame is taken up by characters or subjects?
Super_Affection said:
Separately, since no one has spoken up in defense of absurdly wide shot, I intend to move all of its posts to very wide shot in a few days if no one speaks up (or beats me to it).
It was a tag I made some time ago, but I named it following Danbooru nomenclature (long hair -> very long hair -> absurdly long hair), without knowing that the actual name for it is "Extreme wide shot".
I originally wanted it to be for very wide shots where the character(s) almost look like a dot compared to the scenery, and I'm against straight up nuking it.
(I would also like to propose to rename it to extreme wide shot)
I guess it's not very much more objective after all...
It sort of is, actually. I wanted to say that terminology is objective but it seems that even photographers can't agree on it.
There's this guide which has various examples, but lacks very wide shot. This other guide has very wide shot, but calls wide shot something different. (For reference, I believe our equivalent of Full Shot is full body).
I'm not too well-versed into this subject, so if anyone knows better do tell.
Should we have a rule based on what percentage of the frame is taken up by characters or subjects?
We technically already do. From the wide shot wiki:
As a rule of thumb, the character should be noticeable from the thumbnail but shouldn't take up more than 25% of the overall image.
I'm not sure if this is already too far away, plus there are artworks like post #6242385 which are tagged as wide shot.
I propose something like 33% to 25-20% for wide shot, 25-20% to 10-5% for very wide shot, and anything smaller extreme wide shot.
Username_Hidden said:
It was a tag I made some time ago, but I named it following Danbooru nomenclature (long hair -> very long hair -> absurdly long hair), without knowing that the actual name for it is "Extreme wide shot".
I originally wanted it to be for very wide shots where the character(s) almost look like a dot compared to the scenery, and I'm against straight up nuking it.
(I would also like to propose to rename it to extreme wide shot)
I won't go and nuke it myself, as you and magcolo have brought valid points in defense. I think we need to change wikis and do some gardening if we're going to keep it, though. I would definitely support renaming to extreme wide shot.
It sort of is, actually.I wanted to say that terminology is objective but it seems that even photographers can't agree on it.
There's this guide which has various examples, but lacks very wide shot. This other guide has very wide shot, but calls wide shot something different. (For reference, I believe our equivalent of Full Shot is full body).
I'm not too well-versed into this subject, so if anyone knows better do tell.
I'm not too well-versed myself, but from the little experience I have, my impression is that once the shot is wider than is needed to show the subject's full body, it's a matter of intent with how much the location is emphasized vs the character(s) at least as much as it's defined by the mathematical proportion of the frame taken up. For example, switching between wide angle and telephoto lenses in conjunction with moving the camera can change the amount of background in view and its perceived distance from the subject without changing the visual arc that the subject takes up.
Looking around online, the film use of "wide shot" looks more like our full body, and doesn't match our current wiki for wide shot.
post #6225112 and post #6240996 are probably wide shots by the photography definition but I'm not sure if they should count for ours. (Opinions on that?)
post #6237047 has the character shown at a similar scale to those two but I don't think it'd be a wide shot by any definition, even if it included the feet, because the background is so out-of-focus. With a camera, that image probably would have been produced by a telephoto lens, giving a sense of closeness to the subject and making the background look farther away. Art makes it more difficult because you could compose a shot like that but then draw the background in perfect focus.
post #6230498 shows full body and a significant amount of background but the background is clearly de-emphasized in favor of the subject so I don't think that's a wide shot either.
post #6240381 might be considered a very wide shot by the photography definition. Somehow it feels a bit strange for me to call that "very" but perhaps that's just me. I think it should be at least wide shot and I'd be alright with very but not extreme.
For extreme, you should not be able to make out any details on the character(s) present, except maybe in special absurdres cases.
Differentiating between wide and very wide I'm not as sure about. I guess we could say a wide shot shows meaningful background but still emphasizes the character, while a very wide shot emphasizes the background over the character while still showing the character clearly? That could get pretty subjective and bring us back to square one, though.
Browsing very_wide_shot, many if not most of its posts would probably be "extreme" by the photo/video definition.
We technically already do. From the wide shot wiki:
As a rule of thumb, the character should be noticeable from the thumbnail but shouldn't take up more than 25% of the overall image.
I'm not sure if this is already too far away, plus there are artworks like post #6242385 which are tagged as wide shot.
I propose something like 33% to 25-20% for wide shot, 25-20% to 10-5% for very wide shot, and anything smaller extreme wide shot.
Even though I said it before, thinking more I don't think percentage-based rules would be very meaningful. I like the thumbnail-based rules of thumb that the existing wikis have, though I think the current wiki for "very" applies better to "extreme" if we are going to have both.
Super_Affection said:
I was just trying to get across the way very wide shot feels to me -- or absurdly wide shot, if we're going to go that way. Like a more objective version of Grand Scale. I guess it's not very much more objective after all... Should we have a rule based on what percentage of the frame is taken up by characters or subjects?
It’s a mix of very, absurdly and no human. Since Grand Scale is a pool it’s okay to go a bit loose on it. The wide shot tags would require clearer examples.
Super_Affection said:
Looking around online, the film use of "wide shot" looks more like our full body, and doesn't match our current wiki for wide shot.
post #6225112 and post #6240996 are probably wide shots by the photography definition but I'm not sure if they should count for ours. (Opinions on that?)
post #6237047 has the character shown at a similar scale to those two but I don't think it'd be a wide shot by any definition, even if it included the feet, because the background is so out-of-focus. With a camera, that image probably would have been produced by a telephoto lens, giving a sense of closeness to the subject and making the background look farther away. Art makes it more difficult because you could compose a shot like that but then draw the background in perfect focus.
post #6230498 shows full body and a significant amount of background but the background is clearly de-emphasized in favor of the subject so I don't think that's a wide shot either.
post #6240381 might be considered a very wide shot by the photography definition. Somehow it feels a bit strange for me to call that "very" but perhaps that's just me. I think it should be at least wide shot and I'd be alright with very but not extreme.Browsing very_wide_shot, many if not most of its posts would probably be "extreme" by the photo/video definition.
Let’s not get too confused by the photography definitions, since full body is very common in art, our definition of what counts as "wide" and so on are basically leveled up by one. So I think we shouldn’t use photographs as examples.
I agree with most of these. I would hesitate to tag post #6230498 even as wide shot. And post #6240381 is wide shot not very wide shot to me.
Found a good comparison, post #6153962 is very wide shot and post #6153965 is wide shot
Super_Affection said:
Even though I said it before, thinking more I don't think percentage-based rules would be very meaningful. I like the thumbnail-based rules of thumb that the existing wikis have, though I think the current wiki for "very" applies better to "extreme" if we are going to have both.
I support thumbnail examples. Calculating percentage sounds somehow less objective. And don’t expect the userbase to do follow guidelines that aren’t even straight forward enough.
Currently when I’m tagging wide shots and so on, if you click into a post to look, it’s very possible to underestimate its degree of wideness, because your brain is going to focus on the characters and that’s the easiest and perhaps the only thing you’ll remember. So I always view them from thumbnails to have a better idea, like taking a step backwards irl. For instance I definitely didn’t remember post #6153962 being so wide, I always think of it and ask "did I mistagged it?". Because the image I have for it in my head is centered around the character, which in reality takes a lot less space on the canvas. Now that I look at the thumbnail, it’s safe to stay in very wide shot.
Updated
BUR #16501 has been rejected.
create alias absurdly_wide_shot -> extreme_wide_shot
Small tag, but putting it to vote + streamlining wiki edits
The bulk update request #16443 (forum #239636) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
The bulk update request #16501 (forum #239894) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
