There is an interesting variety of "chopping styles" represented by the graphic artists who submit their work to this site. I will note only three in this thread as a starting point for discussion and comment.
The first style is what I would call strictly technical and involves only using the source and transforming it to make it look like something other than the original picture.
billtvshow's "Hot dog post is an example of what I mean:


The second style is a combination of a transformation and the additon of another source or sources to form a composite.
202's tournament entry is an example of this style.


The third style is the use of the original picture without any transformation, but with the addition of another source and/or sources plus lighting, color, integration and other modifications and adjustments etc.
to form a unique collage picture that is significantly different from the original.
Here is an example of such a picture, where the Christmas scene was the original picture.


The original source for the first 2 styles can be found simply by accessing the composer's picture profiles.

There are probably numerous other styles that could be differentiated, if time were taken to analyze and classify differences represented by the artists submitting work here. I have chosen to list only three because I believe that they represent what is most typical of the style differentiation that exists on this site. Each of these styles could have genre sub categories , for example" style one" could have a subcategory of surreal.

My questions are:
1. Do you think that any one style has a comparative edge in voter appeal re: the work on this site.?

2. Is one style any better than another one?

3. Is any style good, if the theme/idea is ingenious and the execution is technically superior?

4. Which style do you think most represents who you are as a chopper? Which style is more authentically you?

Please add any other related comments you think are relevant, but which I have not included in the topics for discussion.

Finally, it would be interesting to study voting trends related to the above styles in an attempt to determine if, in fact, one style typically prevails over another in the winning entry category. I use the "winning entry" category simply because it is easier to eliminate the competency of the artist variable as a factor in determing the winner, because most artists who submit a winning entry are presumed to be skilled and competent choppers.
Maybe this is case of when too much is too much. If so I hope you will just
and have a good day..

I really like style 1- takes a lot of skills. I use style 2 too. If I can't do number1 . And style 3 I don't like as much. I try to not use it.

Nicole, I share your view about style #1. Usually it requires more than an ordinary amount of inventiveness and an abundance of technical skill. However, there are probably some people like myself, who aren't exceptionally creative and/or gifted from a technical point of view. Therefeore my best entries have all been created using style 3, which really requires an understanding of theme and how it can interact with composition, setting, light, color etc. to produce a very artful and, on occasion, dramatic portrait.

My thinking is that the technical chops will usually receive a lot of votes, because they are inventive, and technically, often better than competent, and, on occasion, marvels of ingenuity. But there can be very powerful and beautiful visual collages utilizing style 3 which inspire hope, tears, joy, appreciation of the beautiful etc.. At this point, I am doing my best to utilize the style (style3) that is most compatible with my level of skill and creative vision. If I were to try "technical" as a typical chopping style, I would be ignoring whatever limited gifts I have in order to be like the "anfa's, billtvshow's and a host of others who are more than two notches above the ordinary both technically and creatively. I figure, If I chop who I am, then not only to my own self will I be true, but false to no other man/woman. Shakespeare said it first and better, but the principle remains, in my view, powerful and true.

Looking at your posts, you probably have gifts in every area, and don't have to be concerned about using a typical style in order to create wonderfully inventive and technically competent posts. In fact, you are both prolific and good, and I applaud both your effort and your skill.

What about my style?

Style 1 and 2 are the same for me ... it's all technical and not many people can do that ... so that's why that will always get alot of votes ...

Style 3 ... the pic you used is a bad example ... that will never get votes ... but style 3 has it's own difficulties and is maybe even harder cause you have to get so many things right if you use multiple sources ... lightning, shading, color etc ... that all has to be correct for an image to look 'real' ...

Most people try style 3 but fail cause it involves alot of skills ... but when done correctly it's a big vote getter ...

hi Txpinky..
I see your kaleidoscope style as a subgenre under the style # 1 classification.. You simply transform the original picture using the techniques that work for you to create a new picture. Most of the time you don't appear to use any outside source, and my hunch is that you rarely use a filter to accomplish the kaleidoscope effect. You are definitely the "kaleidoscope king" of the PSC site. I have never seen anyone do it better.

Hi Deshone..
I have to agree that, generally speaking, the example I used to demonstrate style # 3 is not an extraordinarily outstanding example of a style 3 project that would pick up a lot of votes. Although in this case, that particular picture collected 29 votes. However, jazgraphic's "light house" picture is probably a more solid example that clearly illustrates
an exceptionally well done style 3 project.



My original intent with respect to using the "plate" project" was simply to demonstrate how the original picture (untransformed) could be used to create a picture that characterized the style # 3 project I was attempting to describe.

And I share your view, that "getting it right" and "making it real" using style # 3 is extremely difficult, and like you, I believe that when done well, that style can be breathtakingly beautiful, inpsire awe and collect a bushel of votes.

I, mostly, try to alter the reality in the scene/image. Either adding an element which changes the "story", or transporting it to an unexpected location.




And my favorite:

that last one is the greatest chop I've ever seen...I can't take my eyes off it!!

u can't be serious feral... a macro shot with a spherize overlay and you think it's amazing?

You have left out the often forgotten style of PUT YOURSELF IN THE CHOP. ( more a sub-style, I guess, of #1 or #2)

There are few who do this particular style. Those that do usually need expensive medication... and this seems to keep people from choosing this route to (semi) glory.

I've heard it said that those who gleefully adopt this substyle recieve universal acclaim, PSC fame and a fan club which bears their name.

In terms of getting votes, I seem to get more using styles 1 and 2. When I opt for style 3, it seems that no matter how clean and "real' I try to make my image, I don't get as many.

I guess I use the same criterion when I'm voting...I like to see the original manipulated somehow, as opposed to a composite of other images, although jazzy's example is incredible.

This is not to say that I never vote for composites...just a preference.

I'd try Rein's style, but can't afford the medication....

I'm working on a style one.
Holy cow-I think it's ten times the work!

Very arousing.....




I am in awe.....That is very cool, That is a talent I could never achieve. Well done.