[Renamed] Tag discussion: traditional_media and mixed_media

When i uploaded post #994416, I noticed that graphite_(medium) implicates traditional_media. That implication is problematic, since the wiki page for traditional_media states that the tag is for images "drawn entirely without the assistance of a computer" (emphasis mine).

In my opinion, a *_(medium) tag conveys valuable information when applied to an image where a significant and clearly visible part was done in the specified medium, even if the image also contains some CG details (like the spot_color on post #994416). I propose that we either remove the implications from the medium tags or redefine traditional_media to include images with CG details. In the latter case, entirely CG-free images could instead be tagged with no_cg, pure_traditional_media or something like that.

Edit: More appropriate thread title.

Flopsy said:
In my opinion, a *_(medium) tag conveys valuable information when applied to an image where a significant and clearly visible part was done in the specified medium, even if the image also contains some CG details (like the spot_color on post #994416).

There's mixed_media for such cases now, though it still hasn't a wiki yet.
See forum #39891 for more details.

Thanks for the reference. The discussion in forum #39891 doesn't look wholly conclusive to me, but defining mixed_media (/mixed for short?) as a subset of traditional_media is a workable solution. If we go with that, wouldn't it be a good idea to replace

A tag used to mark any image that's drawn entirely without the assistance of a computer (aside from scanning it and perhaps adjusting the colors). The name is in contrast with "digital media" which dominates Danbooru.

with something like

A tag used to mark any image that's drawn mostly or entirely without the assistance of a computer. The name is in contrast with "digital media" which dominates Danbooru.

An image that is mostly traditional, but contains some digital elements (e.g. digital spot_color), should receive the additional tag mixed_media. Digital filtering, performed to improve the visibility of the traditional artwork (e.g. color adjustment), rather than as a creative effect or to remove flaws, does not make an image mixed_media.

in the wiki? I could do that, and write the wiki page for mixed_media, if I get a go-ahead here.

Flopsy said:
I could do that, and write the wiki page for mixed_media, if I get a go-ahead here.

Well, you've been here long enough to know what is acceptable. Go ahead. Every little bit helps.

Flopsy said:
The discussion in forum #39891 doesn't look wholly conclusive to me, but defining mixed_media [...] as a subset of traditional_media is a workable solution.

I'm not sure if mixed_media should be restricted to /trad.
post #992358 is an oekaki that was completed in photoshop, and therefore looks much different from regular oekaki images. I guess mixed_media should cover these as well.

Aside from that, I like your suggestion for the wiki.

I have also been thinking about other uses for mixed_media. It would make sense to apply it to images that combine several traditional media, for example. However, defining the tag so that it applies to all cases of mixed media would leave us without a simple, reliable way to restrict a search to images that contain no CG at all. But perhaps that's not important.

Edit: And if it is, there's always the no_cg tag.

Edit2: Or even better, negate that and put digital_media on relevant posts that are also tagged /trad and mixed_media.

Oh how sad! I argued in favour of mixed_media but didn't realise we were actually using it! Honestly, what's wrong with me....

Cyberia-Mix said:
post #992358 is an oekaki that was completed in photoshop, and therefore looks much different from regular oekaki images. I guess mixed_media should cover these as well.

Flopsy said:
It would make sense to apply it to images that combine several traditional media, for example. However, defining the tag so that it applies to all cases of mixed media would leave us without a simple, reliable way to restrict a search to images that contain no CG at all. But perhaps that's not important.

This is an interesting point and I'm not sure how I feel on it quite yet. They make good sense, but... Well, my main concern has always been dealing with the works that showcase analogue techniques but have been traditionally exempt from traditional_media by the taint of the digital.

I have updated the wiki page for traditional_media as proposed above and created a wiki page for mixed_media. Currently, the mixed_media page only mentions the tag's use for images that combine traditional and digital media. In the quote block below is a version of the page that might be used if there is agreement to expand the definition to include other cases of mixed media.

This tag should be applied to images that showcase a combination of traditional media and (computer-based) digital media. Such images should also have the tag traditional_media. Images where the use of traditional media isn't apparent to the viewer (e.g. traditional line art existed but was mostly obliterated by digital colors) count as neither traditional media nor mixed media.

This tag should also be applied to images where either several traditional or several digital media are combined in a conspicuous and unusual way. Don't use this tag for combinations of exclusively traditional or exclusively digital media that are standard artistic practice, like inking and coloring a pencil sketch.

Examples

• Combination of traditional and digital media (tag with traditional_media, digital_media and mixed_media): post #871364 (traditional line art, digital colors), post #521930 (same)
• Combination of several traditional media (tag with traditional_media and mixed_media): post #822218
• Combination of several digital media (tag with mixed_media but not with digital_media): post #992358 (oekaki completed in Photoshop)

More illustrative example posts and other improvements are very welcome.

We can't use digital_media as is because the name is too broad and will be misleading. Same problem than in forum #66455.

I haven't felt the need so far to separate /trad posts using a single medium from posts using several. If this needs to be done I'd rather we don't resort to mixed_media but make a new tag like combined_traditional_media.
combined_digital_media could do the same for exclusively digital works.
mixed_media would be kept for digital/traditional combinations only.

I've been adding mixed_media along with any other associated traditional_media tags and seeing this thread is good. Agreeing with most things in the thread, with the exception of that oekaki image (post #992358 and possibly more of zen's work) as it isn't both digital and traditional.

Cyberia-Mix said:
We can't use digital_media as is because the name is too broad and will be misleading. Same problem than in forum #66455.

I haven't felt the need so far to separate /trad posts using a single medium from posts using several. If this needs to be done I'd rather we don't resort to mixed_media but make a new tag like combined_traditional_media.
combined_digital_media could do the same for exclusively digital works.
mixed_media would be kept for digital/traditional combinations only.

How about using multiple_traditional_media and multiple_digital_media to keep in line with DB's naming convention?

Flopsy said:
More illustrative example posts and other improvements are very welcome.

I think posts from koukaku are a good example of images drawn with traditional_media and then later colored with digital.

psich said:
How about using multiple_traditional_media and multiple_digital_media to keep in line with DB's naming convention?

I was thinking it might be a good thing not to keep in line with multiple_X tags because to me they're associated with the image's contents, which then sounds weird when applied to the image itself. multiple_traditional_media makes me think of images that show the same subject redrawn several times using different media, close to what images like post #572322 do.
Anyway that's just my preference.