Careful how much you manipulate your images

AnCatDubh

Especially if you are going to submit it to a competition.

Can't recall it being covered here previously so here's a link to the article and here is a link to the website of the competition

TLDR, Dude loses out on first place, stripped of the title, and the prize money (significant enough) for excessive manipulation of their submission. Not clear as to why he was stripped of the second title.

The Landscape Photographer of the Year Award is part of a competition known as Take A View, with Charlie Waite at the helm / founder.

Ouch.

DaireQuinlan

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Can't recall it being covered here previously .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056793440

Definitely egg on face time for the competition organisers.
David byrne had, IIRC actually 4 images announced as winners in various categories. Three of them were disqualified for excessive photoshoppery, having been submitted to categories that explicitly did not allow excessive editing. The fourth one (the one with the power station chimneys behind the tree) everyone thinks is also shopped, David Byrne is still (or at least was the last time I check this story about a week ago) claiming it's entirely un-edited. It was submitted in category which allowed composites and manipulation though so its position still stands.

There was controversy brewing over his winning shot in the first place anyhow, because it was a self-confessed re-creation of a shot by another photographer, something which he at first denied, then covered up, and finally admitted in a mealy mouthed sort of way.

Splinters

Have they clarified at what stage they class the post processing as excessive?

DaireQuinlan

Splinters wrote: »

Have they clarified at what stage they class the post processing as excessive?

"However, for images entered in Classic view, Living the view and Urban view, the integrity of the subject must be maintained and the making of physical changes to the landscape is not permitted (removing fences, moving trees, stripping in sky from another image etc). The organisers reserve the right to disqualify any image that they feel lacks authenticity due to over-manipulation"

(emphasis mine) So basically no composite shots, or cloning/removal/re-positioning of subject elements.

Splinters

Thats fair enough, given the nature of the category that doesnt sound too unreasonable. Although they probably should have stressed that in the initial competition rules.

DaireQuinlan

Splinters wrote: »

Thats fair enough, given the nature of the category that doesnt sound too unreasonable. Although they probably should have stressed that in the initial competition rules.

They're the terms and conditions of the competition I quoted above
Everything is very conciliatory, maintaining that Byrne submitted the images 'in good faith' and mistakes were made etc etc etc. Given his behaviour surrounding the other images I have my doubts. I reckon he just hoped he wouldn't get caught.

Splinters

Oh right, in that case he should have known. Im as much of a fiend with the clone stamp as the next guy but if I was entering a competition Id make fairly certain I knew the limitations.

Sounds like you might be right about him trying his luck considering the other story about him not being too forthcoming about his shot being a recreation.

tororosso

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Especially if you are going to submit it to a competition.

Can't recall it being covered here previously so here's a link to the article and here is a link to the website of the competition

TLDR, Dude loses out on first place, stripped of the title, and the prize money (significant enough) for excessive manipulation of their submission. Not clear as to why he was stripped of the second title.

The Landscape Photographer of the Year Award is part of a competition known as Take A View, with Charlie Waite at the helm / founder.

Ouch.

They could judge whether it was excessively manipulated before they gave him first place but needed an excuse after he embarassed them when the comparison to the photo he copied came along!! Raises an interesting question about the wording of these competition rules as they normally say it must be the photographer's own work but the argument centres on what is used as subject material (i.e same as the other photographer's subject)

Effects

What struck me was how he openly said he was trying to replicate someone elses photograph. He didn't think there was anything wrong with doing it.

Syferus

Of all the issues in play that's propably of least concern. Everyone copies, consciously or subconsciously, other photographs at times and it's hard to define at what point that should disqualify you from a competition, it's not like any photographer can claim copyright or image rights on trees or a street corner.

His 'problem' on that front seems to be that he didn't try to hide his intentions but even then it's only someone being blunt about a practice that exists far beyond just him.

amdgilmore

Yeah, I don't think the copying should really have been that much of an issue.

When it comes to landscapes, especially ones confined to a particular geographic region like in this contest, just about everything has been photographed, from just about every angle.

Apparently photos of the same stretch of trees in Armagh(?) are submitted to that competition every year, and one of those photos is shortlisted or commended almost every year. Only the lighting seems to change!

Personally I think it comes down to the question of which photo is better. In this instance I think the copy was better... just a pity he 'cheated' to make it that way.

magicbastarder

amdgilmore wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think the copying should really have been that much of an issue.

for a competition, it's a big issue.
if it's based on artistic merit, there's nothing artistic in mere duplication.

amdgilmore

magicbastarder wrote: »

for a competition, it's a big issue.
if it's based on artistic merit, there's nothing artistic in mere duplication.

But like I said it is landscapes - and landscapes that are confined to a very small part of the world.

If you check the winners and commended photos in any of those competitions and google or flickr search the place names, I'll bet anything you'll find dozens of identical or very similar photos.

I think it's just the reality of this kind of photography. Much of the originality comes in the form of the lighting and post-processing.

True, that photo was a particularly blatant example, but the only thing that separated him from many of the other entrants was that he openly admitted it!


I'm not dissing landscape photography here btw. I just think the geographic limitations in this competition don't exactly help, and from what I've read it seems that the judges have come to expect a certain amount of repetition.

frozenfrozen

If they don't want any digital editing why not make it an analogue only competition?

It's like having a competition where people aren't allowed to develop their own pictures. Post production has always been a huge part of photography, especially digital photography. This rule sounds a bit like the people who don't know how to use photoshop are just trying to even the playing field for themselves.

I'll look at the submissions after this post as I didn't want to bias myself. If they're horrible flat looking HDRs, which seem to be everywhere, then the person deserved to lose(, because they're all horrible looking!)

amdgilmore

Only a handful of the shortlisted photos were HDRs. And I think one of them was disqualified for also being a composite. I think it was by the same photographer being discussed above.

The rules stated that 'normal' post-processing techniques like dodging/burning etc were permissible but you weren't allowed photoshop things into or out of the picture. See Daire's post above for the specific wording of the rule.

im invisible

they're all photoshopped to **** tbh, whats wrong with taking a nice, decent, normal picture?

challengemaster

frozenfrozen wrote: »

If they don't want any digital editing why not make it an analogue only competition?

It's like having a competition where people aren't allowed to develop their own pictures. Post production has always been a huge part of photography, especially digital photography. This rule sounds a bit like the people who don't know how to use photoshop are just trying to even the playing field for themselves.

I'd largely agree with this tbh. Pretty much all of the worlds current advertisement photography, or anything similar is all composites, or even CGI composites. No matter what you're looking at, photoshop is usually a heavy player. Anyone that still believes photoshop and photography are two unrelated things is loopy.

Make no confusion though, good photography will always be the base layer of good images.

I can only assume by limiting the amount of photoshop allowed, they're trying to level the playing field, so it stays a photography contest, and doesn't become a photoshop competition. Otherwise the best retoucher wins...