'Cheating' in Comps !!

[Mark L]

pic of the year , last year was iffy in my book.... 2 different shots
......

But it made a great image. I thought it was real.
Took me a long time to figure that one point in time could be two points in time! And this could be (and was) done before digital gave us all the chance to do it.

[Geoff79]

I personally don't vote either way for how much time I feel has gone into processing a photo. Just the end result matters to me. The funny thing for me is that the best processing - to me - actually results in making the photo look as real and unprocessed as possible. If that makes sense. I like improvements to lighting etc, to it looks more like how the viewer would have seen it with a nude eye. Just the basics like good lighting is the most processing I enjoy. But in the end, like music, a good photo is a good photo. No amount of processing can fix what is a plain bad shot.

Or can it? Onto my next thread...

[sunny6teen]

damn all this trickery. next you'll be telling me that the BBC's wildlife programmes use zoo animals for the close-ups.

oh, wait....

curses, Attenborough!!!

[zollo]

Some have grown to believe the lie that the camera never lies
For example Canon cameras oversaturate red's

[fess67]

Thought that would get your attention


Does anybody give any thought to how much processing goes into some shots , Do you care ! Or is it just the finished product that matters , EG : Blending, HDR , Etc . Compared to a single shot processed RAW image ?

Finished product. My wife wears makeup....she is beautiful without it but my god she is an amazing sight when she gets it all on for a night out!!!

nuf said

[JayR]

Im actually a little suprised that in 2012 this is even being discussed given most of our raw files arent actually as 'raw' as we'd like to believe. 99% of images processed in film days had tweaking of sorts in them also, whether they be balancing in the pharmacy lab or the rest of us in the dark room.

If it looks good and its not pretending to be something that it isnt, then fine (in my books).

[Kym]

Some have grown to believe the lie that the camera never lies
For example Canon cameras oversaturate red's

So shooting Velvia was not also a lie (i.e. Velvia has very saturated colors under daylight, high contrast, and exceptional sharpness)?

[arthurking83]

I think it's simply all about the final look!

Some images tend to look good, or even great, with massive amounts of processing .. such as wild tonemapped HDR or crazy over the top actions.
It's simply about the image and not just the representation of reality.

Afterall, abstract or post modernism art is not representative of reality and yet many people agree with it and love it .. to the point where it's worth millions!

Most natural type scenes such as landscapes and portraits, where you expect a more realistic representation of the scene, don't lend themselves to OTT processing techniques.

My personal preference is to get as natural rendering as I possibly can for my images .. but it doesn't mean that I'm opposed to other methods of massive processing from other's.
As long as it looks appropriate tho, and very few do.

[reaction]

I think as a photography forum, and not an 'imaging' or 'art' forum, we should concentrate on the photography aspect. Is it really fair if two people took the same portrait/landscape, where one took care with lighting and came out with a good result, while the other took a horrible shot with blown highlights and lost shadows, but via hours of PP and cloning out objects and substituting in skies from different shots etc ended up with a better looking image?

Or what about 2 shots that look equally good, one was taken and PP in 2min, the other was a major project done over 2 months?

Yes in the commercial world a shot may have 100hrs of PP behind it, but here we are aspiring photographers competing with other aspiring photographers, not competing with PS wizards or graphics artists who haven't taken their camera off auto mode. The competition I think is about the photography, and not all just about the end result. And I'm sure if there are PS wizard forums they would want to compete on PS'ing a crappy photo terms, rather than one who just had a stunning photo to begin with.

Some comps actually require disclosure of what PP was done, or have separate high and low PP work comps for this same reason.

[I @ M]

I think as a photography forum, and not an 'imaging' or 'art' forum, we should concentrate on the photography aspect. Is it really fair if two people took the same portrait/landscape, where one took care with lighting and came out with a good result, while the other took a horrible shot with blown highlights and lost shadows, but via hours of PP and cloning out objects and substituting in skies from different shots etc ended up with a better looking image?

Funnily enough, the people that enter the competitions on here and even more funny is that the people that vote for their favourite entry are photographers.
If they like a particular image enough to give it a tick who cares whether it is straight out of the camera ( whatever the hell that may be ) or if has 324 layers of adjustment in processing.
The popular image wins every time and to infer that photography is not an art and that skillful processing of an image to bring it to the way the artist photographer meant it to be seen is not a part of that art seems a little short sighted in this day and age.

[rowdy23]

I think as a photography forum, and not an 'imaging' or 'art' forum, we should concentrate on the photography aspect. Is it really fair if two people took the same portrait/landscape, where one took care with lighting and came out with a good result, while the other took a horrible shot with blown highlights and lost shadows, but via hours of PP and cloning out objects and substituting in skies from different shots etc ended up with a better looking image?

Or what about 2 shots that look equally good, one was taken and PP in 2min, the other was a major project done over 2 months?

Yes in the commercial world a shot may have 100hrs of PP behind it, but here we are aspiring photographers competing with other aspiring photographers, not competing with PS wizards or graphics artists who haven't taken their camera off auto mode. The competition I think is about the photography, and not all just about the end result. And I'm sure if there are PS wizard forums they would want to compete on PS'ing a crappy photo terms, rather than one who just had a stunning photo to begin with.

Some comps actually require disclosure of what PP was done, or have separate high and low PP work comps for this same reason.

alot of great stuff there
brings back to my comment earlier.... photo of year 2012 ....... i suppose i can be happy that it was a bloody bird shot

[Xenedis]

If they like a particular image enough to give it a tick who cares whether it is straight out of the camera ( whatever the hell that may be ) or if has 324 layers of adjustment in processing.

I find 'SOOC' (straight-out-of-camera) purist mentality both amusing and utterly stupid.

Some people almost religiously extol the perceived virtues of publishing only what the camera spat out, but it remains unclear to me as to whether those people are aware of just how much processing a camera applies to a 'straight-from-camera' JPG, or that late-model digital cameras may well indeed apply more processing to an image than some users would with a copy of Photoshop or Lightroom right in front of them.

In-camera HDR, anyone?

[zollo]

I too think SOOC is a misguided concept at the best.
This is not aimed at anyone - but in my opinion, if you don't process your images, I don't think you have grasped the concept of digital photography to its full extent.

[Xenedis]

n my opinion, if you don't process your images, I don't think you have grasped the concept of digital photography to its full extent.

Bingo.

It needs to be acknowledged, however, that even film and prints were processed.

[reaction]

Funnily enough, the people that enter the competitions on here and even more funny is that the people that vote for their favourite entry are photographers.
If they like a particular image enough to give it a tick who cares whether it is straight out of the camera ( whatever the hell that may be ) or if has 324 layers of adjustment in processing.
The popular image wins every time and to infer that photography is not an art and that skillful processing of an image to bring it to the way the artist photographer meant it to be seen is not a part of that art seems a little short sighted in this day and age.

I never said anything about SOOC. As for "popular image wins every time" that's also true for fb comps where he-with-the-most-likes(friends)-wins.

I'm saying that if I had to choose between 2 photos for the final vote, I WANT TO KNOW whether one guy was hanging off the empire state building to get the shot
or whether the other guy shot at his mate's green screen studio and had his team of PS wizards to come up with the result. (which may be much sharper and visually pleasing)

I would have much more respect for the former than the latter as a photographer, but that's just my opinion. Of course you can only have an opinion if you knew how the images came about. Others may prefer a comp where the 'prettiest picture wins' but then you'll just get a string of colorful saturated sunsets that catch the eye and never see any brilliance or subtlety.

By the same token I WANT TO KNOW whether the hot air balloon shot was just how he found the light and happened to snap, or whether he had deliberate setup or whether it took n-shots composited together to get his vision. Because I would rate a happy accident differently to a deliberate masterful plan. You're not just choosing the pretty pics, because you have to rate this one next to another pic which shows some monument in sunrise/set.

[Tommo224]

In all honesty, I don't mind how much or how little editing people do. As long as the result is aesthetically pleasing at the end!

Minimal editing, resulting in a poor image = poor
Lots of editing, resulting in a poor image = poor
Over editing, resulting in a poor image = poor.

[Kym]

I'm saying that if I had to choose between 2 photos for the final vote, I WANT TO KNOW whether one guy was hanging off the empire state building to get the shot
or whether the other guy shot at his mate's green screen studio and had his team of PS wizards to come up with the result. (which may be much sharper and visually pleasing)
<snip>

In a camera club, APS or FIAP type comp the judges won't know how the image was obtained.
Some categories, eg. nature, have very special rules but this is dependant on the honesty of the entrant.

[ving]

i judge on the final product... if it looks natural how can you tell how much pp has gone into it... i dont like those that dont look natural.

[Chris G]

I'm sure everyone is aware of this when I say that editing & manipulation started with film waaaaaaaaaay before photoshop was around. It is a essential part of photography and what has made it grow to what we see now.

If you have the knowledge of film photography then you would understand the techniques and how you needed to master the darkroom for creating that final image how every you imagined it to be.

Point being, how is this any different from photoshop or any other editing program that a photographer needs to learn and master to be able to achieve a photo in the same regards but with today's look and standards that are credited as being "Professional"

Darkroom = Photoshop

It is measly a tool for the photographer to achieve a desired effect, no different dating back 100 years ago.

Cheers

[Xenedis]

In all honesty, I don't mind how much or how little editing people do. As long as the result is aesthetically pleasing at the end!

Sometimes people get too caught up in how the image was made, rather than enjoying it for what it is.