'Cheating' in Comps !!

[I @ M]

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.

My intention was to differentiate SOOC from a greenscreen scene and not about the processing performed.
Likewise, if you read my post thoroughly my only reference to competitions was about said competitions on here and not about the "like" seekers on social nutworking sites.
My opinions are that the voters on here who are photographers pick the image that they like and don't give two hoots whether it is a heavily processed multi scene image or a simple shot and what YOU WANT doesn't seem to be of much relevance to the masses when it comes to selecting the image that they like in the comps here.

[bricat]

No it is not cheating. The RULES allow processing. I don't like it because I can't PP other than crop/sharpen. Should oneday I become profecient at PP I will embrace it. I am still learning how to take photo's so I won't hold my breath. cheers Brian

[reaction]

Like I said, the tiny point I was trying to make is that all else equal between two images I would like to be able to score the photographer who needed less PP a higher score. In the help forums if someone stuffs up their exposure we teach them to use EV, we don't teach them to PS more.

Too bad some people are just using this thread to get on their moral high horse to say how only the results matter to them, and writing off every other opinion. I don't think anyone in this thread has said pics should be SOOC, and yet a lot of posts are about justifying the use of PP, burning/dodging in film days.

I don't know how people vote here, because I can't see their votes. Maybe you have access and you can claim everyone votes your way.

Sometimes I see a highly processed look win. Sometimes I see an amazing and natural looking photo lose. Sometimes I can see the idea for a photo win over a technically superior but less interesting idea win. Sometimes a facinating and new take on a theme loses. I don't agree that everyone here votes for the prettiest looking photo ignoring all other factors. I don't even agree that each comp votes in the same way.

[Kym]

Rick and I have an Admin tool for viewing who voted what.
As part of integrity checking we do look.
There is no particular pattern or obvious collusion.
We are often surprised by the voting.

FWIW There was some collusion between a couple of members over a year ago, they are no longer active.

[ashey]

No I don't think it is cheating at all, as long as you the photographer are happy with the end result who really cares, lets face it a lot of the people that complain about an image being over processed don,t know an F/ stop from a bus stop end of story.

[Chris G]

Here's some I haven't seen said yet or perhaps I did?

Everything comes down to that the majority of people here are not experts when it comes down to voting / judging as that's what we all are doing in end.

Giving said that, naturally your going to see different images being voted on for various reasons as most are not sure what to look out for and will just choose whatever is eye catching to them, regardless of PP, natural, SOOC or whatever..

Its not professional, its fun and relaxed as most people here are just that.. if you need professional judging, enter the AIPP awards

[Kym]

<snip>
Its not professional, its fun and relaxed as most people here are just that. if you need professional judging, enter the AIPP awards

EXACTLY!!!

[zollo]

Staying with professional photographers for a minute, I wonder if anyone who claims that processing is not part of photography, would be willing to hire a $3000 a day wedding photographer that didn't know or who refused to do any post processing, claiming straight out of the camera is the purest form of digital capture.
Your wife wants black and white? Too bad. Your brides dress looks blue instead of the off white that it actually was, due to the bad lighting? Sorry, processing is not allowed. You badly want an awesome photo of you and your mates on a poster, but it has an ugly coke vending machine in the background? Na, cant remove it, that's too much like cgi. The photographer under-exposed a frame that had 'the moment' yeah too bad, Lightroom is the devil.

[William]

Thanks for the reading guys , Been great to hear/read your thoughts , My original thought on this was the more obvious blending of two completely different images to make the Super shot , I have nothing at all against normal PP from the RAW image , Or the blending of two or three shots at different exposures of the same scene

[Kym]

Thanks for the reading guys , Been great to hear/read your thoughts , My original thought on this was the more obvious blending of two completely different images to make the Super shot , I have nothing at all against normal PP from the RAW image , Or the blending of two or three shots at different exposures of the same scene

And there is now a specific POTW because of that! Hmmm... thanks ... I think

[SirLozalot]

I agree with sentiment that it is not cheating. Only the final result counts. If people don't like the processing then photo won't get the votes.

Also, I feel the point about being impossible to effectively restrict is a good one.

[Seabee]

I am still perplexed at it all
The lines became blurred a Loooooooong time ago regarding Photographer/artist/Graphics designer/Professional/Amateur/Hobbyist
We all have our reasons for doing what we do and we all have varying levels of experience and expertise in the genres we follow.

When it stops being fun........it sadly starts being nasty!.....and thats with everything in life!
I for one will continue exploring 'EVERYTHING' thats encompasses this Digital World.
Its all just a matter of perception and preference anyway..............just enjoy!

[sonofcoco]

I guess that's where the current voting system comes in handy. If you really don't like something you can vote it right down. I don't like overdone HDR at all, but I've entered a HDR in the comp and while I didn't think it was overdone maybe others did and voted it down accordingly. I also don't like photos where there's obviously something there that wasn't in the shot at the time, but again I can vote it down if that's the way I feel. I don't think it's cheating though, you put your name to photos you think are good and others can give their opinion through the voting system.

[Mark L]

..... , My original thought on this was the more obvious blending of two completely different images to make the Super shot , I have nothing at all against normal PP from the RAW image ,.......

Or making me think a rubber frog is a great nature photo!

[Dylan & Marianne]

I enjoy the end result of whatever is presented

however

I personally draw the line in my concept of 'photography' where new elements are brought into a scene that weren't there in the first place. ie. switching skies from a completely different scene/time of day

eg. I thought the balloon shot was awesome and still do as an end product

When I read that it was a composite of two shots and saw that they weren't even from the same scene, my heart sank a little with regard to acknowledging things like
-planning a shot and executing
-capturing difficult lighting in difficult environemnts
-being at the right place at an extraordinary moment and having the nous to capture it.

So in summary - I appreciated the 2010 POTY as a great image. After seeing how it was created, my shift in praise deviated away from on field skill, to post processing skill. Much as they are both important, I still place the emphasis (personally) on the former.

[Analog6]

I will vote a well processed natural shot over an over-cooked one any day. I tend to look at each one for overall impact, connection and technical. For example a good natural portrait will win my vote over a skin smoothed, not a wrinkle to be seen post processed one. Same with a landscape, something that looks like it really could exist in nature, will get my vote over one that shows signs of obviously significant editing.

Personally, If I cannot edit a photo to where I want it to be, in less than 5 minutes, I give up on that image.

I suppose I look for overall quality, across the entire photo.

This is how I feel too. I will tweak an actual comp image for more than 5 minutes, but the initial processing has to get there in a short time, then it is just fine tuning. I detest the over-cooked look and it is why I often do not vote in some weekly comps - there is nothing there I personally feel is really 'out of the box'. But luckily we all have very different opinions so there is room for weird old biddies like me!

Sandwich/montages should only be used if the rules/guidelines specifically state you can enter them. I have occasionally used them, I have an image of the Cascade Brewery taken on a day of very grey skies, and I have put in a 'more interesting' sky, taken in Hobart in the same season but a different year, to make a composite that I find more pleasing. I have it on my RedBubble site but I do state in the description that I have used a different sky.

There is a blog post on this subject this week on Peter Eastway's Better Photography site.

I do agree and have said before that sandwiching, extreme adjustments etc were around long before digital, but everyone did not have access in the easy way we do now, so the subject has become more problematical (for some).

[Erin]

As a huge fan of processing, I understand that there are lines (thick and thin) between what people think is cheating and not in photography. Even I'm conflicted. There's so many shades of grey in this area. I have a lot of trouble dealing with what passes for "natural" photography in high-end competitions these days, only because I know and have the skills (or am currently learning them) to know exactly what processing has been done. It's irritating to say the least.

To me, it comes down to the rules of the competition. If they allow editing past the basic crop/colour/sharpness then I will go and spend hours PPing an image but depending on the theme, I will aim to make it look as realistic as possible or completely surreal. If the rules are that the shot should be basically what your camera took with the exception of the above basic edits then that's what I do too.

Lastly, it is NOT worth getting all hot and bothered about on a forum. LOL

[Steve Axford]

In most of the top comps they insist on having RAW and TIFF images so they can see what you have done and if you have stuck to the rules. Of course, that isn't possible with small comps.

[in2fx]

Or making me think a rubber frog is a great nature photo!

I love it

[rowdy23]

i like how you roll..
my thoughts exactly...

.. taking a boring pic and using a sky shot from the data base... and making a nice shot... is very iffy.
id rather take 1 nice shot

I enjoy the end result of whatever is presented

however

I personally draw the line in my concept of 'photography' where new elements are brought into a scene that weren't there in the first place. ie. switching skies from a completely different scene/time of day

eg. I thought the balloon shot was awesome and still do as an end product

When I read that it was a composite of two shots and saw that they weren't even from the same scene, my heart sank a little with regard to acknowledging things like
-planning a shot and executing
-capturing difficult lighting in difficult environemnts
-being at the right place at an extraordinary moment and having the nous to capture it.

So in summary - I appreciated the 2010 POTY as a great image. After seeing how it was created, my shift in praise deviated away from on field skill, to post processing skill. Much as they are both important, I still place the emphasis (personally) on the former.