'Cheating' in Comps !!

[rafikicat]

This is a very interesting discussion - way beyond cheating. I think we have to remember that the camera is just a recording tool - mechanical or electronic, and it doesn't see what we see with our eyes. The photographer starts making decisions as soon as he/she picks up a camera - and post processing is just a continuation of those decisions, and as others have mentioned, processing and tweaking photos has always occurred. I mostly use Photoshop to get the shot back to what I think I saw - which is very funny really because I've just had cataracts removed from both my eyes - and now the whole world looks Photoshopped, it's quite exciting really.
I'm totally unintersted in entering competitions but I like looking at other people's photos and give a bit of CC if I think there is something that other people haven't mentioned or if the shot really appeals to me - but that is a totally subjective judgment on my part.

[William]

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

I love it

Thats a different cheating , The Frog was a prop, It was still one single image , And this is what were talking about , Props can be anything from a stick to a Seashell to a car

It was'nt a combined image that did'nt exist in the real world , A Composite !!

It took ages to get him in the right position , He kept on slipping off the leaf in the wind True !!

[Steve Axford]

Hi William,
Do you remember the photo of a wolf at night jumping over a wooden farm gate that won an international nature comp? It was found to be a setup and therefore, cheating - according to the comp rules. Of course, the AP comp had no such rule, therefore it couldn't be cheating. Just as the AP comp has no photoshop rules. In fact, you can enter any image you like. But you will always live with the slight mistrust in people who did feel a little fooled.
Steve

[Kym]

We do NOT use the FIAP nature rules -- so all good on the frog.
We also don't do SOOC comps.

[William]

Well the Currumbin Wildlife sanctuary should'nt have been selling rubber frogs in the Tourist shop that day when I needed one When I took the shot , A comp was'nt even in mind, I really did'nt think viewers would mind if it was fake or not , And just see the outcome , It was the light through the leaf that I was after

For those that are wondering what wer're talking about : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...he-Year-WINNER

[Seabee]

I find it highly amusing that the winner of that comp has listed among their interests........'post processing' and they also state that they are 'trying hard to relearn the craft using the new techniques'...............was that not a clue to anyone.
I think its a wonderful shot and concept as stated before............but if I had been giving CC to that image as presented, I would definately have pointed out the horizon.
It is glaringly obvious that it is a merged pic and some darkening along the horizon line would have been a benefit. Plus, balloon companies dont even contemplate starting up on a dark and stormy day..............BUT, I still LOVE the shot!!!


William I love that shot of the frog, lol

[Steve Axford]

Well the Currumbin Wildlife sanctuary should'nt have been selling rubber frogs in the Tourist shop that day when I needed one When I took the shot , A comp was'nt even in mind, I really did'nt think viewers would mind if it was fake or not , And just see the outcome , It was the light through the leaf that I was after

For those that are wondering what wer're talking about : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...he-Year-WINNER

No problem, William. But it is clear that some people remembered. That's all I was saying as I didn't recall it was you and I didn't think it was very important - though I did fell slightly put off at the time. Those are the small consequences.

[outstar79]

Well the Currumbin Wildlife sanctuary should'nt have been selling rubber frogs in the Tourist shop that day when I needed one When I took the shot , A comp was'nt even in mind, I really did'nt think viewers would mind if it was fake or not , And just see the outcome , It was the light through the leaf that I was after

For those that are wondering what wer're talking about : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...he-Year-WINNER

That's a pretty good looking rubber frog though

[Mark L]

I need to learn this multi quote thing, anyway.

......, I really did'nt think viewers would mind if it was fake or not , And just see the outcome ,

From Williams OP
"Or is it just the finished product that matters , EG : Blending, HDR , Etc . Compared to a single shot processed RAW image ? "

I'm kinda on your side William. It's the way I used to think. And until I spend the time learning how to PP with the available tools, I'll continue to take my photos with a single shot in mind.
However is blending more cheating than graduated filters? etc etc
"Thats a different cheating ,......"
Seems like all's fair in love and digital.
"just see the outcome "

BTW I voted for the frog

[ricktas]

Thats a different cheating , The Frog was a prop, It was still one single image , And this is what were talking about , Props can be anything from a stick to a Seashell to a car

But to create the 'illusion' that one is viewing a nature photo, when that is not the case, is that not still a form of cheating. Different but same! You tricked people into believing the frog was real, others trick people into believing the sunset was real. Not really that much different, both create an impression on the viewer that is not 100% the truth.

Remember you started this discussion, so you might have to live with the consequences of people's opinion on what is 'cheating'. I do wonder how your entry would have polled, if members knew it was a setup and a plastic frog, before they got to vote. I, for one, would have not voted for it. Harsh..but the truth!

[camerasnoop]

I do wonder how your entry would have polled, if members knew it was a setup and a plastic frog, before they got to vote. I, for one, would have not voted for it. Harsh..but the truth!

Now you're into the realm of politicians and pre-election commitments (read lies).

I am of the opinion that PP is part of photography. We are our own lab these days. If you haven't learnt how to do it, you shouldn't deny others who have, the opportunity to do so.

[Steve Axford]

What exactly is cheating? Or more to the point, what do most people regard as stepping across the line?
I guess the answer is - it depends.
It depends on the population we are talking about. Nature photographers tend to be more strict. Documentary photographers are even more strict. And graphic artists much less so.
It depends on the type of photo we are taking. Fashion shots have one set of rules (though, think of the controversy over changing peoples body shape, wrinkles, etc), and news photos another.
Competition rules can vary depending on who runs the comp. Some are very strict, some are not. Then there are the rules set by the judges (or voting population) and these may not be the same as the official rules.

As I mentioned before. I think it is wise to be a little conservative with regards to rules. I have seen people always state if they have changed a photo to any significant degree, or it is not what it seems to be (like the rubber frog). I think that this is a good move. I sometimes see people who often substitute skies without mentioning it. Sometimes it is quite apparent and I then put that person into a "suspect" category because I am never sure if their photo is for real. Sometimes I see people who produce dazzling works that are clearly done through manipulation. I tend to put them into a "great artist category", because they do it so well and make no pretence of it. It is all very subjective and opinions will vary, but there is a norm, or accepted level for what is acceptable. At least in any place and time there is. The trick is figuring out what that level is - and being honest. If you are honest, it is unlikely that you will go far wrong.

[geoffsta]

Ok.. Adding a rubber frog, and calling it a nature shot IS cheating. Adding a glorious sunset to enhance what would be a fairly flat image (Without stating so) is also cheating, specially in a comp situation. Doing a whole lot of PP to a single image, including; cloning, cropping, exposure and any other tricks of the trade to the single image is my opinion is not cheating.
Last weeks comp was a great example of what can be acheived by applying this method. With intermediate and beginners giving the advanced members a good run for their money. But that comp was a "Two or more images to create one" competition, and everyone knew that. Most of the entries stood out like dogs balls. while very few didn't. And the ones that didn't I don't think will rate highly.

[I @ M]

Ok.. Adding a rubber frog, and calling it a nature shot IS cheating.

Sorry but I disagree, the leaf looks pretty natural (nature) to me, adding a man made object or having one in the scene doesn't constitute cheating to me.
Or do we disallow any and all images with anything man made in them?

Adding a glorious sunset to enhance what would be a fairly flat image (Without stating so) is also cheating, specially in a comp situation.

Once again I disagree, for the reasons I will state below.

Doing a whole lot of PP to a single image, including; cloning, cropping, exposure and any other tricks of the trade to the single image is my opinion is not cheating.

Ok, so by that theory if someone enters a picture of the Sydney Harbour Bridge straddling Ayers Rock ( Uluru in modern day speak ) in a comp it is ok because they used "any other tricks of the trade" to create that?


The wash up to me is that we have a photography forum, on it there are competitions run and there are no specific rules about how an image is created.
If people include props in an image so be it.
If they manufacture sunsets so be it.
If they have the coat hanger straddling a big red lump of dirt so be it.

It is an image that is created by a photographer and as always with the comps on here people have been urged to think outside of the square and to add their own interpretation to any theme.

If people enjoy the end result of the artist they vote for it.

PS, yes I could create a single image from the camera depicting THE big red rock straddled by Paul Hogans old workplace.

[ricktas]

I would be interested to know, what would you do with the following scenario?

You are presented with two photos and you have to pick a winner.

1. This Photo is a sunset over Uluru. There is a storm brewing in the distance and the rich deep colours of the sunset are wonderful and the storm in the distance shows a lightning strike. The rock has taken on a eerie glow. The photo is titled "Storm over Uluru"

2. This photo is taken on the Great Barrier reef, it has a storm brewing in the distance, but the sun is shining on the beach, where a turtle is making its way up the beach to lay it's eggs. This photo is titled 'Composite of a storm, beach and added turtle'

Both photos are seen and viewed before you read the titles, both are impressive, and equally well taken and presented.

You now have to vote on the best photo, which would you choose. 1 or 2?

[geoffsta]

Sorry but I disagree, the leaf looks pretty natural (nature) to me, adding a man made object or having one in the scene doesn't constitute cheating to me.
Or do we disallow any and all images with anything man made in them?

Yes, BUT... If the frog is depicted as real, and is the major part of the subject, and the leaf being part of the decoration... What then?

Once again I disagree, for the reasons I will state below.

99% of the time in CC, the image taker will explain that the glorious sunset was added to beef it up a bit. And all is good, with many complimentary posts to add to it.
But if one states the image was claimed as one shot. Then the image taker would be telling porky pies, and being deceitful. (The cheater only cheats themselves)

Ok, so by that theory if someone enters a picture of the Sydney Harbour Bridge straddling Ayers Rock ( Uluru in modern day speak ) in a comp it is ok because they used "any other tricks of the trade" to create that?

But would that not stand out like Dogs Balls, and voted on it's merit. If one stated that he was holidaying at Ayers Rock, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge just happened to fly over and land on top of it, so he/she took the shot. Would he classed as a nutter, or one who couldn't lie straight in bed.

As I class you Andrew as a good friend, my mentor, and one of the best portraiture photographers I'll proberly ever know. I believe that what you take is virtually straight from the camera. Any props or inclusions into your images are done on the spot. As you have told me that you do very little PP to your images. And I beleive that you would not place the Sydney Harbour Bridge behind any of the models, just to make it look great. I also have the same respect for other photographers like JM Tran, Dylan Toh, Rick Kean and a couple of others, and don't beleive they would stoop so low to claim it as one image. Unless they say that it is a composite.

[ricktas]

I also have the same respect for other photographers like JM Tran, Dylan Toh, Rick Kean and a couple of others, and don't beleive they would stoop so low to claim it as one image. Unless they say that it is a composite.

Thanks Geoff. I have only ever composited photos twice. Once to add a moon to a shot taken on the top of Mt Wellington at dawn, which was done years ago and more to learn how to do it in PS, than to cheat anyone. I don't recall ever posting that photo on AP, or anywhere else. The second time was for the comp underway at present.

Actually as I type this, I recall a third, I composited a photo of a workmate with a heap of movie stars, for her 40th Birthday..just for fun.

[geoffsta]

That is simple rick. I have a choice of two fantastic images. If I chose the first, and later in the CC section the image taker said that it was a composite, I'd be upset with myself for voting on a fabricated image. Not one that I had thought that this fantastic image was taken by someone that had been in the right place, at the right time, and had spent conciderable time in PP to present it well.

Were if if I had voted on the second, I would not be deceived, I'd know exactly what I have voted for.

[Mark L]

....
The wash up to me is that we have a photography forum, on it there are competitions run and there are no specific rules about how an image is created.

Yep.
Also, if William hadn't been honest we wouldn't be talking about frogs. But you can't declare that honesty in AP comps until after the event.
And, retrospectively I declare Steve the winner of the AP 2010 POTY.

[I @ M]

Yes, BUT... If the frog is depicted as real, and is the major part of the subject, and the leaf being part of the decoration... What then?

Ummm, what is "real" in a photograph or to be more specific, a digitally created and developed file?
As it happens, I had not been aware until this thread that "the" frog was a prop and I would have been equally unaware if it had been a plastic leaf with a real frog sitting upon it.
I see nothing in that image that makes any claims as to all, or indeed any components of it being 100% ridgey didge.
It was a digital creation that fitted the theme, the person who submitted it merely added their interpretation of the theme.
Cheating? I say no, whether the leaf was natural and the frog man made, the other way around or even if both elements were man made or natural.

99% of the time in CC, the image taker will explain that the glorious sunset was added to beef it up a bit. And all is good, with many complimentary posts to add to it.

Conversely, 100% of the time the image taker will not explain that the image is created from different elements when they are entered into a competition (which is what this thread is all about) before voting takes place.

But would that not stand out like Dogs Balls, and voted on it's merit. If one stated that he was holidaying at Ayers Rock, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge just happened to fly over and land on top of it, so he/she took the shot. Would he classed as a nutter, or one who couldn't lie straight in bed.

Ok, my rocky bridge example is a little far fetched as to be taken seriously by anyone other than Canon Pentax Olympus owners but anything similar can be produced as a single image straight from the camera.

That is simply using the tricks of the trade yet you claim that it is not cheating when in fact it is exactly the same as the other scenarios that you consider to be cheating.