'Cheating' in Comps !!

[Steve Axford]

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 don't recall coming second?

[geoffsta]

Ok... The thread has gone a little off track. The original post that William put up was basically on whether processing to the hilt was unfair in competitions. And the title "Cheating in comps" was just an attention grabber. Well I think William has done just that. It wasn't until post #10 were Outstar brought up the subject of a composite image, and it's a fair while after that when it is mentioned again.

Now I've been involved with ausphotography for just on two years, and Every bit advice from members on here, and my mentor is to try and get the image right in the camera first. Not take the photo with what processing I could do after it in mind. It has been mentioned on this site many times that the camera, no matter how good, can't recreate what the eye sees. Yes sometimes our eyes see a darker sky, or a brighter foreground, so we adjust those areas to emulate what our eyes seen.

Sometimes... like astro photography our eyes can't see billions of stars. But it is drummed into our heads from an early age that there is. So in camera we do a long exposure to capture as many stars as we can. That's why I'm not fussed on star trails. Imagine going out at night, and looking up at the sky, and seeing multicoloured circles. You'd wonder who the mongrel was that laced your coffee with LSD. There are many other genre of photography were we like to do a few tricks with the camera to acheive our goals.

That's why I'm not into creating something that isn't real. I'd rather be there when that fantastic sunrise happens to capture the moment, and be proud of my efforts. Than to think I can take a shot on a overcast day, then when I get home I'll add the sunset in.

[Chris G]

Well this all about as grey as "what is/makes a professional tog?"

ie: there are to many levels of "what ifs"

Is there no common ground here? Or is everyone pretty hard pressed on a "Yes and No" answer...

[bricat]

Hehehehehe You son of a gun William. It just clicked which image it was. I have been away with the fairies for a while and now I see I should have been Prince Charming. Never the less a great shot and all winners deserve their place. You should have been an accountant with such a creative edge William. cheers Brian

[zollo]

Ok... The thread has gone a little off track. The original post that William put up was basically on whether processing to the hilt was unfair in competitions. And the title "Cheating in comps" was just an attention grabber. Well I think William has done just that. It wasn't until post #10 were Outstar brought up the subject of a composite image, and it's a fair while after that when it is mentioned again.

Now I've been involved with ausphotography for just on two years, and Every bit advice from members on here, and my mentor is to try and get the image right in the camera first. Not take the photo with what processing I could do after it in mind. It has been mentioned on this site many times that the camera, no matter how good, can't recreate what the eye sees. Yes sometimes our eyes see a darker sky, or a brighter foreground, so we adjust those areas to emulate what our eyes seen.

Sometimes... like astro photography our eyes can't see billions of stars. But it is drummed into our heads from an early age that there is. So in camera we do a long exposure to capture as many stars as we can. That's why I'm not fussed on star trails. Imagine going out at night, and looking up at the sky, and seeing multicoloured circles. You'd wonder who the mongrel was that laced your coffee with LSD. There are many other genre of photography were we like to do a few tricks with the camera to acheive our goals.

That's why I'm not into creating something that isn't real. I'd rather be there when that fantastic sunrise happens to capture the moment, and be proud of my efforts. Than to think I can take a shot on a overcast day, then when I get home I'll add the sunset in.

startrails aren't really a trick, the earth really is spinning, and if our eyes could slow time down sufficiently, it s exactly what you would see. you can't always trust your eyes, otherwise you would still believe the earth is flat.

And a fake frog on a leaf? the photograph OF the subject was being judged, not what the subject matter's molecular structure is. Had it been a best real frog on a leaf competition (and if it was, please excuse my post) then I could s33 cause for concern. But when I am judging a photograph, I am looking for composition, lighting, story, etc not necessarily if everything in the photo would pass a scientific reality check. Just my 2cents

[TassieSnapper]

http://www.petereastway.com/index.php

Check out his stuff. I love his shots. He has made quite a few videos of his processing - start to finish with a few of his images. He uses composites sometimes. He definitely pushes his images as much as he possibly can with his processing. I love the result that he achieves.