How Would You Feel?

[outstar79]

How would you feel to win a prestigious photography competition hosted by National Geographic (which would be great to be published in), only to have your winning image disqualified for a small technicality?

But rules are rules, and it pays to read them carefully!!

http://harryfisch.blogspot.com.es/20...-and-lost.html

[ameerat42]

Well, one consolation is that it got to such a high place in the comp. But yah!

[Kym]

RULZ is RULZ !!

We run AP similarly, exceptions creates big issues.

Example: If an image is DQ'd on a comp here, we don't allow re-entry,
also if a wrong image or wrong version of an image is uploaded we get requests to be able to change them.
We don't allow that for any reason, and we get LOTS of 'good' reasons, but it becomes an admin nightmare and not fair to everyone else.

So rather than complain, check the entry conditions carefully before entering!

[Steve Axford]

It's a good reminder about how cloning isn't allowed in the top comps. It may be ok to do a bit of cloning for your own benefit, but it's worth remembering that this is what is regarded as "photoshopping" the image.

[alsocass]

This is interesting. Being only new to the idea of post-production I think the line between SOOC and Photoshopped is so blurry.

[Steve Axford]

Like many things, it is vague, but anything that substitutes part of the image is often not allowed. It is also viewed by many people as "cheating". While we may not think this, it is worth being aware that many do. I know of some nature photographers who will do it, but only in special galleries and with descriptions of exactly what they have done. It is easy to get the impression (on this site and many other photo sites) that cloning is not only accepted, but it is almost required. In some fields of photography, this is definitely not true.

[alsocass]

It makes sense. I was looking at another photo on this site of a graffiti chair against a tree. The photographer commented that he hadn't moved the chair.

It is funny how even physically interacting with the environment can take away from the photo. I see occasional photos that lose their appeal once I realise how staged they are.

[Steve Axford]

It's a fine line. I always stage my photos. By that I mean, I choose the angle to eliminate the unwanted (eg bright lights, rubbish, etc, etc). I will even do some fixing of the environment, eg move a chair, to make the scene look better in a photo. It is worth remembering that a picture is not the original scene, so we do need to have different rules. We seem to be quite capable of filtering out a stray chair in real life, but not in a photo, so we'd best remove it for the photo. At what point does this become manipulation? I guess it's the point where the scene looses its spontaneity, or at least the point where the viewer perceives that it has lost its spontaneity.
You have to use a bit of judgement depending on the audience.

[fess67]

It is the exact reason I did not enter a work comp. I took a photo which was ok, but to make it great (IMO) I combined it with another image. I know, slightly more 'shopping' than the case in point but others were of the opinion that the judges would not know any better. They are not photo professionals and it is possible they would not have caught me out - still, it was clear in the rules that the images should be untouched other than exposure corrections. I choose to refrain rather than submit and be DQ.

[Kym]

This is interesting. Being only new to the idea of post-production I think the line between SOOC and Photoshopped is so blurry.

SOOC is such a stupid myth!
My K-5 can do 3 image merge HDR in camera, it can do sepia toning etc.
Many phone cameras have photo editing on the phone, so is that SOOC?
Yet, darkroom processing was the norm in film days.
Restricting post processing is stopping a significant part of the photographic process.

[ricktas]

This is interesting. Being only new to the idea of post-production I think the line between SOOC and Photoshopped is so blurry.

It depends what the photo is for, and thus the level of editing is a fluid thing. What is OK for one image may not be for another.

The rules were stipulated for the competition and he breached them. No different to driving at 60 in a 50 zone, getting pulled up and saying you didn't notice the speed limit sign.

Rules vary and we have to abide by the rules of each specific thing. There is not a one-size-fits-all answer to editing photographs. What you need to do is learn how to edit and then apply your own limits to yourself, but at the same time, do not expect others to adhere to your limits, as they will have a different perception (rule) as to where their limits exist when it comes to editing.

Editing images is not something new. I reckon if you looked closely at the Mona Lisa or the ceiling in the Sistene Chapel you would find a few brush strokes that cover up something that the Artist decided was not quite how he wanted it to be. We do it in everything in life. Ever done a renovation of a home, knocked down a wall to make a room bigger? You just edited how the house was 'meant to be'. Ever seen those hand painted portrait photographs from weddings in the 1950's and 60's where a painterly effect has been applied to the print in the wedding album.

Don't think of editing as a bad thing, just remember to read and adhere to the rules (which are constantly changing) when considering entering competitions

[Ezookiel]

Paintings are checked for authenticity by looking specifically for alterations where the painter changed their mind about how something looked and painted over it - if you are faking a painting by copying it there would be no changes painted over, but genuine originals almost all do. Part of the test of the newly found Da Vinci was tested exactly that way (he painted over the thumb and repositioned it)
However, I totally agree with the DQ from the point of view that they cannot alter rules for one person. I'll remove things in PP if I feel it's necessary, but probably wouldn't enter it in a comp if I had. I'd certainly want something as prestigious as the national geographic to set a standard that limited any significant photoshopping.