APPA : Ken Duncan finally says what a lot of us have been thinking

[Hamster]

The issue he seems to have is with the illustrative works being judged alongside the more "traditional" photography in order to determine the outright winner. There are already sections that have differing amounts of post processing and themes. Images are judged on their merit within each.
Calling the awards "digital art and photography awards" or similar would solve the issue to some extent. For me it's no different to having an art competition that has categories for charcoal drawings, painting, collage etc, and then choosing a best in show. If a painting wins best in show, the collage people can't protest that it shouldn't win because it's not a proper collage, because everyone entered an art competition. So the issue is with the word "photography" and it's context in this competition. Currently the illustrative end of things qualifies under the banner of "photography". Those that don't like that are free to not enter because of that, or state their thoughts as Ken has.
As an aside, I do think he should have, and could have made his point without referring directly to the winner. The winner has entered in good faith, followed the rules set by others and won fair and square. I doubt that she wants to be dragged into this, she probably just wants to relish a moment of success without being told that really her work doesn't compare to a "proper photograph". No, it's not a personal attack, but it's clumsy and ill thought out in the way that Lisa has been directly referred to.

[bcys1961]

To be fair the the "photo's " were entered into the advertising section where a high degree of manipulation is expected and allowed under the rules . She won that section . But I agree with Ken , that if the judges then decided to ward her the best overall photographer award , I think they have lost the plot . If you look at some other categories , like the Portrait prize winner for example , you will see photoshop is pervasive. The portrait prize winning submissions included the Highest Scoring Print award and it was a circular panorama type thing only possible with photoshop. I'm not a member of AIPP but if I was considering joining , in order to enter the comp's I would be discouraged when looking through the winners as I don't have a desire to develop this level of photoshop skill.

Ken has started up his Real Photo awards which are certainly more realistic , but even here over - photoshopping is evident.

http://kenduncanphotoawards.com/

[ricktas]

...
As an aside, I do think he should have, and could have made his point without referring directly to the winner. The winner has entered in good faith, followed the rules set by others and won fair and square. I doubt that she wants to be dragged into this, she probably just wants to relish a moment of success without being told that really her work doesn't compare to a "proper photograph". No, it's not a personal attack, but it's clumsy and ill thought out in the way that Lisa has been directly referred to.

I think the issue of generalising without referring to particular images, would have eventually had the same result. People would have asked him if he meant Lisa's images, or they would have asked him to clarify which images in particular he was referring to.

If I posted on AP and said something about particular photos entered into our comps without naming the entrant or entries, it would only be some time before someone asked me to point out which ones, or even post links to the ones they thought I was referring to.

Perhaps it is time for APPA to do away with photographer of the year, and simply stick to winners in their genre? After all being known as the APPA Landscape Photographer of the Year, or the APPA Wedding photographer of the Year, or the APPA advertising/illustrative Photographer of the Year is certainly an accolade to be proud of. And this simple move would remove the issue as being debated at present.

[Hamster]

I think the issue of generalising without referring to particular images, would have eventually had the same result. People would have asked him if he meant Lisa's images, or they would have asked him to clarify which images in particular he was referring to.

If I posted on AP and said something about particular photos entered into our comps without naming the entrant or entries, it would only be some time before someone asked me to point out which ones, or even post links to the ones they thought I was referring to.

Yes, you're right of course. Although my reply would be "I understand you're curious/looking for context but the issue is a general one related to ....... it is the concept of.....I do not want to bring a specific person into it because it is an issue for everyone in the industry/site to consider..."

Perhaps it is time for APPA to do away with photographer of the year, and simply stick to winners in their genre? After all being known as the APPA Landscape Photographer of the Year, or the APPA Wedding photographer of the Year, or the APPA advertising/illustrative Photographer of the Year is certainly an accolade to be proud of. And this simple move would remove the issue as being debated at present.

That would work.

- - - Updated - - -

Ken has started up his Real Photo awards which are certainly more realistic , but even here over - photoshopping is evident.

http://kenduncanphotoawards.com/

Unless there are more rules/definitions somewhere "minimal post -processing" isn't very clear. To someone who uses PS to the extreme "minimal post-processing" could be more than others would even dream of.

Also that third place shot by IP I really like. But I can't see how an aerial abstract (I assume that's what it is) can show a "quintessential Australian landscape". Tell me what is quintessential about that (note - synonyms of quintessential include typical, prototypical, stereotypical, archetypal, classic, model, essential, standard, stock, representative, true to type, conventional) or maybe I'm just not opening my eyes enough when I'm out walking in the countryside

it's easy to criticise isn't it..... (not aimed at anyone, just pointing out that it's hard to please everyone)

[Ionica]

Interesting i think categories with clear lines of delineation are appropriate. I find purist arguments tiring and dated, ironically most proponents like me own a computer which takes photos, a DSLR, which filters light, interpolates etc etc.. before it even hits the camera memory.

Yes before i get smashed, i know theres levels and a range, categories for me






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Much like different film emulsions?

[wayn0i]

Much like different film emulsions?

Yes to filters i guess, but no to interpolation, yes to sensor signal amplification.......interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkChap]

The editing by another person can only be done under the direct supervision and direction of the commissioning photographer.
They can't just send off an image with the instruction to "make this a gold"

I have to confess I enjoyed looking at all the "images". To me most of them belong in a Creative/altered reality section.

I was pretty shocked to find out that you can pay a professional photoshopper to work on your photos for these awards. In that case, why doesn't the photoshopper's name appear in conjunction with the photographers? Surely the photoshopper has had as much influence in the shaping of the finished article as the original photographer?

[arthurking83]

.... I find purist arguments tiring and dated ....

I don't think the arguments are really about puritanical endeavours.

The argument is; there should be a line clearly marked out with respect to over manipulation of the pixels.
That is, it's so easy now(for capable folks) just to create an image purely using any graphics manipulation program.
How is that related to photography(as described by KD's definition of photos : graphos)?

it's an age old definition, and in reality you don't need a camera to take a photograph(see definition above).
Graphical illustrations such as those, using Ps are not photographs!

If the purist's arguments are tired and dated now, then what stops a professional photographer taking to brushes and pencils, or crayons or whatever and painting an image?
When they allow that kind of artwork to compete too .. then all's fair.
Then the system devolves from a photography award, into an art award(of which we already have enough!).

So the old and tired argument becomes circular and we're back to the original question .. where does the line get drawn!

The line is so easy to demarcate .. it has to be a photograph .. not a digigraph.

[MarkChap]

I see a lot of people/posts, both here and on Ken's FB post saying that "APPA" doesn't reward the "photographer"

I agree with much that has been said above, that the APPA no longer represents good photography, but rather good photoshopping. Your skills (or someone else's) on a computer far outweigh your skills as a photographer when you enter APPA.

That may be true for SOME categories, but as I listed above there are multiple categories with in "APPA" that do not allow, or rather only allow for minimal, manipulation.

I think it is very wrong to generalise and to suggest that the whole thing is broken.
I do personally think that all categories should be more representative of the work that is actually presented to clients on a daily basis rather than a highly worked composite image, the like of which is never shown/presented to clients.
But in saying that, the entries in those categories are more representative of the real world final use of the original image, so why should that not also be rewarded.

And for the record,
yes, I am a very proud member of the AIPP, and yes I did enter APPA this year, and yes I did enter into one of the documentary categories.

[ricktas]

I see a lot of people/posts, both here and on Ken's FB post saying that "APPA" doesn't reward the "photographer"


That may be true for SOME categories, but as I listed above there are multiple categories with in "APPA" that do not allow, or rather only allow for minimal, manipulation.

I think it is very wrong to generalise and to suggest that the whole thing is broken.
I do personally think that all categories should be more representative of the work that is actually presented to clients on a daily basis rather than a highly worked composite image, the like of which is never shown/presented to clients.
But in saying that, the entries in those categories are more representative of the real world final use of the original image, so why should that not also be rewarded.

And for the record,
yes, I am a very proud member of the AIPP, and yes I did enter APPA this year, and yes I did enter into one of the documentary categories.

I have no issue with the entries being awarded the win in their categories at all, as you say they are representative of the advertising industry. I also agree that other categories show photos with minimal manipulation. As you say reward them.. in their category.

I don't think the whole thing is broken, just parts of it. And it may be as simple as changing the title to 'APPA Imager of the Year'.

If you took the winning images into a Mall in any of our major cities and asked people to vote on if they were photographs, graphic art, modern art, digital creations. The results of those votes would be quite interesting, and I suspect most people would not vote them as photographs. The title 'Photographer of the Year' need consideration, as Ken has stated.

[arthurking83]

.... The title 'Photographer of the Year' need consideration, as Ken has stated.

+1.

I used to do courier work for Lisa Saad many moons ago, so I've seen her photography up close .. she had a studio in Richmond.
Back in those days tho, the work she did was film, and we did the courier work from the processing lab back to her, back to the lab .. etc.

So she is a great photographer .. just not 'photographer of the year' based on that work

[Hamster]

A couple of people have mentioned that the images don't represent what clients get. For some I'd agree, but I tend to look at the competition a little like a fashion show or a car show. People display their concepts/designs at such events and no, you're not going to see the huge collar and open front of the dress seen on the catwalk, on the high street. And no you'll not be able to buy the concept car in the form it was displayed on the stand. By the time they get to the client things are a bit more palatable to the average joe public.

[ricktas]

+1.

I used to do courier work for Lisa Saad many moons ago, so I've seen her photography up close .. she had a studio in Richmond.
Back in those days tho, the work she did was film, and we did the courier work from the processing lab back to her, back to the lab .. etc.

So she is a great photographer .. just not 'photographer of the year' based on that work

i too, believe she is a great photographer and well done on her win in the advertising category.

However, if you showed those images to people on the street and told them they were photos, most people would laugh at you. Perception means a lot. The Art of Photography is no longer about the photograph. The blurred distinction of what is a photo and what is graphic art has become interwoven. Where do we call 'time' on this? At what point are we going to see an image entirely created on a computer with no photographic components, bar the seagull 'dot' in the sky, allowing the entrant to become 'photographer of the year'? Ken has stated his views, and I agree, somehow a line in the sand has to be drawn.

[jim]

i too, believe she is a great photographer and well done on her win in the advertising category.

However, if you showed those images to people on the street and told them they were photos, most people would laugh at you. Perception means a lot. The Art of Photography is no longer about the photograph. The blurred distinction of what is a photo and what is graphic art has become interwoven. Where do we call 'time' on this? At what point are we going to see an image entirely created on a computer with no photographic components, bar the seagull 'dot' in the sky, allowing the entrant to become 'photographer of the year'? Ken has stated his views, and I agree, somehow a line in the sand has to be drawn.

Maybe not. The whole meaning of the term photograph seems to be changing. Witness the fact that Facebook calls any illustration a "photo".

[Cage]

What is a photograph?

I'm sure we all have a different idea of what constitutes a photograph.

For me, a photograph freezes, and records, a moment in time. We use our equipment's tools to capture that moment as faithfully as possible, using the available light to record what we see as accurately as we can.

If our pristine scene is marred by a carelessly discarded plastic bottle, so be it, we have recorded that moment in time. If we remove the bottle prior to taking the shot we are still keeping the faith somewhat. However, if we remove the bottle in PP our photograph then becomes a mere representation of the scene, not quite kosha.

There is nothing new about photo manipulation. I've read some fascinating articles about the darkroom tricks the gun photographers used in the early 35mm film days.

So when does a photograph cease to become a true picture of what we saw? When we do some sharpening because we missed the focus a tad, or when we lighten or darken our shot because we were juggling ISO, shutter speed and aperture, and didn't get it quite right? Or is it when we use anything but pure 'Manual Mode' and let the in-camera PP work it's 'magic'? And even Manual Mode has it's in-built skulduggery.

Modern DSLR's give us the tools to assist us in displaying an image of what we saw. How we decide to present that is an individual choice. However I'm bloody sure the photographers linked in the OP never actually eyeballed the images that they presented, but only 'saw' them in their minds eye. To me, they have become an illustration, and no longer a photograph.

OK, confession time. I recently won my first comp on this forum, POTW #526. http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...05#post1372305

It was a shot of a Brown Thornbill sitting on a climbing rose. In the original shot the subject was pretty good, just needed a bit of lightening, but the background was a horrible mish-mash of blown out highlights. So, I replaced the background with another shot, ie combined two images. Manipulation? Definitely. Was my entry within the spirit of the rules? I don't know. Do I feel I bent the rules ? Probably. Do I feel guilty? Yes.

Do with me what you will.

[thegrump]

When I first joined AP, I was told I had to do this, do that, etc. I was reluctant to manipulate my photos, because I believed a photo is what comes out of a camera, not a computer. Reluctantly I began slowly manipulating my photos as I began to realize it was pointless sharing them, as I would just receive negative results. Now I do not know when to stop. It certainly has it's place in cleaning up unwanted areas and restoring old film. BUT going to the point of rebuilding entire pictures on the computer is a bit ridiculous.

[sanger]

Two years ago I bought a DSLR and started learning about photography beyond point and shoot.
I was a bit surprised when posting photo's here that a large amount of advice was aimed at "fixing in post" rather than in camera advice, ignorance on my part maybe.
Landscapes is my thing and for me the the activity of getting out there and just having a bit of fun is what's in it for me.
Give me natural colours any day and not over the top added colours later.

[wayn0i]

Ok so how much PP 'manipulation' (i can hear the screaming already) is acceptable for an image to be a photograph?

Loving this thread Rick!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hamster]

Ok so how much PP 'manipulation' (i can hear the screaming already) is acceptable for an image to be a photograph?

Loving this thread Rick!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Expect answers ranging from nothing (some people think that a jpeg SOOC is "unprocessed/unadulterated") to "it's art and whatever is needed to get the mood/emotion/art/pretty colours across."
In the middle will be ill defined comments about "a bit of colour and contrast changing" (localised or global? is global more acceptable) "minor cloning". etc. My guess is the older the photographer the more they lean towards minimal post processing (and start waxing lyrical about the excitement of seeing an image materialise on a sheet of paper ).

For me it depends on the purpose of the photo. This article gives some good thought on the subject surrounding the Steve McCurry debate. A well thought out commentary IMHO
http://davidduchemin.com/2016/06/cam...e-photographs/

[piczzilla]

I'm another one of the guilty manipulator

My first comp win was actually a result of stitching
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...?entryid=21148

I had this image in mind, but was unable to produce it because I don't know anyone who has magic hands with cards. Can't say I didn't try, I spent half my day picking cards more than flicking them. So in the end I photographed the moving cards separately (they're actually dropped vertically).

My other comp entry (which didn't win) was also a result of stitching - model was shot in my living room, then stitched into grass BG (reason being, it was in the middle of winter, she wouldn't last 1 second outdoor with that dress)
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...?entryid=21060

At first I started manipulating because I had the image in my head but circumstances just didn't allow me to produce it the traditional way. These days I enjoy it too much, and am not sure where to stop. Reading this thread does make me feel guilty though.

Please don't hate me