Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
As a PRESS photograph, there is absolutely no question, it goes way beyond what is acceptable......

[snip]

... The only correct response is automatic disqualification.
So then any black and white digitally captured image should be treated the same?? .. yes?.. no?

if not, why not?

I've posted the same question in another forum, and I just get my head around it.

It's OK to adjust the saturation and contrast sliders all the way down to zero, but not to maximum!

I just don't understand the bias against color, and for monochrome??

it's the same thing, only the other way round.

They have no right to accept black and white images, where they've stated that black and white images are acceptable.

No subject matter has been added so the image is representative of how the scene looked(more or less) add a bit of vignetting here and there massive contrast and saturation and the images Klavs produced are nothing more than processed images.

grass is still green, sky is still blue, concrete is still... blue!

just be sure to select the correct white balance setting huh?

I agree that the images are overly processed, but not doctored(as his RAW files clearly indicate). No added sky. No layered rubbish piles. No cloned in drunken locals... just excessive use of saturation and selective dodging/burning.

I'd bet there are just as many images in the comp that have been similarly processed. maybe not as heavily but damned close too it.

BUT! there is the issue of images sizes posted in that article. They are too small to clearly see the extent of any selective colouring.