Originally Posted by
MissionMan
I still think the main difference is you are enhancing a photo, rather than building a photo from 50 different photos. What the photographer has done in this case is a collage.
I have no issue if a photographer photoshops in sky, but what we see with the winner here is an image that was created rather than taken. There are no enhancements to an existing photo, it is an image (not a photo) that was created from multiple photos, with no definitive single image being the subject. You can't call something a painting if someone has stuck together 50 different paintings into a collage. It's not a painting. The individual pieces might be paintings, but not the final result. No one is arguing it isn't art, a painting and a collage are both ART, but a painting isn't a collage and a collage isn't a painting. I also think people aren't arguing about the quality of her work, she's obviously an incredible artist, but being an incredible artist isn't the same as being an incredible photographer. I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said "If you showed this to the public and told them it won photographer of the year based on this image, they would be confused". The definition of photographer needs to be clear enough for the public to get it. If you have lost the public, you've lost the new photographers coming in and you've lost people like us. What we don't need is a set of judges that are so up their own asses that they become like some of these art critics that rank films high that the public hate.
Incidentally, I don't blame the artist who won, the rules were clear and I don't think its her fault, but I think the AIPP needs a serious wake up call.