Judgement Day for Photoshop

[arthurking83]

OK.. I'll try to post a truthful representation of an image in my living room.

All files are NEF's straight up, no other processing other than conversion by ViewNX. Lighting is exactly the same in each and the only difference is the Picture Control settings in camera.
Should have saved myself the trouble and shot in NEF + Jpg (basic, to save some space on the card, and hence the price of a bread roll or two )

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


#1 and #2 are so far removed form reality that it;s not funny, and yet there has been no post processing been done.
mono image(once again, via PC control in the D300 is the worst representation of reality)

But the issue here for me is to accurately reproduce the scene exactly as it was.. ATM it's nigh on impossible due to the ambient lighting conditions, even though I took a grey card reference for WB and used that as the predefined value in camera.

The red is not accurate in most of the images, and closest in #2, yet the brown is so far off, it's too hard to reproduce due to the PC controls in the original NEF.. and #1 reproduces it more accurately.. all the other(save for the mono) are both here and there, but not exactly right.

Only controlled lighting could accurately reproduce the colours for it to be described as a PJ image. Controlled lighting is not always possible though.

My contention is that

"must be a truthful representation"

is open to interpretation.

How would those judges see my RAW file? I have no idea coz I don't have ACR(that does default conversion) but I suspect that they'd see a different version again, and therefore #2 would be instantly disqualified as an entry.

ps. I'm highly suspicious of default conversions by third party software too!

I can email any of the NEF's to anyone with ACR, just for the purpose of seeing how it's represented by a different RAW converter.

[pirate59]

they have definitely recieved their fair share of manipulations.

personally not quite sure if they fly in the face of journalistic integrity, but they do seem to show more a feeling and emotion of the location than cold hard facts.

not really sure where a line stands with that as alot of 'entertainment' news images and sports images tend to be messed with a bit. look at some of the NRL shots taken on wet and rainy days, yet the colours pop.

IMO the high up landscape shot is fantastic, the shot with the lady and the shacks looks a bit much. The rest look awesome.

EDIT - the photos originally in question, not the bike shots above

[arthurking83]

This is a conversion from the original NEF by FastStone Viewer.
It's only here to reinforce my view that the judgement was wrong based on their comments, and clearly shows that choice of RAW converter makes a huge difference to the final output.

This has to be the worst conversion I've ever experienced, but then again I haven't used ACR on any of my precious D300 files



What's really sad is that it's a conversion of image #2

judge for yourself how valid the judges decision was, based on their views of Klavs over processed image.

I hope I'm not being misunderstood in my intent here.
I'd personally not choose Klavs images as winners due to their 'over processed look anyhow, but my issue is that they based their judgement on how the original RAW image looked, and this only showcases how wildly variable that process is, unless they used various software to make that determination. ACR is one piece of software I don't trust with NEF's(any more)

I had issues with my D70s files not looking anything like what they did on the D70s's review screen, and very quickly switched to Nikon Capture when it was version 4. something. The instant gratification of seeing on the PC, what (I remember) I saw back at the time of capture, was enough to convince me that RAW conversion was of paramount importance.

While other may well get better results from their ACR conversions, I never did, and am distrustful of ACR, and have been ever since. That was three years ago and in my view only Nikon software sees what you saw(which I think it literally does with Picture Control enabled Nikon bodies
( I know Andrew agrees with me )

ACR's conversion was not as bad as I now got form FSViewer, and that's probably a massive over exaggeration, but it kind of makes the point more vivid(pun intended).

I think there are a few RAW converters that do actually recognise Nikons PC settings and maybe they were Bibble and Dxo's Pro Optics.. but my feeble memory doesn't do all that well late at night.

[Analog6]

Interesting that competitions on AP have been brought into this. In the end our competitions are judged by the members voting. If enough members vote for a photo for it to win, then it deserves to win, whether others feel it is over processed or oversaturated is irrelevant.

That's why I said in my opinion, Rick. I am not making a criticism, or I would have done it in individual photos, many of which are beautiful and attention getting, I am just asking what others think.

Black & White was the traditional tool of press photography, back in the days before newspapers ran colour photographs. This has 'hung over' into Press Photography awards.

Many small regional newspapers still use mostly B&W due to costs. So a press photograph, in order to be useful to the majority of publishers, and get wide dissemination, needs to be able to be converted to B&W.

I am totally with Tannin on this one, and I guess arthur and I will never see eye to eye on it. I am a journalist (BA) and Warwick's dad was a News Limited press Photographer for 30+ years until the early '90s, and this amount of photographic 'unrealism' would never beacceptable to a reputable newspaper.

You can throw in as many red herring technical fiddles as you like but a Press Photogrpahy needs to be represenatative of teh truth of the scene portrayed. I agree the first scene looks wonderful after PP, but he went WAY too far. The second one is not as bad, and the third one (with the chair) almost OK. But none are really TRUTHFUL representations of what he saw.

May be the rules do need to be changed, to specify more fully the allowable maniplation, but for this comp he entered so he accepted the rules as they stand. His work is not acceptable under those rules.

[ricktas]

Would be interesting to know if any of the Danish Press ran these photos before they were entered into the competition.

[I @ M]

Hmmm, the "media" survive by selling advertising space in their publications and I would venture to say that they truly don't care anymore about total factual representation of any image.
They want images that have punch, deliver that added bit more that grabs a readers attention to "make" them buy the publication and therefore read the advertisements that are the publications life blood.

How many times have we seen photographs that relate to an event or subject but are gathered from a "stock" library or "archives"?

Is it misrepresentation of facts to crop distracting background elements which have no relevance to the subject from a photo to push a person or scene to prominence within that photo?

[arthurking83]

.....

Black & White was the traditional tool of press photography, back in the days before newspapers ran colour photographs. This has 'hung over' into Press Photography awards......

I 'spose it's just too easier to hang on to archaic traditions rather than allow them to evolve as society does... in 50 years time Klavs view of the scene will probably be deemed 'acceptable'

My point is, that they made specific points about how he changed this colour into that and that colour into this, using his original raw file, using the raw files as the basis of analysis.
Then the issue is the program that they used to display that raw file.
We all know that an original raw file is only a rough estimation of what the scene actually looked like, and I'm sure Klavs saw much more contrast than the RAW file reveals, especially in his aerial image.

I think we probably see eye to eye much more than you think Odille, I just hate it when they make the rules to fit a specific genre at the detriment of another.
it breaks the spirit of the rules in dictating how much contrast or colour you can add, where it's meant to really stop the phoney HDR's and layered fakes from distorting the real truth.

I think the rules should be specifically geared to state that the image must be processed form information available in the RAW file, and that's all I see in Klavs images.
Very contrasty, that's for sure, and I'd personally have toned it down by at least half.

B&W is still considered to be the artists photographic medium, and yet you are not allowed artistic expression in PJ photography!

Dinosaurs in a modern world!!

[Steve Axford]

But the thing is Arthur, you have to try to be honest. I don't think he tried very hard.

Actually, I look at my photos of the Sidoarjo mudflow and I see some similarities. But - I would never consider submitting anything that had been processed so much to a press photography award. AND - I would be most upset if photos like this won.

[kiwi]

I don't see a problem with this at all. Sure, it's been PS'd to death re colours, contrast, saturation etc but it hasn't been altered from a content or "news" point of view. Nothing in the scene has been cloned etc is

I can see these been in a news magazine.

[trigger]

in 50 years time Klavs view of the scene will probably be deemed 'acceptable'

I think tech has played a massive role in bringing a person interpretation of an image closer and closer to what the "human eye" can see. I mean it wasnt long ago that HDRs wasnt possible and yet its exactly what the "eye" sees.

I dont consider PP (bridging the gap) to bring out what "I" saw thought my eyes cheating or over processing. Heck if i was colour blind and I choose to de-saturate the blue channel its still a realistic representation of what happened in front of the camera.

[Steve Axford]

I think tech has played a massive role in bringing a person interpretation of an image closer and closer to what the "human eye" can see. I mean it wasnt long ago that HDRs wasnt possible and yet its exactly what the "eye" sees.

I dont consider PP (bridging the gap) to bring out what "I" saw thought my eyes cheating or over processing. Heck if i was colour blind and I choose to de-saturate the blue channel its still a realistic representation of what happened in front of the camera.

What do you mean - HDR is exactly what the eye sees? The eye doesn't see anything at all. Our brain sees, and it is nothing like what HDR portrays. There are many books on the subject.

[trigger]

The human eye sees a larger range in terms of details in the shadows and the highlights. When i look at a sunset I see the sun AND the shadow areas as that is the signal range that my eye offers my brain. i.e. its like having a range -15 ...... + 15 on a SLR.

All I am saying is that PP can bring out more in the RAW file then what it is as a flat image.

[Steve Axford]

The receptors in the human eye are capable of seeing little more than 3 stops!!! Yet we manage to construct images in our brains that exceed that by many times. The RAW file and the type of image we see does vary considerably, but I would suggest that the images from this photographer do go a little too far for a PRESS competition. Not for a normal one where interpretation is everything, but for a press comp.

[J.davis]

Arthur, if any of your photos where printed in a news paper they more than likely would be identical to #4 (a B&W print), so in newspaper terms, colour doesn't matter - only the content.

[DanNG]

I think he got ripped... been a fair bit of highly saturated/processed photos in recent issues of National Geographic.... that's PRESS isn't it?

[arthurking83]

Arthur, if any of your photos where printed in a news paper they more than likely would be identical to #4 (a B&W print), so in newspaper terms, colour doesn't matter - only the content.

AHA!! that's exactly my point.

Regardless of how much saturation and contrast Klavs has processed into the images, the subject matter is truthful and completely free of any manipulation... therefore they are perfectly acceptable as PJ shots!

regardless of how much mood he's tried to imply in the shots, the subject still remains, and I thought that's what photojournalism was supposed to display.

the smoke still billows from the ground, the woman still needs a washing line, and the chair still sits forlornly.. nothing has changed, other than how he felt at the time.

Print Klavs images in a newspaper(in greyscale) and his images may have been Pulitzer prize winners(not likely actually, in reality they were quite uninteresting)... doesn't make sense!

My issue is only that the judges wanted to see the original RAW images(for the sake of comparison). Based on his philosophy of exposing to the right and then using PP to 'enrich' the images the RAW files looked too different(for the judges to accept them).
Had he used Vivid +3 saturation +3 Contrast setting on his D700 and opened the images in View/Capture NX the edited images would not have looked all that much different save for the dodging he'd used.
Instead, they opened the RAW files in a useless RAW converter like ACR, and saw flat bland images which don't quite represent the reality of those scenes(as Klavs would have seen them).

The basis of his exclusion was that the presented images were processed too far from the original RAW files, but there is no defined limits as to how much is to much.

He got ripped off... simple as that

But as I may have previously stated, his images were not worthy of winning, they were kind of boring without knowing any background about them.(but again, that wasn't the point either).

Has Adobe software become the standard software by which all RAW images are defined as standard(I bloody well hope not ).

anyhow, I think PJ is a weird topic to try to understand if the way it's more about brightness and colour levels, rather than the most important factor.. the un-manipulated or un-ambiguous subject matter.

[occifer nick]

Any previous discussions about competitions for photoshopped and non photoshopped images?

Im new to this forum and DSLRs in general so im hoping that I dont overstep the boundaries. I was looking at the photo of the year (congratulations by the way, awesome end result of a photograph and one i would love to have framed on my wall) and came across before and after processing pics and didnt realise that it wasnt one photo that had been touched up. That got me thinking not only do you have to be a good photographer or have that artistic vision but it seems you have to be a guru on photoshop to merge different photos into one. Has there been any discussions about competitions for photoshopped and non photoshopped images? Just as a side note I am not thinking that my photographs are going to be winning any major prizes anytime soon so not thinking about this for my benefit but the general layman hobyist photographer who has no idea how to manipulate images in this way. On the other hand I am not saying that we cant make general adjustments like slight sharpness, white balance etc. Is that wrong of me to think that slight adjustments in areas of white balance are ok but not merging two images and adding 20 layers is too far? Again not having a go at the past winners as I absolutely love the photos and wish that I was capable haha I tried to search for the topic of photoshop and non photoshop comps but couldnt find anything. Probably my lack of ability with search engines so if you know of the link just point me in the right direction and ignore this little rant haha
Again, whatsthatbeeping awesome photo and enjoyed reading your post on the processing. I might learn something and be able to compete one year haha

[ricktas]

Any previous discussions about competitions for photoshopped and non photoshopped images?

Yes and we cannot do it. We have no way of knowing who has edited and who hasn't edited a photo. Even a simple thing like a slight sharpen is editing, but if done well, most of us could not say if it was sharpened in post processing or not. A member could do a levels adjustment, or slightly change the contrast and again we have no way of knowing that. Members could shoot in JPG and adjust settings in their cameras to increase saturation etc, this is processing! Therefore running a non-editing competition is fraught with the issue of having no way to prove a photo was edited or not, so we have not and never will run a 'no editing' competition.

[occifer nick]

Thanks for the reply Rick, I was just wondering thats all.
Cheers
Occifer