'Cheating' in Comps !!

[William]

:lol2: Thought that would get your attention :D


Does anybody give any thought to how much processing goes into some shots , Do you care ! Or is it just the finished product that matters , EG : Blending, HDR , Etc . Compared to a single shot processed RAW image ?

[dieselpower]

I don't really care as long as the final product is representative of the actual scene (which is difficult to know unless you were there) and is pleasing to the eye. I don't agree with adding in things that weren't there or 'artistic' looks such as OTT HDR. Just my personal preference, though - but I'll use whatever means necessary to reproduce what I saw as accurately as possible.

[Chris C]

Personally, I couldn't care less. A modern camera is already a machine built expressly to allow us to cheat as much as possible. :)

I do care if an image looks 'over-processed' to my eye - as many on the internet do - but that's a personal thing. If somebody spent ten hours working on something to make it look more pleasing - and it works for me - then good luck to them. As it's impossible to effectively restrict, why bother about it anyway? I prefer to limit my own work to cropping and minor cosmetic work, but as I come to grips with learning the software tools I confidently expect to change my attitude. :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Chris

[geoffsta]

Sure did get my attention. Thought you were finally going to fess up. :D

I certainly don't go overboard with processing. Apart from the fact that I'm no expert, I just don't have the time to play around with them that much.
Exposure adjustment, sharpening, maybe a quick go with the adjustment brush in Camera Raw, and thats about it. If it's needs noise reduction I'll use that.
But adding layer, upon layer, upon layer seems like a waste of time to me.

[MarkChap]

I don't see how the amount of processing could be considered cheating ??

As long as the final image is of a high quality and appeals to me that is all that matters

[William]

:o Not cheating "Per say" Mark, Just more than is real in a normal one shot image , BTW , I'm not at all into heavy processing , Well not Multiples :)

[CAP]

99.9% about the end result for me, appeal is everything, well at least with the initial x/10 vote.
When it comes time for the final vote I often take a bit more time to consider what went into taking the photo any PP etc, esspecially if it comes down to chosing between a final two.

[ricktas]

I will vote a well processed natural shot over an over-cooked one any day. I tend to look at each one for overall impact, connection and technical. For example a good natural portrait will win my vote over a skin smoothed, not a wrinkle to be seen post processed one. Same with a landscape, something that looks like it really could exist in nature, will get my vote over one that shows signs of obviously significant editing.

Personally, If I cannot edit a photo to where I want it to be, in less than 5 minutes, I give up on that image.

I suppose I look for overall quality, across the entire photo.

[Kym]

Not cheating, but, when does it stop being photography and become graphic arts?

I prefer natural, some processing is ok.

I guess its like Ansel Adams in the dark room, he worked the print but kept the scene true.

[outstar79]

For competitions, especially considering that this is a photography forum, should be more about the photographer's composition and use of light etc etc as opposed to creating something that just isn't there or didn't exist in the first place.

[JayR]

As long as its not purporting to be a 'film only' or 'unprocessed' then digital manipulation should be considered a tool for use. Using more of it isnt any better than using nothing, the final image is what counts.

This debate was long held in music circles with electronic music and DJing with vinyl vs laptops - use whatever you have to its best advantage.

[old dog]

good thread Bill. For me...I just try to get the scene etc to look like it did when I shot it. I dont have ND grads etc so I sometimes do a fake HDR from a single shot...just to balance the sky with the land etc. Have to agree with Rick , Kym and DP here...there must be impact and technical merit for an image to grab you.

[Wayne63]

I think a small amount of processing is ok providing the finished photo still looks "real", as for me well I only know how to crop, resize and sharpen so am a bit limited anyway

[rowdy23]

pic of the year , last year was iffy in my book.... 2 different shots
i feel there were alot of other worthy images that should of won. based on alot of the comments above

[Steve Axford]

It depends.
On what type of image you present. If it is a scene of a tiger in the wilds of the Bengali swamps, then I expect there to be very little processing - or the photo becomes a lie. If it is a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge, then you can do what you like because we all know what it looks like and so can judge your processing.
It really does depend on what the subject matter is and if people will see this as art or document. Of course this can vary greatly from person to person and from subject to subject. The consensus here may be quite different to that of the general population, or of the art community, or of the photojournalist community.

[sunny6teen]

when does it stop being photography and become graphic arts?



a question I ask myself a lot these days. especially with advertising.
with regards to landscapes, Duncan has referred to Eastway as a 'photographic illustrator' (or something akin to that) due to Eastway's habit of removing/including elements in a scene to improve composition. Duncan's complaint was that he preferred to recognise the scene should he ever visit it.

no one's disputing Eastway's abilities as a photographer. he had the runs on the board many moons ago but I do wonder if he's more of a graphic artist these days.
or does he just recognise the current market better than others? with several publications that all lean towards the post-processing side of photography...is it just a case of the tail wagging the dog?

[ricktas]

going back to the thread title 'Cheating in comps'. I do not believe it is cheating, as such, but certainly, I do wonder sometimes how an entry has managed to get so many high votes to win, but in the end, the competitions on AP are setup to be voted for by members, and that is what determines the result, not my personal views. However, if asked, (and I have been), I will say if I disagree with the results. But this thing we do, called photography, is ART, and as such we are each entitled to a view and a vote, so ultimately, the majority determines the winner.

[Xenedis]

Does anybody give any thought to how much processing goes into some shots , Do you care ! Or is it just the finished product that matters , EG : Blending, HDR , Etc . Compared to a single shot processed RAW image ?

I don't care one iota about competitions and I'm not the least bit interested in them; but as far as processing goes, when it comes to photography as an art form I'm not fussed how much or how little processing goes into the image (or images), as long as the final result looks realistic.

If HDR is done well, then I'm all for it. I dislike anything that looks over-processed, esp. when HDR techniques are used and the result has radioactive colours, horrible halos, more noise than a heavy metal concert and excessive contrast.

I process all of my images -- some a little, and some a lot. The final result is what counts, and as long as it looks realistic and pleasing, that's all I want.

This comes from the viewpoint of a fine-art photographer, not a digital artist.

[Milbs1]

Got my attention, thought you were going to tell me how to cheat!

I don't care a bit how much editing has been done, for me it's all about the end product. Some of the most natural looking images may well have been processed for hours, who's to know......

[mongo]

Mongo can never see modern digital photography as “cheating” or somehow illegitimate. In the old days, what you shot on slide film was what you got ! The results from that were perhaps a better measure of how good you were at photography. The next step was the darkroom for B&W which permitted a serious degree of manipulation including sandwiching images, removing elements or adding them etc etc - much like today’s digital darkroom but not as fancy or powerful.


The digital darkroom (which is built into every camera and PP program) is today not really about photography as much as it is about an expressive art form with incredibly big parameters thanks to science and engineering. Today, it is more about what you can “create” with a camera and computer and not so much what you can “capture” or record with them except for journalist, scientists etc. Of course, It is not everyone’s intention to do that and it may not have started off that way but the greatly enhanced abilities to “create” have drawn photography in that direction to a great extent and legitimately so.


All is fair in love , war and photography unless the rules of the game/competition expressly state otherwise e.g no manipulation except cropping and some sharpening or other specific parameters are set. Only if one violates any set parameters do they "cheat". So, if it looks great and really works - who cares how you got to that - just appreciate the finished product (which often takes considerable skill in any event to produce). Having said all of that, it would be a very foolish person who, used inappropriate and difficult digital PP just to show off but in the end produced a crappy image that no one likes. So, you see, all this broad latitude that the digital darkroom has given us is really self regulating as to when and how much of it we should be using in each image or face the disapproval of your audience.

[Mark L]

pic of the year , last year was iffy in my book.... 2 different shots
......

But it made a great image. I thought it was real.
Took me a long time to figure that one point in time could be two points in time! And this could be (and was) done before digital gave us all the chance to do it.

[Geoff79]

I personally don't vote either way for how much time I feel has gone into processing a photo. Just the end result matters to me. The funny thing for me is that the best processing - to me - actually results in making the photo look as real and unprocessed as possible. If that makes sense. I like improvements to lighting etc, to it looks more like how the viewer would have seen it with a nude eye. Just the basics like good lighting is the most processing I enjoy. :) But in the end, like music, a good photo is a good photo. No amount of processing can fix what is a plain bad shot.

Or can it? Onto my next thread...

[sunny6teen]

damn all this trickery. next you'll be telling me that the BBC's wildlife programmes use zoo animals for the close-ups.

oh, wait....

curses, Attenborough!!! :D

[zollo]

Some have grown to believe the lie that the camera never lies
For example Canon cameras oversaturate red's

[fess67]

:lol2: Thought that would get your attention :D


Does anybody give any thought to how much processing goes into some shots , Do you care ! Or is it just the finished product that matters , EG : Blending, HDR , Etc . Compared to a single shot processed RAW image ?

Finished product. My wife wears makeup....she is beautiful without it but my god she is an amazing sight when she gets it all on for a night out!!!

nuf said :D

[JayR]

Im actually a little suprised that in 2012 this is even being discussed given most of our raw files arent actually as 'raw' as we'd like to believe. 99% of images processed in film days had tweaking of sorts in them also, whether they be balancing in the pharmacy lab or the rest of us in the dark room.

If it looks good and its not pretending to be something that it isnt, then fine (in my books).

[Kym]

Some have grown to believe the lie that the camera never lies
For example Canon cameras oversaturate red's

So shooting Velvia was not also a lie (i.e. Velvia has very saturated colors under daylight, high contrast, and exceptional sharpness)?

[arthurking83]

I think it's simply all about the final look!

Some images tend to look good, or even great, with massive amounts of processing .. such as wild tonemapped HDR or crazy over the top actions.
It's simply about the image and not just the representation of reality.

Afterall, abstract or post modernism art is not representative of reality and yet many people agree with it and love it .. to the point where it's worth millions!

Most natural type scenes such as landscapes and portraits, where you expect a more realistic representation of the scene, don't lend themselves to OTT processing techniques.

My personal preference is to get as natural rendering as I possibly can for my images .. but it doesn't mean that I'm opposed to other methods of massive processing from other's.
As long as it looks appropriate tho, and very few do.

[reaction]

I think as a photography forum, and not an 'imaging' or 'art' forum, we should concentrate on the photography aspect. Is it really fair if two people took the same portrait/landscape, where one took care with lighting and came out with a good result, while the other took a horrible shot with blown highlights and lost shadows, but via hours of PP and cloning out objects and substituting in skies from different shots etc ended up with a better looking image?

Or what about 2 shots that look equally good, one was taken and PP in 2min, the other was a major project done over 2 months?

Yes in the commercial world a shot may have 100hrs of PP behind it, but here we are aspiring photographers competing with other aspiring photographers, not competing with PS wizards or graphics artists who haven't taken their camera off auto mode. The competition I think is about the photography, and not all just about the end result. And I'm sure if there are PS wizard forums they would want to compete on PS'ing a crappy photo terms, rather than one who just had a stunning photo to begin with.

Some comps actually require disclosure of what PP was done, or have separate high and low PP work comps for this same reason.

[I @ M]

I think as a photography forum, and not an 'imaging' or 'art' forum, we should concentrate on the photography aspect. Is it really fair if two people took the same portrait/landscape, where one took care with lighting and came out with a good result, while the other took a horrible shot with blown highlights and lost shadows, but via hours of PP and cloning out objects and substituting in skies from different shots etc ended up with a better looking image?

Funnily enough, the people that enter the competitions on here and even more funny is that the people that vote for their favourite entry are photographers.
If they like a particular image enough to give it a tick who cares whether it is straight out of the camera ( whatever the hell that may be ) or if has 324 layers of adjustment in processing.
The popular image wins every time and to infer that photography is not an art and that skillful processing of an image to bring it to the way the artist photographer meant it to be seen is not a part of that art seems a little short sighted in this day and age.

[rowdy23]

I think as a photography forum, and not an 'imaging' or 'art' forum, we should concentrate on the photography aspect. Is it really fair if two people took the same portrait/landscape, where one took care with lighting and came out with a good result, while the other took a horrible shot with blown highlights and lost shadows, but via hours of PP and cloning out objects and substituting in skies from different shots etc ended up with a better looking image?

Or what about 2 shots that look equally good, one was taken and PP in 2min, the other was a major project done over 2 months?

Yes in the commercial world a shot may have 100hrs of PP behind it, but here we are aspiring photographers competing with other aspiring photographers, not competing with PS wizards or graphics artists who haven't taken their camera off auto mode. The competition I think is about the photography, and not all just about the end result. And I'm sure if there are PS wizard forums they would want to compete on PS'ing a crappy photo terms, rather than one who just had a stunning photo to begin with.

Some comps actually require disclosure of what PP was done, or have separate high and low PP work comps for this same reason.



alot of great stuff there ;)
brings back to my comment earlier.... photo of year 2012 ....... i suppose i can be happy that it was a bloody bird shot

[Xenedis]

If they like a particular image enough to give it a tick who cares whether it is straight out of the camera ( whatever the hell that may be ) or if has 324 layers of adjustment in processing.

I find 'SOOC' (straight-out-of-camera) purist mentality both amusing and utterly stupid.

Some people almost religiously extol the perceived virtues of publishing only what the camera spat out, but it remains unclear to me as to whether those people are aware of just how much processing a camera applies to a 'straight-from-camera' JPG, or that late-model digital cameras may well indeed apply more processing to an image than some users would with a copy of Photoshop or Lightroom right in front of them.

In-camera HDR, anyone?

[zollo]

I too think SOOC is a misguided concept at the best.
This is not aimed at anyone - but in my opinion, if you don't process your images, I don't think you have grasped the concept of digital photography to its full extent.

[Xenedis]

n my opinion, if you don't process your images, I don't think you have grasped the concept of digital photography to its full extent.

Bingo.

It needs to be acknowledged, however, that even film and prints were processed.

[reaction]

Funnily enough, the people that enter the competitions on here and even more funny is that the people that vote for their favourite entry are photographers.
If they like a particular image enough to give it a tick who cares whether it is straight out of the camera ( whatever the hell that may be ) or if has 324 layers of adjustment in processing.
The popular image wins every time and to infer that photography is not an art and that skillful processing of an image to bring it to the way the artist photographer meant it to be seen is not a part of that art seems a little short sighted in this day and age.

I never said anything about SOOC. As for "popular image wins every time" that's also true for fb comps where he-with-the-most-likes(friends)-wins.

I'm saying that if I had to choose between 2 photos for the final vote, I WANT TO KNOW whether one guy was hanging off the empire state building to get the shot (http://portfolio.joemcnally.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=9&p=6&a=0&at=0)
or whether the other guy shot at his mate's green screen studio and had his team of PS wizards to come up with the result. (which may be much sharper and visually pleasing)

I would have much more respect for the former than the latter as a photographer, but that's just my opinion. Of course you can only have an opinion if you knew how the images came about. Others may prefer a comp where the 'prettiest picture wins' but then you'll just get a string of colorful saturated sunsets that catch the eye and never see any brilliance or subtlety.

By the same token I WANT TO KNOW whether the hot air balloon shot was just how he found the light and happened to snap, or whether he had deliberate setup or whether it took n-shots composited together to get his vision. Because I would rate a happy accident differently to a deliberate masterful plan. You're not just choosing the pretty pics, because you have to rate this one next to another pic which shows some monument in sunrise/set.

[Tommo224]

In all honesty, I don't mind how much or how little editing people do. As long as the result is aesthetically pleasing at the end!

Minimal editing, resulting in a poor image = poor
Lots of editing, resulting in a poor image = poor
Over editing, resulting in a poor image = poor.

[Kym]

I'm saying that if I had to choose between 2 photos for the final vote, I WANT TO KNOW whether one guy was hanging off the empire state building to get the shot (http://portfolio.joemcnally.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=9&p=6&a=0&at=0)
or whether the other guy shot at his mate's green screen studio and had his team of PS wizards to come up with the result. (which may be much sharper and visually pleasing)
<snip>

In a camera club, APS or FIAP type comp the judges won't know how the image was obtained.
Some categories, eg. nature, have very special rules but this is dependant on the honesty of the entrant.

[ving]

i judge on the final product... if it looks natural how can you tell how much pp has gone into it... i dont like those that dont look natural.

[Chris G]

I'm sure everyone is aware of this when I say that editing & manipulation started with film waaaaaaaaaay before photoshop was around. It is a essential part of photography and what has made it grow to what we see now.

If you have the knowledge of film photography then you would understand the techniques and how you needed to master the darkroom for creating that final image how every you imagined it to be.

Point being, how is this any different from photoshop or any other editing program that a photographer needs to learn and master to be able to achieve a photo in the same regards but with today's look and standards that are credited as being "Professional"

Darkroom = Photoshop

It is measly a tool for the photographer to achieve a desired effect, no different dating back 100 years ago.

Cheers :th3:

[Xenedis]

In all honesty, I don't mind how much or how little editing people do. As long as the result is aesthetically pleasing at the end!

Sometimes people get too caught up in how the image was made, rather than enjoying it for what it is.

[I @ M]

I never said anything about SOOC. As for "popular image wins every time" that's also true for fb comps where he-with-the-most-likes(friends)-wins.


My intention was to differentiate SOOC from a greenscreen scene and not about the processing performed.
Likewise, if you read my post thoroughly my only reference to competitions was about said competitions on here and not about the "like" seekers on social nutworking sites.
My opinions are that the voters on here who are photographers pick the image that they like and don't give two hoots whether it is a heavily processed multi scene image or a simple shot and what YOU WANT doesn't seem to be of much relevance to the masses when it comes to selecting the image that they like in the comps here.

[bricat]

No it is not cheating. The RULES allow processing. I don't like it because I can't PP other than crop/sharpen. Should oneday I become profecient at PP I will embrace it. I am still learning how to take photo's so I won't hold my breath. cheers Brian

[reaction]

Like I said, the tiny point I was trying to make is that all else equal between two images I would like to be able to score the photographer who needed less PP a higher score. In the help forums if someone stuffs up their exposure we teach them to use EV, we don't teach them to PS more.

Too bad some people are just using this thread to get on their moral high horse to say how only the results matter to them, and writing off every other opinion. I don't think anyone in this thread has said pics should be SOOC, and yet a lot of posts are about justifying the use of PP, burning/dodging in film days.

I don't know how people vote here, because I can't see their votes. Maybe you have access and you can claim everyone votes your way.

Sometimes I see a highly processed look win. Sometimes I see an amazing and natural looking photo lose. Sometimes I can see the idea for a photo win over a technically superior but less interesting idea win. Sometimes a facinating and new take on a theme loses. I don't agree that everyone here votes for the prettiest looking photo ignoring all other factors. I don't even agree that each comp votes in the same way.

[Kym]

Rick and I have an Admin tool for viewing who voted what.
As part of integrity checking we do look.
There is no particular pattern or obvious collusion.
We are often surprised by the voting.

FWIW There was some collusion between a couple of members over a year ago, they are no longer active.

[ashey]

No I don't think it is cheating at all, as long as you the photographer are happy with the end result who really cares, lets face it a lot of the people that complain about an image being over processed don,t know an F/ stop from a bus stop end of story.

[Chris G]

Here's some I haven't seen said yet or perhaps I did?

Everything comes down to that the majority of people here are not experts when it comes down to voting / judging as that's what we all are doing in end.

Giving said that, naturally your going to see different images being voted on for various reasons as most are not sure what to look out for and will just choose whatever is eye catching to them, regardless of PP, natural, SOOC or whatever..

Its not professional, its fun and relaxed as most people here are just that.. if you need professional judging, enter the AIPP awards :th3:

[Kym]

<snip>
Its not professional, its fun and relaxed as most people here are just that. if you need professional judging, enter the AIPP awards :th3:

EXACTLY!!!

[zollo]

Staying with professional photographers for a minute, I wonder if anyone who claims that processing is not part of photography, would be willing to hire a $3000 a day wedding photographer that didn't know or who refused to do any post processing, claiming straight out of the camera is the purest form of digital capture.
Your wife wants black and white? Too bad. Your brides dress looks blue instead of the off white that it actually was, due to the bad lighting? Sorry, processing is not allowed. You badly want an awesome photo of you and your mates on a poster, but it has an ugly coke vending machine in the background? Na, cant remove it, that's too much like cgi. The photographer under-exposed a frame that had 'the moment' yeah too bad, Lightroom is the devil.

[William]

:) Thanks for the reading guys , Been great to hear/read your thoughts , My original thought on this was the more obvious blending of two completely different images to make the Super shot , I have nothing at all against normal PP from the RAW image , Or the blending of two or three shots at different exposures of the same scene ;)

[Kym]

:) Thanks for the reading guys , Been great to hear/read your thoughts , My original thought on this was the more obvious blending of two completely different images to make the Super shot , I have nothing at all against normal PP from the RAW image , Or the blending of two or three shots at different exposures of the same scene ;)

And there is now a specific POTW because of that! Hmmm... thanks ... I think :rolleyes: :confused013 :lol2:

[SirLozalot]

I agree with sentiment that it is not cheating. Only the final result counts. If people don't like the processing then photo won't get the votes.

Also, I feel the point about being impossible to effectively restrict is a good one.

[Seabee]

I am still perplexed at it all :confused013
The lines became blurred a Loooooooong time ago regarding Photographer/artist/Graphics designer/Professional/Amateur/Hobbyist
We all have our reasons for doing what we do and we all have varying levels of experience and expertise in the genres we follow.

When it stops being fun........it sadly starts being nasty!.....and thats with everything in life!
I for one will continue exploring 'EVERYTHING' thats encompasses this Digital World.
Its all just a matter of perception and preference anyway..............just enjoy!

[sonofcoco]

I guess that's where the current voting system comes in handy. If you really don't like something you can vote it right down. I don't like overdone HDR at all, but I've entered a HDR in the comp and while I didn't think it was overdone maybe others did and voted it down accordingly. I also don't like photos where there's obviously something there that wasn't in the shot at the time, but again I can vote it down if that's the way I feel. I don't think it's cheating though, you put your name to photos you think are good and others can give their opinion through the voting system.

[Mark L]

:)..... , My original thought on this was the more obvious blending of two completely different images to make the Super shot , I have nothing at all against normal PP from the RAW image ,.......;)

Or making me think a rubber frog is a great nature photo! :lol:

[Dylan & Marianne]

I enjoy the end result of whatever is presented

however

I personally draw the line in my concept of 'photography' where new elements are brought into a scene that weren't there in the first place. ie. switching skies from a completely different scene/time of day

eg. I thought the balloon shot was awesome and still do as an end product

When I read that it was a composite of two shots and saw that they weren't even from the same scene, my heart sank a little with regard to acknowledging things like
-planning a shot and executing
-capturing difficult lighting in difficult environemnts
-being at the right place at an extraordinary moment and having the nous to capture it.

So in summary - I appreciated the 2010 POTY as a great image. After seeing how it was created, my shift in praise deviated away from on field skill, to post processing skill. Much as they are both important, I still place the emphasis (personally) on the former.

[Analog6]

I will vote a well processed natural shot over an over-cooked one any day. I tend to look at each one for overall impact, connection and technical. For example a good natural portrait will win my vote over a skin smoothed, not a wrinkle to be seen post processed one. Same with a landscape, something that looks like it really could exist in nature, will get my vote over one that shows signs of obviously significant editing.

Personally, If I cannot edit a photo to where I want it to be, in less than 5 minutes, I give up on that image.

I suppose I look for overall quality, across the entire photo.

This is how I feel too. I will tweak an actual comp image for more than 5 minutes, but the initial processing has to get there in a short time, then it is just fine tuning. I detest the over-cooked look and it is why I often do not vote in some weekly comps - there is nothing there I personally feel is really 'out of the box'. But luckily we all have very different opinions so there is room for weird old biddies like me!

Sandwich/montages should only be used if the rules/guidelines specifically state you can enter them. I have occasionally used them, I have an image of the Cascade Brewery taken on a day of very grey skies, and I have put in a 'more interesting' sky, taken in Hobart in the same season but a different year, to make a composite that I find more pleasing. I have it on my RedBubble site but I do state in the description that I have used a different sky.

There is a blog post (http://www.betterphotography.com/index.php) on this subject this week on Peter Eastway's Better Photography site.

I do agree and have said before that sandwiching, extreme adjustments etc were around long before digital, but everyone did not have access in the easy way we do now, so the subject has become more problematical (for some).

[Erin]

As a huge fan of processing, I understand that there are lines (thick and thin) between what people think is cheating and not in photography. Even I'm conflicted. There's so many shades of grey in this area. I have a lot of trouble dealing with what passes for "natural" photography in high-end competitions these days, only because I know and have the skills (or am currently learning them) to know exactly what processing has been done. It's irritating to say the least.

To me, it comes down to the rules of the competition. If they allow editing past the basic crop/colour/sharpness then I will go and spend hours PPing an image but depending on the theme, I will aim to make it look as realistic as possible or completely surreal. If the rules are that the shot should be basically what your camera took with the exception of the above basic edits then that's what I do too.

Lastly, it is NOT worth getting all hot and bothered about on a forum. LOL

[Steve Axford]

In most of the top comps they insist on having RAW and TIFF images so they can see what you have done and if you have stuck to the rules. Of course, that isn't possible with small comps.

[in2fx]

Or making me think a rubber frog is a great nature photo! :lol:

I love it :lol:

[rowdy23]

i like how you roll..
my thoughts exactly...

.. taking a boring pic and using a sky shot from the data base... and making a nice shot... is very iffy.
id rather take 1 nice shot






I enjoy the end result of whatever is presented

however

I personally draw the line in my concept of 'photography' where new elements are brought into a scene that weren't there in the first place. ie. switching skies from a completely different scene/time of day

eg. I thought the balloon shot was awesome and still do as an end product

When I read that it was a composite of two shots and saw that they weren't even from the same scene, my heart sank a little with regard to acknowledging things like
-planning a shot and executing
-capturing difficult lighting in difficult environemnts
-being at the right place at an extraordinary moment and having the nous to capture it.

So in summary - I appreciated the 2010 POTY as a great image. After seeing how it was created, my shift in praise deviated away from on field skill, to post processing skill. Much as they are both important, I still place the emphasis (personally) on the former.

[rafikicat]

This is a very interesting discussion - way beyond cheating. I think we have to remember that the camera is just a recording tool - mechanical or electronic, and it doesn't see what we see with our eyes. The photographer starts making decisions as soon as he/she picks up a camera - and post processing is just a continuation of those decisions, and as others have mentioned, processing and tweaking photos has always occurred. I mostly use Photoshop to get the shot back to what I think I saw - which is very funny really because I've just had cataracts removed from both my eyes - and now the whole world looks Photoshopped, it's quite exciting really.
I'm totally unintersted in entering competitions but I like looking at other people's photos and give a bit of CC if I think there is something that other people haven't mentioned or if the shot really appeals to me - but that is a totally subjective judgment on my part.

[William]

Or making me think a rubber frog is a great nature photo! :lol:




I love it :lol:


Thats a different cheating :rolleyes:, The Frog was a prop, It was still one single image , And this is what were talking about , Props can be anything from a stick to a Seashell to a car :D

It was'nt a combined image that did'nt exist in the real world , A Composite !!

It took ages to get him in the right position , He kept on slipping off the leaf in the wind :lol2: True !!

[Steve Axford]

Hi William,
Do you remember the photo of a wolf at night jumping over a wooden farm gate that won an international nature comp? It was found to be a setup and therefore, cheating - according to the comp rules. Of course, the AP comp had no such rule, therefore it couldn't be cheating. Just as the AP comp has no photoshop rules. In fact, you can enter any image you like. But you will always live with the slight mistrust in people who did feel a little fooled.
Steve

[Kym]

We do NOT use the FIAP (http://www.fiap.net/index-en.php) nature rules -- so all good on the frog.
We also don't do SOOC comps.

[William]

Well the Currumbin Wildlife sanctuary should'nt have been selling rubber frogs in the Tourist shop that day when I needed one :D When I took the shot , A comp was'nt even in mind, I really did'nt think viewers would mind if it was fake or not , And just see the outcome , It was the light through the leaf that I was after :confused013:)

For those that are wondering what wer're talking about : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?77186-2010-Ausphotography-Photo-of-the-Year-WINNER

[Seabee]

I find it highly amusing that the winner of that comp has listed among their interests........'post processing' and they also state that they are 'trying hard to relearn the craft using the new techniques'...............was that not a clue to anyone.
I think its a wonderful shot and concept as stated before............but if I had been giving CC to that image as presented, I would definately have pointed out the horizon.
It is glaringly obvious that it is a merged pic and some darkening along the horizon line would have been a benefit. Plus, balloon companies dont even contemplate starting up on a dark and stormy day..............BUT, I still LOVE the shot!!!


William I love that shot of the frog, lol:th3:

[Steve Axford]

Well the Currumbin Wildlife sanctuary should'nt have been selling rubber frogs in the Tourist shop that day when I needed one :D When I took the shot , A comp was'nt even in mind, I really did'nt think viewers would mind if it was fake or not , And just see the outcome , It was the light through the leaf that I was after :confused013:)

For those that are wondering what wer're talking about : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?77186-2010-Ausphotography-Photo-of-the-Year-WINNER

No problem, William. But it is clear that some people remembered. That's all I was saying as I didn't recall it was you and I didn't think it was very important - though I did fell slightly put off at the time. Those are the small consequences.

[outstar79]

Well the Currumbin Wildlife sanctuary should'nt have been selling rubber frogs in the Tourist shop that day when I needed one :D When I took the shot , A comp was'nt even in mind, I really did'nt think viewers would mind if it was fake or not , And just see the outcome , It was the light through the leaf that I was after :confused013:)

For those that are wondering what wer're talking about : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?77186-2010-Ausphotography-Photo-of-the-Year-WINNER

That's a pretty good looking rubber frog though :D

[Mark L]

I need to learn this multi quote thing, anyway.

......, I really did'nt think viewers would mind if it was fake or not , And just see the outcome ,
From Williams OP
"Or is it just the finished product that matters , EG : Blending, HDR , Etc . Compared to a single shot processed RAW image ? "

I'm kinda on your side William. It's the way I used to think. And until I spend the time learning how to PP with the available tools, I'll continue to take my photos with a single shot in mind.
However is blending more cheating than graduated filters? etc etc
"Thats a different cheating :rolleyes:,......"
Seems like all's fair in love and digital.
"just see the outcome "

BTW I voted for the frog :th3:

[ricktas]

Thats a different cheating :rolleyes:, The Frog was a prop, It was still one single image , And this is what were talking about , Props can be anything from a stick to a Seashell to a car :D


But to create the 'illusion' that one is viewing a nature photo, when that is not the case, is that not still a form of cheating. Different but same! You tricked people into believing the frog was real, others trick people into believing the sunset was real. Not really that much different, both create an impression on the viewer that is not 100% the truth.

Remember you started this discussion, so you might have to live with the consequences of people's opinion on what is 'cheating'. I do wonder how your entry would have polled, if members knew it was a setup and a plastic frog, before they got to vote. I, for one, would have not voted for it. Harsh..but the truth!

[camerasnoop]

I do wonder how your entry would have polled, if members knew it was a setup and a plastic frog, before they got to vote. I, for one, would have not voted for it. Harsh..but the truth!

Now you're into the realm of politicians and pre-election commitments (read lies). :angry0:

I am of the opinion that PP is part of photography. We are our own lab these days. If you haven't learnt how to do it, you shouldn't deny others who have, the opportunity to do so.

[Steve Axford]

What exactly is cheating? Or more to the point, what do most people regard as stepping across the line?
I guess the answer is - it depends.
It depends on the population we are talking about. Nature photographers tend to be more strict. Documentary photographers are even more strict. And graphic artists much less so.
It depends on the type of photo we are taking. Fashion shots have one set of rules (though, think of the controversy over changing peoples body shape, wrinkles, etc), and news photos another.
Competition rules can vary depending on who runs the comp. Some are very strict, some are not. Then there are the rules set by the judges (or voting population) and these may not be the same as the official rules.

As I mentioned before. I think it is wise to be a little conservative with regards to rules. I have seen people always state if they have changed a photo to any significant degree, or it is not what it seems to be (like the rubber frog). I think that this is a good move. I sometimes see people who often substitute skies without mentioning it. Sometimes it is quite apparent and I then put that person into a "suspect" category because I am never sure if their photo is for real. Sometimes I see people who produce dazzling works that are clearly done through manipulation. I tend to put them into a "great artist category", because they do it so well and make no pretence of it. It is all very subjective and opinions will vary, but there is a norm, or accepted level for what is acceptable. At least in any place and time there is. The trick is figuring out what that level is - and being honest. If you are honest, it is unlikely that you will go far wrong.

[geoffsta]

Ok.. Adding a rubber frog, and calling it a nature shot IS cheating. Adding a glorious sunset to enhance what would be a fairly flat image (Without stating so) is also cheating, specially in a comp situation. Doing a whole lot of PP to a single image, including; cloning, cropping, exposure and any other tricks of the trade to the single image is my opinion is not cheating.
Last weeks comp was a great example of what can be acheived by applying this method. With intermediate and beginners giving the advanced members a good run for their money. But that comp was a "Two or more images to create one" competition, and everyone knew that. Most of the entries stood out like dogs balls. while very few didn't. And the ones that didn't I don't think will rate highly.

[I @ M]

Ok.. Adding a rubber frog, and calling it a nature shot IS cheating.

Sorry but I disagree, the leaf looks pretty natural (nature) to me, adding a man made object or having one in the scene doesn't constitute cheating to me.
Or do we disallow any and all images with anything man made in them?


Adding a glorious sunset to enhance what would be a fairly flat image (Without stating so) is also cheating, specially in a comp situation.

Once again I disagree, for the reasons I will state below.


Doing a whole lot of PP to a single image, including; cloning, cropping, exposure and any other tricks of the trade to the single image is my opinion is not cheating.


Ok, so by that theory if someone enters a picture of the Sydney Harbour Bridge straddling Ayers Rock ( Uluru in modern day speak ) in a comp it is ok because they used "any other tricks of the trade" to create that?


The wash up to me is that we have a photography forum, on it there are competitions run and there are no specific rules about how an image is created.
If people include props in an image so be it.
If they manufacture sunsets so be it.
If they have the coat hanger straddling a big red lump of dirt so be it.

It is an image that is created by a photographer and as always with the comps on here people have been urged to think outside of the square and to add their own interpretation to any theme.

If people enjoy the end result of the artist they vote for it.

PS, yes I could create a single image from the camera depicting THE big red rock straddled by Paul Hogans old workplace.

[ricktas]

I would be interested to know, what would you do with the following scenario?

You are presented with two photos and you have to pick a winner.

1. This Photo is a sunset over Uluru. There is a storm brewing in the distance and the rich deep colours of the sunset are wonderful and the storm in the distance shows a lightning strike. The rock has taken on a eerie glow. The photo is titled "Storm over Uluru"

2. This photo is taken on the Great Barrier reef, it has a storm brewing in the distance, but the sun is shining on the beach, where a turtle is making its way up the beach to lay it's eggs. This photo is titled 'Composite of a storm, beach and added turtle'

Both photos are seen and viewed before you read the titles, both are impressive, and equally well taken and presented.

You now have to vote on the best photo, which would you choose. 1 or 2?

[geoffsta]

Sorry but I disagree, the leaf looks pretty natural (nature) to me, adding a man made object or having one in the scene doesn't constitute cheating to me.
Or do we disallow any and all images with anything man made in them?
Yes, BUT... If the frog is depicted as real, and is the major part of the subject, and the leaf being part of the decoration... What then?




Once again I disagree, for the reasons I will state below.
99% of the time in CC, the image taker will explain that the glorious sunset was added to beef it up a bit. And all is good, with many complimentary posts to add to it.
But if one states the image was claimed as one shot. Then the image taker would be telling porky pies, and being deceitful. (The cheater only cheats themselves)




Ok, so by that theory if someone enters a picture of the Sydney Harbour Bridge straddling Ayers Rock ( Uluru in modern day speak ) in a comp it is ok because they used "any other tricks of the trade" to create that?
But would that not stand out like Dogs Balls, and voted on it's merit. If one stated that he was holidaying at Ayers Rock, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge just happened to fly over and land on top of it, so he/she took the shot. Would he classed as a nutter, or one who couldn't lie straight in bed.

As I class you Andrew as a good friend, my mentor, and one of the best portraiture photographers I'll proberly ever know. I believe that what you take is virtually straight from the camera. Any props or inclusions into your images are done on the spot. As you have told me that you do very little PP to your images. And I beleive that you would not place the Sydney Harbour Bridge behind any of the models, just to make it look great. I also have the same respect for other photographers like JM Tran, Dylan Toh, Rick Kean and a couple of others, and don't beleive they would stoop so low to claim it as one image. Unless they say that it is a composite.

[ricktas]

I also have the same respect for other photographers like JM Tran, Dylan Toh, Rick Kean and a couple of others, and don't beleive they would stoop so low to claim it as one image. Unless they say that it is a composite.

Thanks Geoff. I have only ever composited photos twice. Once to add a moon to a shot taken on the top of Mt Wellington at dawn, which was done years ago and more to learn how to do it in PS, than to cheat anyone. I don't recall ever posting that photo on AP, or anywhere else. The second time was for the comp underway at present.

Actually as I type this, I recall a third, I composited a photo of a workmate with a heap of movie stars, for her 40th Birthday..just for fun.

[geoffsta]

That is simple rick. I have a choice of two fantastic images. If I chose the first, and later in the CC section the image taker said that it was a composite, I'd be upset with myself for voting on a fabricated image. Not one that I had thought that this fantastic image was taken by someone that had been in the right place, at the right time, and had spent conciderable time in PP to present it well.

Were if if I had voted on the second, I would not be deceived, I'd know exactly what I have voted for.

[Mark L]

....
The wash up to me is that we have a photography forum, on it there are competitions run and there are no specific rules about how an image is created.


Yep.
Also, if William hadn't been honest we wouldn't be talking about frogs. But you can't declare that honesty in AP comps until after the event.
And, retrospectively I declare Steve the winner of the AP 2010 POTY. :D

[I @ M]

Yes, BUT... If the frog is depicted as real, and is the major part of the subject, and the leaf being part of the decoration... What then?

Ummm, what is "real" in a photograph or to be more specific, a digitally created and developed file?
As it happens, I had not been aware until this thread that "the" frog was a prop and I would have been equally unaware if it had been a plastic leaf with a real frog sitting upon it.
I see nothing in that image that makes any claims as to all, or indeed any components of it being 100% ridgey didge.
It was a digital creation that fitted the theme, the person who submitted it merely added their interpretation of the theme.
Cheating? I say no, whether the leaf was natural and the frog man made, the other way around or even if both elements were man made or natural.




99% of the time in CC, the image taker will explain that the glorious sunset was added to beef it up a bit. And all is good, with many complimentary posts to add to it.

Conversely, 100% of the time the image taker will not explain that the image is created from different elements when they are entered into a competition (which is what this thread is all about) before voting takes place.



But would that not stand out like Dogs Balls, and voted on it's merit. If one stated that he was holidaying at Ayers Rock, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge just happened to fly over and land on top of it, so he/she took the shot. Would he classed as a nutter, or one who couldn't lie straight in bed.

Ok, my rocky bridge example is a little far fetched as to be taken seriously by anyone other than Canon Pentax Olympus owners but anything similar can be produced as a single image straight from the camera.

That is simply using the tricks of the trade yet you claim that it is not cheating when in fact it is exactly the same as the other scenarios that you consider to be cheating.

[Steve Axford]

Yep.
Also, if William hadn't been honest we wouldn't be talking about frogs. But you can't declare that honesty in AP comps until after the event.
And, retrospectively I declare Steve the winner of the AP 2010 POTY. :D
I don't recall coming second?

[geoffsta]

Ok... The thread has gone a little off track. The original post that William put up was basically on whether processing to the hilt was unfair in competitions. And the title "Cheating in comps" was just an attention grabber. Well I think William has done just that. It wasn't until post #10 were Outstar brought up the subject of a composite image, and it's a fair while after that when it is mentioned again.

Now I've been involved with ausphotography for just on two years, and Every bit advice from members on here, and my mentor is to try and get the image right in the camera first. Not take the photo with what processing I could do after it in mind. It has been mentioned on this site many times that the camera, no matter how good, can't recreate what the eye sees. Yes sometimes our eyes see a darker sky, or a brighter foreground, so we adjust those areas to emulate what our eyes seen.

Sometimes... like astro photography our eyes can't see billions of stars. But it is drummed into our heads from an early age that there is. So in camera we do a long exposure to capture as many stars as we can. That's why I'm not fussed on star trails. Imagine going out at night, and looking up at the sky, and seeing multicoloured circles. You'd wonder who the mongrel was that laced your coffee with LSD. There are many other genre of photography were we like to do a few tricks with the camera to acheive our goals.

That's why I'm not into creating something that isn't real. I'd rather be there when that fantastic sunrise happens to capture the moment, and be proud of my efforts. Than to think I can take a shot on a overcast day, then when I get home I'll add the sunset in.

[Chris G]

Well this all about as grey as "what is/makes a professional tog?"

ie: there are to many levels of "what ifs"

Is there no common ground here? Or is everyone pretty hard pressed on a "Yes and No" answer... :p

[bricat]

Hehehehehe You son of a gun William. It just clicked which image it was. I have been away with the fairies for a while and now I see I should have been Prince Charming. Never the less a great shot and all winners deserve their place. You should have been an accountant with such a creative edge William. cheers Brian

[zollo]

Ok... The thread has gone a little off track. The original post that William put up was basically on whether processing to the hilt was unfair in competitions. And the title "Cheating in comps" was just an attention grabber. Well I think William has done just that. It wasn't until post #10 were Outstar brought up the subject of a composite image, and it's a fair while after that when it is mentioned again.

Now I've been involved with ausphotography for just on two years, and Every bit advice from members on here, and my mentor is to try and get the image right in the camera first. Not take the photo with what processing I could do after it in mind. It has been mentioned on this site many times that the camera, no matter how good, can't recreate what the eye sees. Yes sometimes our eyes see a darker sky, or a brighter foreground, so we adjust those areas to emulate what our eyes seen.

Sometimes... like astro photography our eyes can't see billions of stars. But it is drummed into our heads from an early age that there is. So in camera we do a long exposure to capture as many stars as we can. That's why I'm not fussed on star trails. Imagine going out at night, and looking up at the sky, and seeing multicoloured circles. You'd wonder who the mongrel was that laced your coffee with LSD. There are many other genre of photography were we like to do a few tricks with the camera to acheive our goals.

That's why I'm not into creating something that isn't real. I'd rather be there when that fantastic sunrise happens to capture the moment, and be proud of my efforts. Than to think I can take a shot on a overcast day, then when I get home I'll add the sunset in.

startrails aren't really a trick, the earth really is spinning, and if our eyes could slow time down sufficiently, it s exactly what you would see. you can't always trust your eyes, otherwise you would still believe the earth is flat.

And a fake frog on a leaf? the photograph OF the subject was being judged, not what the subject matter's molecular structure is. Had it been a best real frog on a leaf competition (and if it was, please excuse my post) then I could s33 cause for concern. But when I am judging a photograph, I am looking for composition, lighting, story, etc not necessarily if everything in the photo would pass a scientific reality check. Just my 2cents

[TassieSnapper]

http://www.petereastway.com/index.php

Check out his stuff. I love his shots. He has made quite a few videos of his processing - start to finish with a few of his images. He uses composites sometimes. He definitely pushes his images as much as he possibly can with his processing. I love the result that he achieves.