A step to far in landscape competition

[wolfie]

A photographer disqualiifed for photoshopping his entries in national comp.
A super photo, but what are your thoughts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oshopping.html

Harry

[miketoll]

Hard to say without seeing the rules of the competition. It must be very hard to write rules which actually specify precisely what is allowed and what is too much. If the rules do not ban something then it is allowed. On a personal level the amount of photoshopping is up to each photographer and what he is happy with but to be honest about what has been done. For instance deliberately trying to pass a captive animal off as true wildlife which has also been done in the past in major competitions.

[Tugboat]

I really like the entry, that would be hard to take, thinking you had won then be disqualified...you would think there would be rules stated before you entered the comp...I think if you entered a competition you would have to make sure you read all the rules...I am happy to use photoshop but never try to pass anything off as a true photo.

[gordon g]

I guess it really comes down to what is in the rules - if these do in fact specifically ban the type of processing he has done then fair enough. It's just a shame that it was identified so late. However, what is too much manipulation? Bear in mind this is a monotone image, so just to achieve that already involves some major transformations of the original image. I dont think anyone would object to a mono conversion. Beyond that, if he has done any major work, it has been done very well as it is hard to spot anything that couldnt be done with 'standard' techniques of dodging, burning etc.
I rather like the image - certainly more than the new winner, though that does also have appeal.

[graham harcombe]

I too wondered what exactly made the judges take such a huge decision. They must be aware that most images are manipulated in order to present their best colour/contrast etc. Perhaps the judges caught sight of the RAW original and realised that - for example - Lindisfarne was transposed from another shot! Now in my books that would constitute grounds for disqual. The fact is we just don't know, I wish the judges would make a fuller statement.

[miketoll]

My guess is, having been to Linisfarne several times, that the upturned boats and the castle are from two different shots that have been brought together. Not sure of course, wish the judges had said.

[Susan Green]

Before digital photo era in darkroom was done a lot of "manipulation" (dodging, burning, masking, sandwitching, cross processing, toning, polaroid transfer....not mentioning also while photographing: masking, double explosures,...) and no one had a problem with it. Why now is such a fus about digital manipulation? Every photographer/artist! has his idea about how his photo should look, how he wants it to be, how his mind eye see it. From my modest point of view PP is an important part of a final result, as important as the original image. As you say it's all down to "small print". Also agree that old winning picture had higher standard than the new winner.

Susan

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by Susan Green

Before digital photo era in darkroom was done a lot of "manipulation" (dodging, burning, masking, sandwitching, cross processing, toning, polaroid transfer....not mentioning also while photographing: masking, double explosures,...) and no one had a problem with it. Why now is such a fus about digital manipulation? Every photographer/artist! has his idea about how his photo should look, how he wants it to be, how his mind eye see it. From my modest point of view PP is an important part of a final result, as important as the original image. As you say it's all down to "small print". Also agree that old winning picture had higher standard than the new winner.

Susan

+1 to that Susan

[miketoll]

Completely agree with Susan in general terms. However, for this competition, if the original winner did break the rules of this competition then it should be disqualified or the other competitors would have been at an unfair disadvantage for following the rules.
We cannot judge whether the rules have been broken or not so can make no judgement. In this case the fact that the original winner may be better is irrelevant.

[Susan Green]

"Charlie Waite, the competition’s founder, said: “This is extremely regrettable and it appears there was no deliberate intention to deceive the judges, but the level of manipulation means that this photograph gained an unfair advantage in this category and in winning the overall competition."
- copied from the newspaper. No mentioning about breaking rules of this competition (as these are not rather mentioned). For me this bit translated into simple english: The first winner is simply better! And we all know this.

Susan