Competition Rule 'issue'

[divine`]

Having just had a look at the Results thread for the unconventional portraits competition, I have to say i'm a little in disagreement with the outcome.

For years and years this competition has marked harshly on the clause of;

* Technical ( 1 - 10 )

+ Use of Photoshop or Image Editing programs to enhance your photo (Including borders).
+ Correct use of Lighting/Saturation/Contrast/Exposure.
+ Correct use of DOF (Depth of Field).
+ Appreciation for Rule of Thirds, Golden Mean and other photographic rules.

- Overuse or misuse of Photoshop or other Image Editing programs (Including borders)
- Bad Lighting/Saturation/Contrast/Exposure.
- Blurred photos due to incorrect DOF (Depth of Field) or camera shake.
- Unintentionally slanted photos.

Now, this time round, the winning entry (and by a large margin, also second place) is one that is, in my opinion bordering more on image manipulation than photography and so in theory should suffer in the technical marks department, assuming the given guidelines are even being remotely adhered to during marking.

It has fantastic theme relevance and certainly deserves all it's points there, the impact i'm not sure. It does have impact, but pretty much purely through the result of the aforementioned, fairly extreme, manipulation.

A few years back I recall a landscape image being severely marked down (possibly even DQ'd) because it was a merge of two image that allowed foreground and background to be in focus, the judges citing that 'the effect wouldn't be possible with normal photographic techniques and thus is overuse of photoshop' or at least words to that effect.

Basically, I feel either the guidelines need to be followed more closely, and in future such manipulations be marked down in technical scores as is implied or the guideline stating this br removed/rewritten. I would prefer the first.

It is still a photography competition. When the winning entries are only such because of manipulation techniques, does it not seem more of a 'Photoshop' competition to anyone else?

I'd like to hear opinions and evidently so would Scuzi, as he told me to post this

 

[divine`]

In this competition, for example, I feel danza produced a brilliantly inspired photo that I don't think (or at least doesn't appear) has any photoshop work beyond the usual levels, curves, colours work. It has decent technical skill, good theme relevance and plenty of impact. Just the sort of thing I think deserves to be winning such a competition.

Where as taking Messiah Khan's entry (picking on him because he knows I love him really) whilst obviously very good technical images on their own, sharp, well lit, etc. there would be virtually no theme relevance and less impact without the massive manipulation present. Unless your face really does look like that MK, in which i'd get googling for some plastic surgeons

Don't get me wrong, the images are great but imo they don't belong in a photography competition and certainly don't deserve to be winning it by almost 'landslide' amounts of marks.

 

[divine`]

A position on the judging panel may soon be coming available, if you think you can do a better job you are welcome to try when the opportunity arrives.

So I heard

I don't ever recall that happening so it was probably before my time. Image manipulation technology and that acceptance of it has changed remarkably in a short space of time and the judges marking may have changed in order to achknowledge this.

Indeed, it was very soon after I first started posting here, probably before you were a judge.

I'm quite happy to accept manipulation is ever becoming more accepted but I still feel some photographic purity needs to be maintained in some places, this competition being one of them.

 

[divine`]

See, I see it as very different, as cyKey does.

This is something I did for a competition a while back...

I was incredibly please with it (and it won me a game ) but it isn't photography (the comp was image manipulation/photography).

The iPod shot was bland and boring on it's own, the firework shot was good but not spectacular. Combined and fiddled around with, they produced something I think is pretty good but it well beyond 'photography' at such a point, it's purely image manipulation.

 

[divine`]

You don't need to apologise for anything. Nothing i've said should be taken as a slur against you or your image. It's very good. What I have issue with is the fact it's won a 'photography' competition and I don't believe it, or many of the other entries were really suitably placed in such a competition, because in my view, they are more tests of image manipulation skills than photographic ones.

I feel the marking has differed to what the guidelines imply and go against the nature of what this competition has always been.

 

[divine`]

Don't apologise for causing the discussion. Really.

These need to happen (and do, every few months) to keep the competition at the high standard it became so well known for.

 

[divine`]

For some reason, some people seem to think that's okay, even though you're doing something you can't normally do with a one shot image. They seem to start using the "it's only using light" to justify it

HDR is just light adjustments though. It's clarifying the shadows and highlights. It can also be done with just the one image but the quality isn't quite as high.

It can also be done so that you would never know it had been done, or really over the top creating a crazy effect.

Maybe the latter use blurs into image manipulation but the former use is perfectly fine by me, as it's not much different to using levels etc.

For ease though, I would happily see it prohibited from the competition along with manipulation.

 

[divine`]

Which I think may be why the guideline is merely the vague 'overuse of photoshop or other'

However, I think this months competition has produced a lot of blatant overuse and yet not been marked down because of it.

If the case is that such stuff will not be marked down, then the guideline needs removing, or alternatively it needs to be adhered to more.

 

[divine`]

I think a good way to think of it is whether something could be realistically achieved just with the camera if you were good enough.

Using photoshop to enhance colours, shadows, adjust levels etc. is just giving a helping hand to correct what we were unable to achieve with the just camera at that moment. A bit like developing film. Leaving it solutions different lengths of time etc. would produce different results.

However, adding eyes to your neck and replacing your nose etc. is not something you could ever hope to do at the photograph stage of the process even if you were David Bailey and at this stage I feel it becomes image manipulation rather than photography, something that has no place inside a photography competition.

This is where HDR would again cause an argument. It's the same photo. Same scene. Same light. Same everything, bar the exposure setting on the camera which you change and then merge later.