Competition Rule 'issue'

Well in that case, tone mapping your HDRs is out. :eek:

Since I'm not entering, that doesn't bother me. However there is no reason why they should be if you understand HDR. It *is* just taking 3 tonal areas of light for one image, merging that light together and then re-compressing it back into something useable. No image you see online is HDR, so therefore it isn't an issue. True HDR isn't viewable with a JPG. See, not an issue cos its not HDR :p Obviously if someone takes a photo of Liverpool skyline, HDRs it and then adds in the Empire State building that is too far.

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 :confused:

It is only using the light. What else are you adding to the image other than light? Pixies? Moomin trolls?
 
I'm with Thom Hogan on this one:

"[It's a myth that] Photography Documents Reality"

I'm constantly amused when discussions break out about the validity of using Photoshop to tweak colors or to retouch a small imperfection. "People expect photos to document the real world, and you should print images as you took them" goes one argument. Poppycock. The mere act of taking a picture destroys the ability to "capture" reality.

You choose which lens to use. You choose where to focus. You choose the exposure. You choose the composition. You choose a direction to point the camera. You choose what time of day and what season to take a picture. You choose the exact moment to preserve (and may distort that moment by using an extremely long or short shutter speed). You choose the type of film used (or the digital camera's color settings). And the list goes on. Meanwhile, reality also includes the moments before and after the shot, the area outside the frame, and much, much more. In short, you as photographer are making choices for the eventual viewer of your photo. The viewer only sees what you want them to, period.

On my living room wall is a large Ansel Adams print (Wonder Lake and Mt. Denali). It's a powerful image that captures the same spirit I felt standing in that same spot years later. But Adams shot in black and white. And he clearly manipulated the contrast in the final print. Even more interesting is that over the many years that Adams produced prints of that image, it appears that his burning and dodging techniques changed--later versions seem more contrasty and brooding than earlier ones. The exposure appears to be taken in very early morning on an unusually clear day (you can sit on that same spot for 20 days running and sometimes not see the full mountain). Did he document reality? I'd say no. He created an image that conveyed what he saw and how he felt in the presence of this immense mountain and Alaska's ever-changing light. And if you think he did document reality, try this exercise: take a large format camera and some black and white film to that same spot and try to duplicate the image. I'm betting that you'll find that very difficult to do, and only possible if you spend some time manipulating the final print. (My very different interpretation of the same subject is used at the top of this page.)

So one of the first lessons I try to teach in photography classes is to break the mental constraint that you, as photographer, are merely "recording" something. No. You're carefully manipulating the scene using all the tools and tricks available to you, all in order to produce an image that conveys what you saw and felt.

Adding content is a bit too much, sure, but it's laughable to pretend that photography is some pure documentation of reality or that "the camera never lies".
 
lol, yes. Month by month you're slowly extending the lead rather than losing it. Godamnyou :p;)

:D

I think you've well and truly got it this month though. Impressive shot :)

/Back on topic.

I totally agree with cyKey here. An image without any 'physical' additions should be fine really. As for cloning, there could be issues there, i.e you should've taken more time/care taking the picture. Sometimes though, that is unavoidable and nobody should be able to tell anyway. For instance, a person obscuring part of the horizon in CooliceT's shot for all we know could've been removed, and the sky heavily re-touched.

What we don't know can't see can't hurt us anyway!
 
Perhaps the key-word in the theme, 'unconventional', assisted in a bit of extra photo-manipulation.

thats what i think too
everybody will think and see an 'unconventional' portrait in different ways
i also dont agree with some of the scores this time round, but it doesnt bother me that much. just makes me want to try out different things out with photography wheter it being camera based or post processing stuff
 
The photo that Helium Junkie entered could have easily been produced in a darkroom. An HDR shot, less so. Personally I don't see a problem with it.

The way I've always interperated the rules 'overuse or misuse of photoshop' to mean something like bad cloning, obviously or jagged cut-out line, crass use of filters (e.g. lens flare) that sort of thing. I don't know the history of the comps tho.
 
While I do no think HJ's shot was a winning shot, in terms of technical, impact or theme, because I am not sure what he is trying to say actually works. The obviously way is he is trying to convey the idea of the animal in him, yet he used a statue, so that itself contradict his own idea.

Anyway, back to the point, I do know it can be recreated in a darkroom with an enlarger quite easily onto a print. All you need is 2 negative, 1 piece of printing paper, and a piece of card. Blocking 50% of the image each as it expose the print either side, with some "smudging movement" in the air to create the blending effect in the middle. That said, I usually dislike photos that is like this, mainly because it is less "clicked", more "painted" or "photoshoped". There are ways to convey the same idea across, without the use of stitching or merging of 2 photographs in such obvious ways.
 
Back
Top Bottom