Do you have any opinions or ideas on how to make Talk Photography better?
We've opened a consultation with the members, click here and have your say!. (You will need to be registered to add your replies).
Discussion in 'Talk Photography' started by cannockwolf, Oct 28, 2012.
Because you don't have kids?
two actually, you can see the towers perfectly fine from that spot
how did the google van get into the middle of that field tim?
You are deliberately misleading people at best, it's a little bit insulting. Which is more I don't think anybody would really have a problem since that category allows you to edit images how you please.
but people are saying they are not there!
Is that the urban one?
Which category was it in?
Well they arent, they might be vaguely there, but you are implying that the scene is as shown, minus rooftops (though not saying it directly).
Oh and it was in the 'Your View' category, where anything goes.
Wow, you seem to have gone into this quite in-depth.
..or implying that the rotational angle of the tree is wrong for the position of the towers, or something else. I don't know, I don't know the area.
A little over the top? The image is edited almost certainly because of the processing as are some of your images. But then where do you draw the limit? It's an interesting morale dilemma facing digital photographers today, but even in the olden film days images were edited.
Take the fairies
In 1917, Elise Wright, age 16, and her cousin Frances Griffiths, age 10, used a simple camera to produce what they claimed were photographs of fairies in their garden. Arthur Conon Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, believed these photos to be real, and wrote pamphlets attesting to their truthfulness. Even today some people believe these photographs are real. This caused a storm in the press at the time, with even such people as Arthur Conon Doyle believing these photos to be real. Only much later did the girls admit the were posed cardboard figures.
Ok that was an easy one as it was reported to be true, when it wasn't
So in creating a piece of art, is it deliberately misleading people or creating the image as you see it stripped back in your mind? What was the recent sky/river image sold, just two colour stripes, where the artist had edited out the power station in the background?
The question seems to hinge on how much editing is perceived to be allowable, and that's where I'm finding it interesting to see where people set the line. Is it acceptable to take multiple exposures then merge or hdr? Is it acceptable to replace say the sky, or remove a power line, or perhaps the contrail of a passing airliner?
tim seems to have gone in to it too deep, im worried to go out at night
you have based your opinion on a google van shot from a different area and different angle and pov in between a housing estate, everbody knows the things has been pp'd to within an inch of its life, it was deliberate. I did it 2 years ago.
why is tim gunning for me cos of that? why has he drawn technical drawings with field of view lines like its an fbi investigation?
if its in a category where anything goes and was only commended wont be in any limelight like winning, why does he care?
Well the line I set is a moot point because I am not criticising David for compositing the towers from one shot into the tree from another, I am merely pointing out that he is misleading people.
He would be if it were editorial or reportage as there are some clear guidelines set down now but what if it is art? Is there a point in between even?
Some of your landscapes are great, the sort of thing you'd see on a wall (love the Tor with the moon behind it) but can you honestly say they were as you took it or have you changed/processed them to suit the mood or your impression of how the scene was? I think a lot of people probably have and certainly competition winners have been caught out before.
So why try and p!$$ on his chips
Great images David and you deserve the win, looks like there are some jealous people coming out from under the stones.
Most important part of being on the net is knowing when to hit the off button
Oh no, absolutely not (the moon image is as shot though except for a WB correction, possibly one of the least edited images I have). Digital editing is a valueable tool in realising the potential of a scene.
[edit: just to clarify I am not saying that my images are exact replications of a scene, I process to create an image which I feel represents a scene most effectively which can mean a variety of different things]
I'm also not referring to David misleading people reading the book, just referring to his statements on this thread which I personally found misleading. Particularly the 'I swear on my kids' part which I immediately took to mean that the image was unedited.
Ive just had an email to say im getting featured in a german photograhic magazine for winning a gold PSA medal in germany, its this photo along with the other winners but mine will be a full page print, ive seen the mockup but they said i cant post it online yet until it goes to print
I enter amateur club exhibitions round the world, no money prizes just medals, lpoty was the first money comp i entered actually.
well you misunderstood that completely then, if you look at the quote i replied to the lady said the towers should have been behind me and to the right i believe, thats what i referred to
The Mirror website has a nice sized gallery of the winning images:
Anyway unless someone makes a totally unjustified comment I will let this thread be. I know I haven't come out well here, but maybe that is better than censorship.
Has anyone got access to the sunday times magazine online subscription service? is it spectrum or something? Someone mentioned to me they saw on there that the winning images would be printed in the 4th nov edition but i cant get in to see, i wasted £7.50 on 3 issues last sunday pmsl im not giving them anymore money unless im in it
if someone could have a looksee that would be great
Spectrum is the section in the sunday times magazine that covers photographers past and present. Probably worth spending the £1.50 and getting the sunday paper.
They said on that online it mentioned the winning image being in the magazine this Sunday but they seal the mags in bags that's how I got done last time, just thought someone could confirm/deny it for me
Why do I care about landscape photography and telling the truth... err, I dunno..
Seriously though - people care a lot about landscape photography so don't be surprised that there is discussion about this...
In terms of lines on images - it was a lot easier than describing it - its basic graphic design really. You know what I mean?
Alex, perhaps you feel this way to some, but for me it's provoked an interesting discussion around image manipulation and some further thoughts towards a learning log entry, so for that reason I thank you.
Whether people feel you are right or wrong (and there seems to be some on either side ), if you hadn't raised the issue then this would simply have been a page or two of congrats. By discussing the images further, there's been more people seen the images (and others), people have learnt of other photographers and a further discussion towards techniques, morales, image manipulation etc than would ever have been.
Provided it's kept civil (but I'd prefer people to strongly argue their case), surely that is where the real strength of a forum such as TP in pushing forward knowledge of all aspects of photography, not just 'nice shot'.
Edit: Anyway aren't photo comps suppose to court controversy e.g. Taylor Wessing portrait?
It's the only paper I buy every week, so I'll keep an eye out.
It boils down to you like record shots 100% sooc and I like artist interpretation, two valid views but you seem to want to devalue mine, why is my view wrong? Why shouldn't my way of interpretating things win awards?
Your talking of minor changes like im recreating a completely new scene, I have done that btw, one of my pics on my website is completely fictional, I didn't enter it in the competition btw before you run back to your blog with a scoop
No you can't.
I certainly never implied they weren't there, nor did anyone else that I could see. I do apologise for my assumption that the towers should have been behind you from the angle you photographed the tree. I live in Rugeley so took a visit myself the other day and found that you would indeed have been facing the power station. However, no matter where I stood in that field, I could NOT get a clear shot of the towers on the right of the tree without obstructions from power cables, streetlights, roofs, hedgerows and trees and the configuration of the towers is all wrong from there.
I have no issue with images being manipulated or composite images. I also have no issues with replicating an image if I liked the original and putting my own spin on it. I like your image, manipulation or not. If it was possible to take it as a single image, I'm pretty darn sure someone would have done it by now and I would have tried it myself as they are 2 of my favourite things to photograph in Rugeley.
This was the best I could do without a wide angle lens and holding the camera above my head as I'm a shorty. I admit, yours is much better.
i can see the towers fine in that pic, thanks for proving they were not behind me to the right as you said, like i said i dont do record shots
i hope this clears this issue up
edit: although i can see a bit more of the towers in my original
Kerry that's a good post.
Not so much of an impressive view when you're limited to a photograph of stuff that's actually there ...
LOL! Like I said..... I'm short! Should have got my step ladders out of the car, doubt it would raise eyebrows.
which picture shall we do next delemere? lol
i reckon there is a yeti in there somewhere
I'm just pointing out that I think the image is a composite as many people won't know this. The fact that it is a composite is interesting to some people.
As I've said in my blog post, I think your image is fine - in fact this is what I said
"one person has won an award with a very good image. There is nothing wrong with this at all and whether the image passes all of the criteria for the competition is a matter for the judges they presumably have done their homework. David Byrne is a very good photographer and he should be very happy that he has won such a prestigious award."
My issue is with the consideration of composite images alongside non-composite images (as a point of fact I hardly ever use images straight out of camera although I don't go as far as compositing elements from one image to another).
In order to highlight that certain images are composites I use a little bit of evidence based research. Now it seems that you have no problem with the fact that you prefer 'artistic interpretation' so why is there a problem with me pointing out what that 'artistic interpretation' is?
I think you're taking an analysis of your pictures and a critique of the competition very personally and, as I've said before, this isn't what is intended and I'm sorry you feel that way. You should be very happy you've won what is a very prominent competition. My opinons of the competition shouldn't matter a jot to you..
To expand a little on my personal viewpoint - I don't have a problem with 'composite' images but I wouldn't want them to be in the same category as 'straight' images in a landscape photography composition. There are many points on the line between 'straight out of camera' (which is only really possible with transparency film anyway) and completely fabricated images (take a look at http://www.tristancampbell.co.uk/blog/?tag=artwork - should this be allowed in take a view?). The biggest demarcation for me is the point at which the image departs from the basic truth of a scene through the removal, relocation or addition of major elements of the scene. I may be alone in this opinion but I think I'm probably not.
if the towers were not there and i added them then i would agree with you, but they are there so we will have to agree to disagree,
if you was on the receiving end of this attention were people keep saying its nothing about you BUT... then other forums pic up on half of what you and alex said and their comments start to get personal, apparently peter clark should be suing me on one forum. Then there's some nasty emails i got, not many admittedly, but i shouldn't have had any, if that was you on the receiving end you would let it get a little personal im sure.
Luckily im quite strong minded ive been on forums for years and understand the mentality of 'keyboard warriors' and can throw the comments away relatively easily.
I have on the other hand had a lot of supportive emails that far outway the negative, so i know these are in these people are in the minority
Surely the whole issue is that the photos were submitted in a competition with judges and whatever anyone thinks the old adage "The judges decision is final" applies - so I really don't understand why anyone would be attacking the photographer :shrug:
So you categorically say that the chimney's image is not a composite of two different photographs?
No I wouldn't - I would be thinking about the £11k I had just won and the publcity I had got and that everyone else can just **** off
So what's the problem? And if I'm only pointing out what I see as facts then why have a go at me and not at other people?
That's fantastic!! You can add my support as I think you've made a great shot and that took talent. So there really isn't much of an issue then?