Photoshopped images disquailified

I don't think there's any harm in seperating post processing and the actual process of image capture...sometimes I look at images (including my own) and just think that whilst the final result looks okay, it's taken a lot of 'work' to polish what was essentially a bit of a turd.

Cheers,
James
 
I think as long as things are not overdone a degree of photoshop should be allowed.
One has to find a balance doesnt one .{as for me must put water in this whisky I cant get out this bloody chair}:beer::beer::beer:
 
Bronikon said:
{as for me must put water in this whisky I cant get out this bloody chair}:beer::beer::beer:
Click to expand...

Lots of ice, thats the only water that should be permitted in whisky :LOL:

I think the biggest problem with this competition is they have not thought about the rules too well. They have allowed images to be processed in photoshop but they have not specified anything else with regards to styles and technique.

All three images are, in essence, a single RAW that has undergone some fairly basic processes, just in a very exaggerated and stylistic manner, no extra elements/subject matter have been introduced, nothing has been replaced or subtracted from the scene, all subjects remain in position as during the point of exposure. It's the post processing that has caused doubt.

There's been some dodging and burning in all three images IMO, is this acceptable? It is with film but is it or has it ever been during a photojournalism competition?

The first and third examples are much more colourful and have more detail in the shadows, this can be argued that it's not photo journalism.

The second pic is dreadful in my opinion, I think he left that one in the oven far too long, he would have been better off lighting the subject and using a little creative license in that way and not during the pp phases IMO, but would he have been disqualified for that also?
 
The raw's aren't that bad, the light just isn't in the scene in the first place. even if you allow some slack for what he saw by eye and a bit of artistic licence, cos they do look damn flat, its still a bit much.
I dunno, I wonder if his occupation as a photojournalist, had any effect on the judges thought process, that one with the girl is very journalistic in content, but it isn't a photojourn comp.:shrug:
 
A really interesting article which does give a lot to think about with regards PP, only yesterday I read another thread on here wear the photographer wasn't happy with what he a put up for review as he had increased the colours and felt a bit of a fraud because it wasn't what he actually saw.

On review of the shots in the article I personally felt he had gone to far on one of the shots, but that came down to taste, not sure under the conditions of the comp.
 
lee said:
On review of the shots in the article I personally felt he had gone to far on one of the shots, but that came down to taste, not sure under the conditions of the comp.
Click to expand...

Me too, the second one? Looks hideous, anyway, on a second look, I realise I made the mistake of the competition being a photo journalism comp, which in fact it wasn't!

The rules seem to be a little vague :shrug:

It just goes to show how ridiculous this attempt at compartmentalizing can be sometimes.

'You cross this line, you die! Ok you cross this next line then you die!, ok, you cro.....'
 
When I first started reading I assumed he must have removed objects or people etc...

The approach taken by the judges assumes that the RAW is an accurate representation of the colours, tones, and dynamic range that he saw with his eyes, when surely it isn't.
 
AlexW said:
When I first started reading I assumed he must have removed objects or people etc...

The approach taken by the judges assumes that the RAW is an accurate representation of the colours, tones, and dynamic range that he saw with his eyes, when surely it isn't.
Click to expand...


I would have thought most judges are chosen at least in part, because they know a bit about the processes involved.
Generally, unless the comp is specifically directed towards fantasy/stylistics or whatever we want to call it, images, they only have to be believable, not absolutely stone cold faithful to actuality.
After all, who else would know exactly what the scene was like, except the shooter.
Who decides what is believable ? well, general consensus, the judges....I dunno.
 
i dont know why they disqualified him, if they didint like them they didint have to give him a prize? the images have been pushed colour and contrast fairly radically, and i would like to bet that even *** a rAW file isnt really a fair representation of a scene, neither is his finished product, this IMO takes them outwith the scope of reportage or photojournalism, but surely there was different categories they could have been put in, after all he didint change the content of the images, just how they appeared to the eye.
 
My motto is, in this day and age nearly all photographers have access to photoshop this leading me to believe the skills you aqquire on photoshop are skills that are going to give your image the edge to other photographers, it's not unfair at all i think!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top