Judgement Day for Photoshop

[arthurking83]

users! :D

POTY Denmark discussion (http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708)

the link above is to an article discussing the over use of Photoshop for manipulating images.

I for one am not a big fan of overly processed images, but as long as the information is available in a single image and can be processed out, without the use of external data.. then to me a photo is a photo. Otherwise just an image.

This Klavs fellow got hard done by in my opinion.

The processing is a bit extreme... but not all that unreasonable(IMHO)

where they talk about the chair(in the third example) about changing the colour to yellow!!.. I don't get it? I can't see the fuss, and as I've already said, I'm not a fan of overly processed photos... that to me looks more than acceptable.. very contrasty and saturated. but from my experience the originals are more than likely not representative of the actual scene at the time of capture.

Of course not knowing how this Klavs fellow processed his images.. whether he'd used selective color to alter a green chair into a yellow chair or whatever(highly unlikely! :rolleyes:) but the alteration of that yellow chair looks like simple dodging and burning techniques.

So(and this is the part that I can't fathom!! :confused:) they voted out his images based on the fact that he's altered the colours too far from the original image.. yet it's quite acceptable to submit black and white images!!

Am I going insane or does that not make sense?

You can take an image with reds, greens, blues and yellows and make it black grey and white.. ie. massive and totally unrealistic wholesale changes to the colour scheme and it's ok... but if you saturate a little(ok!! a lot :p) here and there and make colours more vibrant, it's not allowed.

Wrong!! they want their cake and they want to eat it too.

my sympathies are with klavs in this case, and while there are limits as to how much processing should be acceptable, there should be well defined limits and not random and arbitrary selection of personal preferences. ie. adding a totally different sky to a photo to make it look nicer or more dramatic should be disallowed... but pushing and pulling 'lost details' as Klavs seems to have done in his photos should be acceptable.
He got 'punished' for having the most capable sensor in DSLR circles! :action:

curious on others thoughts too.. not just 'acceptable' limits on photoshopping, but of the inequity of that particular award(and how I perceive it's relevance as null and void!)


:confused013

[ricktas]

I am wading through the discussion, but after a quick look at the RAW file and the resultant photo. He hasnt clone much out or added anything that changes the entire scene into something it wasn't. I think he has been harshly treated.

We have all seen, and probably done ourselves an overprocessed photo at times. It is part of the learning curve of working with digital images and manipulating them. We could all be guilty of it, I am sure.

Just how much processing is to much? Well that argument has been going on since before digital photography, even darkroom techniques pushed the boundaries at time.

The statement "Some years ago the committee behind the contest - which is identical to the board members in The Danish Union of Press Photographers - changed the rules of Picture of The Year. Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure", is really what this argument is all about. When you take the above statement on blind faith, interpret it literally, then maybe Klav has over-processed the photos for entry into THAT competition.

He could enter the same processed photo into another competition and be lauded and applauded for his work.

I don't think we will ever find a solution to this discussion, that has been going on for years with Digital Photography, before that with Film photography and even earlier with Artists depiction of scenes. Take Leonardo Da Vinci's, Madonna on the Rocks. Leonardo painted two versions of this, cause the Catholic Church found the first version offensive.

All we, as digital photographers can do, is read the rules of competitions carefully and chose appropriate entries, based on those rules.

[Analog6]

I disagree. I am with the judges on this one. It was a PRESS photographer award, not an Open or Artistic award. To me a press photographer, by definintion, records facts. The first image, the landscape, is almost surreal in comparison to the original, and so is the second one of the woman in the slum.

I have long been appalled at the licence allowed professional photographers and the awards they win for massively photoshoppped/manipulated images. I have one in a magazine here where the original image was a very flat landscape of the White Cliffs of Dover. Once the photographer had added 21 photoshop adjustment layers and totally changed it from a flat landscape to a very oversaturated dramatic stormy one it won first prize in the landscape section. Frankly, to me it is cheating.

I feel many of the photographers on this forum are ghouing the same way, almost every POTW winner is , IMHO, oversaturated. I have been mentally compso9ing a thread about it for a week or so and am glad you have opnened a discussion on this topic.

[arthurking83]

AH! as for Klavs' image, it's certainly over processed.. that's for sure.. but if they allow black and white images captured with a color digital sensor.. surely that's even more 'over processed' (that was more to the point).

Sure....fill up a roll of Ilford, scan the images it and digitise them.. but to capture an image with a modern digital sensor and convert them to black and white is much more highly processed than any over use of saturation and contrast.

I reckon 80% of what Klavs did with them images could easily be done with the onboard processing power of his D700.

Try it!

set the camera to Neutral -3 contrast and -3 saturation and ADL set to On, and then capture the same image with the settings Vivid +3 Sat +3 Contrast and ADL to off.. see how much different the image turns out.

His other issue is the use of ACR, which doesn't recognise the Picture Control processing.. yeah? had he sent in the RAW image and altered the in camera settings via ViewNX to something much more contrasty and vivid.. he'd have been fine!
(hence the title.. Judgement Day... ;))

.. anyhow.. if my images appear overly contrasty and overly saturate(yeah, I know they do) don't blame me! Blame Nikon and their in camera PC settings :D

I'm not trying to open another CoW's (Can o Worms) with a debate as to how appropriate the (over)use of photoshop is... it's more about the guidelines used to define over processed.

[arthurking83]

...... It was a PRESS photographer award, not an Open or Artistic award. To me a press photographer, by definintion, records facts. ....

by that definition then B&W images should be disallowed.



.... I have been mentally compso9ing a thread about it for a week or so and am glad you have opnened a discussion on this topic.

Oh! I always do :D

the point is not really about colour as he hasn't really processed colour in there that isn't available in the RAW image data(from what I can see).

So if they wanted to make it a fair and reasonable comp(that made sense!) they should have stipulated only unprocessed RAW images only to be entered!

You'll be amazed at the difference the same unprocessed RAW file(Nikon for me, using View NX) can look like just by using the in camera picture styles.

[ricktas]

Interesting that competitions on AP have been brought into this. In the end our competitions are judged by the members voting. If enough members vote for a photo for it to win, then it deserves to win, whether others feel it is over processed or oversaturated is irrelevant.

[arthurking83]

See! I see that as another part of the issue with that 'issue' .. rather than making a fuss about it, they should have simply had a wider range of 'personal tastes' on the judging panel and simply dismissed those images.

That's what makes an award more relevant... what the wider community think of it.. or what the entire community of a specific community(in this case the Dutch photojournalist photographers association, or whoever?) thought of it.

[Pixel8tor]

I think Klavs got a RAW deal...

[arthurking83]

I think Klavs got a RAW deal...

:p

[umajo]

i also think the first one is over processed but face it as the original it did not have any apeal, 2nd one up sat and hue and a bit of dodging and as far a s the chair goes it was cream just a yellow adjustment maybe all in all not to bad after all we all bring out our colors to a degree, lets face it sometimes a sunset is wonderful colors not shown on the camera until you adjust saturation

[Tannin]

As a PRESS photograph, there is absolutely no question, it goes way beyond what is acceptable. Press photography is about realism, first, last and always. The moment a picture is doctored up, it is not press photography at all. Editors and photographers get sacked for printing or submiting doctored photographs, and rightly so.

As a NON-PRESS photograph, there is room for different opinions. My own view is that it remains unacceptable over-processing, and should not be entered in a photographic competition, but instead submitted to a more wide-ranging visual-art-in-general competition, but I recognise that not everyone will agree with me.

But so far as press photography goes, we do not have the option of coming to personal opinions in this case. Without honest realism, a photograph cannot be a press photograph at all. Accepting this entry into a press photography competition would be exactly equal to accepting a head and shoulders portrait of the prime minister into a landscape competition. The only correct response is automatic disqualification.

[arthurking83]

As a PRESS photograph, there is absolutely no question, it goes way beyond what is acceptable......

[snip]

... The only correct response is automatic disqualification.

So then any black and white digitally captured image should be treated the same?? .. yes?.. no?

if not, why not?

I've posted the same question in another forum, and I just get my head around it.

It's OK to adjust the saturation and contrast sliders all the way down to zero, but not to maximum!

I just don't understand the bias against color, and for monochrome??

it's the same thing, only the other way round.

They have no right to accept black and white images, where they've stated that black and white images are acceptable.

No subject matter has been added so the image is representative of how the scene looked(more or less) add a bit of vignetting here and there massive contrast and saturation and the images Klavs produced are nothing more than processed images.

grass is still green, sky is still blue, concrete is still... blue! :p

just be sure to select the correct white balance setting huh? :rolleyes:

I agree that the images are overly processed, but not doctored(as his RAW files clearly indicate). No added sky. No layered rubbish piles. No cloned in drunken locals... just excessive use of saturation and selective dodging/burning.

I'd bet there are just as many images in the comp that have been similarly processed. maybe not as heavily but damned close too it.

BUT! there is the issue of images sizes posted in that article. They are too small to clearly see the extent of any selective colouring.

[NikonNellie]

I agree that Klavs got a raw deal. Yes they are over processed but that processing has enhanced the photos from their original state. Photoshopping is a skill in itself - if you don't get it right it can look very artificial but if you use your skills properly you end up with a great looking shot. I am sure other photographers competing for this award used photoshop as well - they probably just had better photoshop skills.

[davesmith]

He does look a bit hard done by, but at the same time it rewards people with above average photoshop skills, not necessarily photography skills. I'll get splinters sitting on the fence with this one.

[Tannin]

Arthur, there are several reasons why monochrome is very, very different to the sort of over the top colour treatment we are looking at here.

First, monochrome is well understood, both by the public and by professionals, as a representative form. We all grew up on monochrome pictures and understand them.

Second, monochrome does not add anything to the image. Monochrome simply reproduces the brightness information accurately without reproducing the colour information. (In an exact parallel, a normal colour photograph reproduces brightness and colour information without reproducing depth information the way a hologram does.) Mono is a perfectly valid way to represent the world accurately, without distorting anything. Your argument will only deceive people who don't think it all the way through.

[Tannin]

NikonNellie, the whole point of PRESS photography is that it is meant to be honest. Photoshopping to "enhance" is not honest. (Though I think most people, me included, would accept it provided it was kept down to a sensible level, and didn't serve to make an unrealistic picture.)

[NikonNellie]

Thanks for enlightening me Tannin - I admit that I didn't really know what PRESS photograohy was when I commented previously. I will go back to the website and review my evaluation for Kravs. Thanks

[Kym]

NikonNellie, the whole point of PRESS photography is that it is meant to be honest. Photoshopping to "enhance" is not honest. (Though I think most people, me included, would accept it provided it was kept down to a sensible level, and didn't serve to make an unrealistic picture.)

I agree with this.

With this case as a PRESS photo which is documentary and personally I think he went a bit far with the PP.
Do I like his results? Yes!
Do I think they communicate something of the country etc - Yes!
But as an accurate representation? - No. And therefore it is an issue.
Maybe some disclaimer on the published image and then people would know.

Is photography art or documentary? - well it can be either but rarely at the same time.

[arthurking83]

.....

Mono is a perfectly valid way to represent the world accurately, without distorting anything. Your argument will only deceive people who don't think it all the way through.

Yep! I understand that, but in their rules they have stated the conditions(but in fairness to the question at hand, I haven't read their rules for exactness in their description, so I'm only assuming)

Their rules state:
"Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure. You may post-process the images electronically in accordance with good practice. That is cropping, burning, dodging, converting to black and white as well as normal exposure and color correction, which preserves the image's original expression. The Judges and exhibition committee reserve the right to see the original raw image files, raw tape, negatives and/or slides. In cases of doubt, the photographer can be pulled out of competition", the rules now states.
(from that website link)

All I see is dodging and burning in Klavs images. Their description of his making the chair yellow.. well adding contrast will make that chair yellow no matter how you edit it.
They don't seem to have defined 'their rules' clearly enough, and so it becomes a grey area of contention.
As for adding any info, I can't see it, and I suppose a larger version of his images would better represent that. But from those images the colour that is in the capture from his D700 is there, just not fully realised in the jpg conversion by Adobe Camera Raw!!

That was his point too, that each RAW converter sees it differently and if he'd used the Picture Styles in camera, and had they used NX software to view the images they'd see different representations of each image.

They may not have liked the images and seen them as too overly processed, but I still think the basis of their judgement was wrong.

Had he used real external filters in front of the lens, and hence the RAw images displayed differently, would they have dismissed his images?
The issue is that they are judging the images based on representations of RAW data, not by any actual means of seeing what the scenes actually looked like.
Only Klavs was there to see the scene at the time of capture, not the judges themselves, they judgement is clouded by software!

As for B&W.. I'm personally not all that partial to the genre(but I do enjoy it as ART!!), but as an accurate representation of actual events... nothing could be further from it!

There's the duality of the issue in that they only want accurate representations of events, but colour version have to be exactly exact(which is nigh on impossible).

So with that there should be no issue in cloning out or healing out any subject matter, if the image if in monochrome, as the removal of color information is bordering on the same principle.

Say as an example; in a war scene where blood in all it's vivid red goriness is represented as grey scale.. the viewer then doesn't have all the accurate information as to whether it's red blood or green beer, we than have to determine for ourselves whether the bleeding sod is stone cold dead or stone cold drunk?

It's just a personal opinion based on the undefinable exactness of what accurate representation actually means.

I'll post my examples in a while, as to how their idea of accurate colour representation is completely misguided.

As I've already said, I have no issues with them not accepting the images as accurate, or valid or worthy of the win, or whatever.. but judging using their terms of reference(the rules), Klavs has done nothing wrong, where he's allowed to dodge/burn, and exposure/colour correction(with no set or pre-defined amounts).

[Tannin]

From the rules: "must be a truthful representation". Case closed.

[arthurking83]

OK.. I'll try to post a truthful representation of an image in my living room.

All files are NEF's straight up, no other processing other than conversion by ViewNX. Lighting is exactly the same in each and the only difference is the Picture Control settings in camera.
Should have saved myself the trouble and shot in NEF + Jpg (basic, to save some space on the card, and hence the price of a bread roll or two :D)

1.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/gallery/files/1/0/DSE_4413.JPG

2.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/gallery/files/1/0/DSE_4414.JPG

3.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/gallery/files/1/0/DSE_4415.JPG

4.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/gallery/files/1/0/DSE_4416.JPG

5.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/gallery/files/1/0/DSE_4417.JPG

6.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/gallery/files/1/0/DSE_4418.JPG

#1 and #2 are so far removed form reality that it;s not funny, and yet there has been no post processing been done.
mono image(once again, via PC control in the D300 is the worst representation of reality)

But the issue here for me is to accurately reproduce the scene exactly as it was.. ATM it's nigh on impossible due to the ambient lighting conditions, even though I took a grey card reference for WB and used that as the predefined value in camera.

The red is not accurate in most of the images, and closest in #2, yet the brown is so far off, it's too hard to reproduce due to the PC controls in the original NEF.. and #1 reproduces it more accurately.. all the other(save for the mono) are both here and there, but not exactly right.

Only controlled lighting could accurately reproduce the colours for it to be described as a PJ image. Controlled lighting is not always possible though.

My contention is that
"must be a truthful representation" is open to interpretation.

How would those judges see my RAW file? I have no idea coz I don't have ACR(that does default conversion) but I suspect that they'd see a different version again, and therefore #2 would be instantly disqualified as an entry.

ps. I'm highly suspicious of default conversions by third party software too!

I can email any of the NEF's to anyone with ACR, just for the purpose of seeing how it's represented by a different RAW converter.

[pirate59]

they have definitely recieved their fair share of manipulations.

personally not quite sure if they fly in the face of journalistic integrity, but they do seem to show more a feeling and emotion of the location than cold hard facts.

not really sure where a line stands with that as alot of 'entertainment' news images and sports images tend to be messed with a bit. look at some of the NRL shots taken on wet and rainy days, yet the colours pop.

IMO the high up landscape shot is fantastic, the shot with the lady and the shacks looks a bit much. The rest look awesome.

EDIT - the photos originally in question, not the bike shots above :)

[arthurking83]

This is a conversion from the original NEF by FastStone Viewer.
It's only here to reinforce my view that the judgement was wrong based on their comments, and clearly shows that choice of RAW converter makes a huge difference to the final output.

This has to be the worst conversion I've ever experienced, but then again I haven't used ACR on any of my precious D300 files :D

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/gallery/files/1/0/DSE_4414_267125.jpg

What's really sad is that it's a conversion of image #2

judge for yourself how valid the judges decision was, based on their views of Klavs over processed image.

I hope I'm not being misunderstood in my intent here.
I'd personally not choose Klavs images as winners due to their 'over processed look anyhow, but my issue is that they based their judgement on how the original RAW image looked, and this only showcases how wildly variable that process is, unless they used various software to make that determination. ACR is one piece of software I don't trust with NEF's(any more)

I had issues with my D70s files not looking anything like what they did on the D70s's review screen, and very quickly switched to Nikon Capture when it was version 4. something. The instant gratification of seeing on the PC, what (I remember) I saw back at the time of capture, was enough to convince me that RAW conversion was of paramount importance.

While other may well get better results from their ACR conversions, I never did, and am distrustful of ACR, and have been ever since. That was three years ago and in my view only Nikon software sees what you saw(which I think it literally does with Picture Control enabled Nikon bodies :p
( I know Andrew agrees with me :D)

ACR's conversion was not as bad as I now got form FSViewer, and that's probably a massive over exaggeration, but it kind of makes the point more vivid(pun intended).

I think there are a few RAW converters that do actually recognise Nikons PC settings and maybe they were Bibble and Dxo's Pro Optics.. but my feeble memory doesn't do all that well late at night.

[Analog6]

Interesting that competitions on AP have been brought into this. In the end our competitions are judged by the members voting. If enough members vote for a photo for it to win, then it deserves to win, whether others feel it is over processed or oversaturated is irrelevant.

That's why I said in my opinion, Rick. I am not making a criticism, or I would have done it in individual photos, many of which are beautiful and attention getting, I am just asking what others think.

Black & White was the traditional tool of press photography, back in the days before newspapers ran colour photographs. This has 'hung over' into Press Photography awards.

Many small regional newspapers still use mostly B&W due to costs. So a press photograph, in order to be useful to the majority of publishers, and get wide dissemination, needs to be able to be converted to B&W.

I am totally with Tannin on this one, and I guess arthur and I will never see eye to eye on it. I am a journalist (BA) and Warwick's dad was a News Limited press Photographer for 30+ years until the early '90s, and this amount of photographic 'unrealism' would never beacceptable to a reputable newspaper.

You can throw in as many red herring technical fiddles as you like but a Press Photogrpahy needs to be represenatative of teh truth of the scene portrayed. I agree the first scene looks wonderful after PP, but he went WAY too far. The second one is not as bad, and the third one (with the chair) almost OK. But none are really TRUTHFUL representations of what he saw.

May be the rules do need to be changed, to specify more fully the allowable maniplation, but for this comp he entered so he accepted the rules as they stand. His work is not acceptable under those rules.

[ricktas]

Would be interesting to know if any of the Danish Press ran these photos before they were entered into the competition.

[I @ M]

Hmmm, the "media" survive by selling advertising space in their publications and I would venture to say that they truly don't care anymore about total factual representation of any image.
They want images that have punch, deliver that added bit more that grabs a readers attention to "make" them buy the publication and therefore read the advertisements that are the publications life blood.

How many times have we seen photographs that relate to an event or subject but are gathered from a "stock" library or "archives"?

Is it misrepresentation of facts to crop distracting background elements which have no relevance to the subject from a photo to push a person or scene to prominence within that photo?

[arthurking83]

.....

Black & White was the traditional tool of press photography, back in the days before newspapers ran colour photographs. This has 'hung over' into Press Photography awards......

I 'spose it's just too easier to hang on to archaic traditions rather than allow them to evolve as society does... in 50 years time Klavs view of the scene will probably be deemed 'acceptable' :rolleyes:

My point is, that they made specific points about how he changed this colour into that and that colour into this, using his original raw file, using the raw files as the basis of analysis.
Then the issue is the program that they used to display that raw file.
We all know that an original raw file is only a rough estimation of what the scene actually looked like, and I'm sure Klavs saw much more contrast than the RAW file reveals, especially in his aerial image.

I think we probably see eye to eye much more than you think Odille, I just hate it when they make the rules to fit a specific genre at the detriment of another.
it breaks the spirit of the rules in dictating how much contrast or colour you can add, where it's meant to really stop the phoney HDR's and layered fakes from distorting the real truth.

I think the rules should be specifically geared to state that the image must be processed form information available in the RAW file, and that's all I see in Klavs images.
Very contrasty, that's for sure, and I'd personally have toned it down by at least half.

B&W is still considered to be the artists photographic medium, and yet you are not allowed artistic expression in PJ photography! :crzy:

Dinosaurs in a modern world!!

[Steve Axford]

But the thing is Arthur, you have to try to be honest. I don't think he tried very hard.

Actually, I look at my photos of the Sidoarjo mudflow and I see some similarities. But - I would never consider submitting anything that had been processed so much to a press photography award. AND - I would be most upset if photos like this won.

[kiwi]

I don't see a problem with this at all. Sure, it's been PS'd to death re colours, contrast, saturation etc but it hasn't been altered from a content or "news" point of view. Nothing in the scene has been cloned etc is

I can see these been in a news magazine.

[trigger]

in 50 years time Klavs view of the scene will probably be deemed 'acceptable' :rolleyes:


I think tech has played a massive role in bringing a person interpretation of an image closer and closer to what the "human eye" can see. I mean it wasnt long ago that HDRs wasnt possible and yet its exactly what the "eye" sees.

I dont consider PP (bridging the gap) to bring out what "I" saw thought my eyes cheating or over processing. Heck if i was colour blind and I choose to de-saturate the blue channel its still a realistic representation of what happened in front of the camera.

[Steve Axford]

I think tech has played a massive role in bringing a person interpretation of an image closer and closer to what the "human eye" can see. I mean it wasnt long ago that HDRs wasnt possible and yet its exactly what the "eye" sees.

I dont consider PP (bridging the gap) to bring out what "I" saw thought my eyes cheating or over processing. Heck if i was colour blind and I choose to de-saturate the blue channel its still a realistic representation of what happened in front of the camera.

What do you mean - HDR is exactly what the eye sees? The eye doesn't see anything at all. Our brain sees, and it is nothing like what HDR portrays. There are many books on the subject.

[trigger]

The human eye sees a larger range in terms of details in the shadows and the highlights. When i look at a sunset I see the sun AND the shadow areas as that is the signal range that my eye offers my brain. i.e. its like having a range -15 ...... + 15 on a SLR.

All I am saying is that PP can bring out more in the RAW file then what it is as a flat image.

[Steve Axford]

The receptors in the human eye are capable of seeing little more than 3 stops!!! Yet we manage to construct images in our brains that exceed that by many times. The RAW file and the type of image we see does vary considerably, but I would suggest that the images from this photographer do go a little too far for a PRESS competition. Not for a normal one where interpretation is everything, but for a press comp.

[J.davis]

Arthur, if any of your photos where printed in a news paper they more than likely would be identical to #4 (a B&W print), so in newspaper terms, colour doesn't matter - only the content.

[DanNG]

I think he got ripped... been a fair bit of highly saturated/processed photos in recent issues of National Geographic.... that's PRESS isn't it?

[arthurking83]

Arthur, if any of your photos where printed in a news paper they more than likely would be identical to #4 (a B&W print), so in newspaper terms, colour doesn't matter - only the content.

AHA!! that's exactly my point.

Regardless of how much saturation and contrast Klavs has processed into the images, the subject matter is truthful and completely free of any manipulation... therefore they are perfectly acceptable as PJ shots!

regardless of how much mood he's tried to imply in the shots, the subject still remains, and I thought that's what photojournalism was supposed to display.

the smoke still billows from the ground, the woman still needs a washing line, and the chair still sits forlornly.. nothing has changed, other than how he felt at the time.

Print Klavs images in a newspaper(in greyscale) and his images may have been Pulitzer prize winners(not likely actually, in reality they were quite uninteresting)... doesn't make sense!

My issue is only that the judges wanted to see the original RAW images(for the sake of comparison). Based on his philosophy of exposing to the right and then using PP to 'enrich' the images the RAW files looked too different(for the judges to accept them).
Had he used Vivid +3 saturation +3 Contrast setting on his D700 and opened the images in View/Capture NX the edited images would not have looked all that much different save for the dodging he'd used.
Instead, they opened the RAW files in a useless RAW converter like ACR, and saw flat bland images which don't quite represent the reality of those scenes(as Klavs would have seen them).

The basis of his exclusion was that the presented images were processed too far from the original RAW files, but there is no defined limits as to how much is to much.

He got ripped off... simple as that :D

But as I may have previously stated, his images were not worthy of winning, they were kind of boring without knowing any background about them.(but again, that wasn't the point either).

Has Adobe software become the standard software by which all RAW images are defined as standard(I bloody well hope not :angry0: ).

anyhow, I think PJ is a weird topic to try to understand if the way it's more about brightness and colour levels, rather than the most important factor.. the un-manipulated or un-ambiguous subject matter.

[occifer nick]

Any previous discussions about competitions for photoshopped and non photoshopped images?

Im new to this forum and DSLRs in general so im hoping that I dont overstep the boundaries. I was looking at the photo of the year (congratulations by the way, awesome end result of a photograph and one i would love to have framed on my wall) and came across before and after processing pics and didnt realise that it wasnt one photo that had been touched up. That got me thinking not only do you have to be a good photographer or have that artistic vision but it seems you have to be a guru on photoshop to merge different photos into one. Has there been any discussions about competitions for photoshopped and non photoshopped images? Just as a side note I am not thinking that my photographs are going to be winning any major prizes anytime soon so not thinking about this for my benefit but the general layman hobyist photographer who has no idea how to manipulate images in this way. On the other hand I am not saying that we cant make general adjustments like slight sharpness, white balance etc. Is that wrong of me to think that slight adjustments in areas of white balance are ok but not merging two images and adding 20 layers is too far? Again not having a go at the past winners as I absolutely love the photos and wish that I was capable haha I tried to search for the topic of photoshop and non photoshop comps but couldnt find anything. Probably my lack of ability with search engines so if you know of the link just point me in the right direction and ignore this little rant haha
Again, whatsthatbeeping awesome photo and enjoyed reading your post on the processing. I might learn something and be able to compete one year haha

[ricktas]

Any previous discussions about competitions for photoshopped and non photoshopped images?


Yes and we cannot do it. We have no way of knowing who has edited and who hasn't edited a photo. Even a simple thing like a slight sharpen is editing, but if done well, most of us could not say if it was sharpened in post processing or not. A member could do a levels adjustment, or slightly change the contrast and again we have no way of knowing that. Members could shoot in JPG and adjust settings in their cameras to increase saturation etc, this is processing! Therefore running a non-editing competition is fraught with the issue of having no way to prove a photo was edited or not, so we have not and never will run a 'no editing' competition.

[occifer nick]

Thanks for the reply Rick, I was just wondering thats all.
Cheers
Occifer