Photography competition winner disqualified for 'too much Photoshopping'



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9652485/Photography-competition-winner-disqualified-for-too-much-Photoshopping.html

I'd like to see a before/after comparison.

Mark

+1. How do they decide how much 'shopping is "too much"?

+1

Because we don't like in some science fiction wonderland.
The more you look at it, the more bits of it don't make sense. It's a beautiful image though.

What is the aim or goal of the image? Did the rules specify any digital manipulation boundaries? From what my sister tells me, judges in holography competitions can declare that an image has been 'shopped even if it hasn't and not be challenged over it.

This is a thorny subject - I have no problems with an image being manipulated if it does the job for which it is intended, but that's me having a commercial art interest. Sister, however, does wildlife photography and that discipline (wrongly in my view) demands that there is little or no post work does to images.

We have interesting discussions about this sometimes.

http://www.take-a-view.co.uk/termsandconditions.htm

So, that in mind, whilst it is a lovely image that could grace the cover of any number of magazines, I think it does fall down on the 'lacking authenticity' bit.

While I know the likes of Photoshop can do things that one just couldn't in the darkroom, and makes other things much easier, has anyone ever been disqualified for over post-processing in the darkroom?

*pulls up a chair and grabs some popcorn*
Alex, over to you.
(8+)

Mark

Thank you Mark.

Right then - Yes, Photoshop can do things you couldn't do in the darkroom. However, that's not to say that you can't produce images in the darkroom that rival something you'd expect from Photoshop. There is a whole wide variety of adjustments you can make - if you're doing a colour print for instance, then you have control over each of the RGB channels in a similar way to that in Photoshop. From processing the negative you have a choice of chemistry that'll alter the negative in different ways. With making a print, you can dodge and burn selectively, adjust contrast (again selectively), flip the negative, invert your print, adjust sharpness, manually retouch a negative or the print (although that's a dying art) and further refine the final print with your choice of paper and developer.
Have a look at http://www.uelsmann.net - all of his images are produced in the darkroom.
However, if he were to submit one of his landscapes, then I'd expect that he'd be disqualified too.

The issue isn't about the means of manipulation in this instance (or at least not to my mind) but because of this bit:
"The organisers reserve the right to disqualify any image that they feel lacks authenticity due to over-manipulation."

That's the line I think this chap crossed.

I know a fair amount that can be done, Faye has made mighty sure that I've spent long enough in the dark seeing various techniques. She's mainly done black and white though in her masters started to experiment with colour, both in SLR and pinhole (though all 35mm I think).



I see

Exactly all too subjective.

Turns out he pretty much copied someone else's pic anyway

http://landscapephotographymagazine.com/2012/take-a-view-lpoty-2012-controversy-again/