Was there much post processing?

That effect can be done in-camera by a lot of digital models.

Thats something i've been thinking about recently you know. As cameras now offer the ability to process the image 'in camera' with filters, colour casts, HDR effects, etc etc is this any more acceptable than using Photoshop to spruce up a photo?

It's a good point. However, keeping processing to the minimum means it's the actual image that wins it, not the amount of post-processing.

I'm for keeping it simple.

Stupid.

Mark

Although B&W and other effects can in this case make the image to look much older than it is, it is quite easy to look past these and see what though has gone into preparing for the shot, and how it has been composed.

I dont disagree. I also really like the shot too. My response isn't directed at this shot but your comment that effects can be done 'in camera' nowadays. I just think this raises the question as to how much is acceptable even though it is 'in camera' when a comp such as this states: "Only very light editing is allowed. Adjustment of Levels, Colour Correction, Contrast, Sharpening and Cropping is allowed". If for example an HDR image would be rejected in the grounds it has been heavily edited on a PC then is it then acceptable if the very same effect is produced in camera.

A lot of cameras can process images to preserve shadows and highlights but true HDR is done with multiple exposures, against the rules of the comp. However, can we tell if this or other post processing such as tone mapping has been done in the final submitted image? A matter of respect from the submitter and trust from the viewer I would hope. Anyway it's not like were playing for cash prizes or anything.

Bugger. Do you know how much I've just paid for this wolf???

We had a piccy a while back that clearly broke the rules. There was some comment at the time but I let it run and in the end it didn't get any votes (IIRC). The pic itself was quite cool but the forumites made their own minds up


The statement does not specify whether the allowance is in-camera or post processing. Black and white is very much a part of photography and I will stretch to sepia as it represents the look used in the past. No more though - and here lies the problem. How easy is it to identify a photo that has been put through a fair amount of post processing to make it look natural? How can you tell where the cloning or healing brush has been used? Is it acceptable to add noise or use noise reduction? Post processing is an art form that can completely transform an original image but my advice is to keep it simple (or KISS according to Mr Mark ).

Al

Just for the record John Vella is actually 41 and a bit years old and is feeling fine, thanks for asking

The weather guessers say it's going to be grey in Manchester over the weekend, so I'll try and get out with the camera.... I've got a couple of ideas which could turn out to be either completely brilliant or totally carp

Mmeeeeooowww!! A saucer of milk for my learned friend please. [Nice one Centurion]

Progress and Ask your Grandad have just been submitted.

Al

Industrial has just been submitted.

Al

How Old ? has just been submitted. Well, it was submitted previously but ImageShuck was playing silly buggers

Al