What editing is allowed for competitions

[Big_B]

In the competitions we have a rule that states:
Post processing - nothing that substantially changes the original composition of the image
Recently we have been having some discussions about what this means in practice. Mdenigris submitted an excellent photo to the last competition, which unfortunately didn't comply with the rules. He has kindly agreed to have his photo displayed in order to clarify the rules for everyone else.

[tommykjensen]

Thats a great photo.

How about a competetion that allows manipulations like these?

[Big_B]

I think that sounds like an excellent suggestion. I'll sort that out for the next competition.

[RinkRat]

Dumb Question time:

What about Blur, Curves, Levels, Burn & Dodge? Are they all acceptable?

[Big_B]

The distinction I'm trying to draw is between a photo that has been improved through photoshop (as you might have done in a darkroom) and a photo that has been, if you like, constructed. In other words, between a photograph and photo-art.

So within the normal limits of usage, I wouldn't see a problem with any of those tools.

[Transportithere]

RAW substantially change the images. Correct??

[neil_r]

RAW substantially change the images. Correct??

No not correct. RAW simply allows you more leeway for adjusting colour balance and a few other parameters that would have been adjusted by the processor in the camera had you shot in .jpg.

[tommykjensen]

RAW substantially change the images. Correct??

Many shoot only raw so raw is required to make the photo. And this is within the competion rules (Correct me if I am wrong Sam).

But if You were to take the same raw and create multiple files with different exposure and then create a HDR photo from them then that would not be allowed (correct me if I am wrong Sam).

[neil_r]

But if You were to take the same raw and create multiple files with different exposure and then create a HDR photo from them then that would not be allowed (correct me if I am wrong Sam).

You raise a good point Tommy. HDR exposures from the same image with different exposure values set in PP is one thing but what about HDR from separate exposures (frames in the good old days) and panos/stiching. Within the rules or not?

[tommykjensen]

You raise a good point Tommy. HDR exposures from the same image with different exposure values set in PP is one thing but what about HDR from separate exposures (frames in the good old days) and panos/stiching. Within the rules or not?

I think for the normal competitions HDR and Pano's should be excluded. I think those 2 types of photos deserve seperate competitions. Or maybe with select competitions do a parrallel with seperate voting one for the "normal" and one for the HDR or Pano photos. Because I think it can be really unfair to compare a "normal" photo with a HDR photo or a Pano.

What do You think Sam?

[selven]

The distinction I'm trying to draw is between a photo that has been improved through photoshop (as you might have done in a darkroom) and a photo that has been, if you like, constructed. In other words, between a photograph and photo-art.

So within the normal limits of usage, I wouldn't see a problem with any of those tools.

That's one of the most illuminating posts on photography and art I've read in a while!

My rule of thumb is not to add anything that was not in front of the camera and not to take anything away that was in front of the camera. The art of photography is in drawing the viewer's attention towards what you want to be seen and away from what you want not to be seen. So composition itself is as much an editing decision as anything done afterwards in the darkroom or PS.

[Transportithere]

Point made. Thank you!!

[12345Michael54321]

This is just my opinion, but I'd have no problem with allowing HDR, and perhaps panos. My personal test is, does the editing/manipulation/tweaking/etc. bring the image closer to what could have been seen by the naked eye at the time the image was captured? If so, it's fair game. If it moves it further from what was actually seen at the time the image was captured, it becomes a "photo construct," not simply a photograph.

For example, the camera's sensor can handle a much more limited dynamic range than can the human eye. Using HDR to extend the image's dynamic range simply helps the image more closely resemble what might have been seen at the time the picture was taken. Similarly, a panoramic image just permits one to see, say, a 180 deg. vista, much as could be seen by the average person with both eyes open. (A 360 deg. pano might be overdoing it, I admit.)

Mdenigris' image, on the other hand - while it may be striking, interesting, meaningful, etc. - uses manipulation to create a scene which could not possible have been seen in reality. And therefore may be deemed to violate the "nothing that substantially changes the original composition of the image" rule.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that for a photo to quality as permitted, it must reflect what might actually have been seen. Merely that if it does reflect what might have been seen, it should be permitted. For example, a 2 hour nighttime exposure of the sky would show star trails which a person cannot see with the naked eye. Nevertheless, the 2 hour exposure of the sky, if not subjected to any significant post-shoot manipulation, should undoubtedly be permitted.

Ultimately, what constitutes "excessive manipulation" and what represents "permitted manipulation" is difficult to define by rule with perfect precision. Moreover, the more precise one endeavors to make the rules, the more likely it is that those rules will start becoming little more than arbitrary standards reflecting but the rulemaker's personal biases and preferences.

[Athena]

This is an excellent topic with the present challenge being Illusion.

My query is just a quickie - artistic dodging and burning? Allowed?

[Big_B]

Athena - dodge and burn are acceptable tools

HDR is a bit tricky. I don't have a problem in principle, but I would like it to stay within the general principle that we are competing on photography, not photo-art. I agree with Michael that the distinction should be about whether HDR leads to a better representation of what you could see with the naked eye.

[Neilyb]

So basically, if you can't do it in a dark room and it is a function that your camera cannot process, don't enter it!?

[BeccaNH]

I have another question about the photos submitted for competitions. If the poll is supposed to be a blind poll (in other words, you don't know who you are voting for) should entries be allowed to be posted in other forums on this site? I recognized a couple of entries from the last competition (Summertime) from other threads. I'm just wondering if that might skew the voting a bit if people knew who they were voting for.

[tommykjensen]

I have another question about the photos submitted for competitions. If the poll is supposed to be a blind poll (in other words, you don't know who you are voting for) should entries be allowed to be posted in other forums on this site? I recognized a couple of entries from the last competition (Summertime) from other threads. I'm just wondering if that might skew the voting a bit if people knew who they were voting for.

As far as I remember the rules state that members submitting photos may not reveal which photo belong to them. So posting the photo elsewhere before voting has ended should disqualify that photo.

[Big_B]

You are permitted to post the photos elswehere in the site for two reasons.

Firstly, people normally share their best photos and obviously would also like to enter their best photos in competitions. Excluding photos that had ever been posted in share seems a bit draconion, especially as they must necesarily be allowed for the Photographer of the Year competitions.

Secondly, in order for this to be a problem it must be the case that someone see's a photos in share, recognises it in the competition and then thinks that they would be more likely to vote for the photo because they recognise the OP. I don't particularly see this as a likely scenario, which is why I'm not too fussed about people posting elsewhere.

The bottom line is that these competitions are for fun and so I want to keep them as relaxed as possible. If there is evidence that people are deliberately trying to skew the voting (like putting a link to the voting thread in their photo-share thread) then we may need to review, but I'd like to keep it as is for the moment.

[tommykjensen]

Oh well I guess I remembered wrong then. But I think it should be that way or at minimum for a period before the contest and while the contest is running.

I do think some will vote for a particular photo is they recognice the photographer.

btw are we talking the yearly contests or the running contests? I am talking about the latter.

[Big_B]

I think that's the point though. The former are arguably more important and so we should enforce the rule there if anywhere.

I also agree that some people might be influenced by knowing a photographer, although I don't think it is generally a very significant effect (particularly in the running contests). However, it is for this reason that I keep the voting anonymous within the contest thread. (FWIW, I sometimes recognise a photo from elsewhere in the site, but I'm darned if I can remember who actually posted it! :))

[tommykjensen]

I have several times recognised photos including the photographer. Some just stand out from the rest.

[BeccaNH]

Thanks for the feedback Tommy and Sam. Obviously the photos that I recognized were memorable (or I wouldn't have remembered them :) ) so it makes sense that they would be entered in a competition.