Too much Photoshopping is a bad thing, I guess.

cdifoto wrote in post #15209894
A lot of competitions are full of themselves and this one seems to be no exception.

There's some truth to that, but this competition, faced with the situation at hand, probably wanted to maintain some credibility among the entrants and audience. Otherwise, could you imagine the craziness of next year's competition if this wasn't strictly enforced?

Nathan wrote in post #15210156
There's some truth to that, but this competition, faced with the situation at hand, probably wanted to maintain some credibility among the entrants and audience. Otherwise, could you imagine the craziness of next year's competition if this wasn't strictly enforced?

I fail to see how it matters. It's not journalism.

Stupid rule.

Photographers have been doing the same thing for almost a century, in the darkroom.

And, you must ask yourself - do you take photos to win competitions, to sell prints or to produce an artistic end-product?

Nathan wrote in post #15210156
There's some truth to that, but this competition, faced with the situation at hand, probably wanted to maintain some credibility among the entrants and audience. Otherwise, could you imagine the craziness of next year's competition if this wasn't strictly enforced?

It never lost credibility. Besides, how does one enforce "excessive manipulation?" Where do you draw the line, especially since you can't use the line tool in Photoshop to draw it.

I guess Peter Lik won't win in that contest.

Shadowblade wrote in post #15210201
Stupid rule.

Unless the rules state that there are no rules the judges have to make a choice as to how much manipulation is allowed. It's like putting a Uelsmann in a show for literal landscapes: apples and oranges. Images are modified to make them more interesting to the eye but the question remains is the subject the most prominent feature in the image or the PP of the subject?

So, how do you define 'excessive manipulation'? Which features are allowed, and which ones aren't?

Shadowblade wrote in post #15210380
So, how do you define 'excessive manipulation'? Which features are allowed, and which ones aren't?

Only edits that can be achieved in a Raw processor like Lr.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #15209863
It's the same as it ever was. Darkroom or Photoshop - great images need to be massaged to realize their potential.

regardless of this being a different David Byrne.

As for manipulations, I thought most contests prohibit adding or removing features in a photo. Only color/curves related adjustments allowed.

moeronn wrote in post #15210427
regardless of this being a different David Byrne.

As for manipulations, I thought most contests prohibit adding or removing features in a photo. Only color/curves related adjustments allowed.

Including masking? Multiple exposures? Stitching?

Without masking, dynamic range becomes a huge issue in landscape photography if GND filters aren't an option (bulbous lens, uneven transition zone).

moeronn wrote in post #15210427
regardless of this being a different David.

When I wrote that I just knew I was only entertaining myself. I shouldn't be surprised at the quality of readership of POTN but I always am.

lol....and the new winning image is a piece of crap.

Maybe we should disqualify that Ansel Adams guy for too much darkroom work.

After reading a different article, looks like the category he entered it into was one that required no manipulation. So that's his fault.

Shadowblade wrote in post #15210380
So, how do you define 'excessive manipulation'? Which features are allowed, and which ones aren't?

i'm pretty sure the cleverly disguised genitalia in that photo got him tossed out.

Numenorean wrote in post #15210699
lol....and the new winning image is a piece of crap.

Maybe we should disqualify that Ansel Adams guy for too much darkroom work.

After reading a different article, looks like the category he entered it into was one that required no manipulation. So that's his fault.

+100

Here is the thread started by the photographer in question. He freely admits he got it wrong and should have read the rules. http://www.talkphotogr​aphy.co.uk …s/showthread.ph​p?t=444304

Although adding a cloudy sky is akin to adding Obama into a shot with Sadam Hussein holding hands .