Please tell me...

That nobody here agrees with this crock of [MOD EDIT - PROFANITY REMOVED] http://digital-photography-school.com …utm_content=Yah​oo%21+Mail

As I said in response..."This topic has been debated ad nauseum…I defy anyone to show me an image sans PP, of any kind.
The very fact that an image has been printed requires some element of post processing."

Wonder what would happen if he refused to give the money back.

I neither agree or disagree....if you want to hold a contest with rules that state an image can not be manipulated beyond a certain point (such as adding or removing objects), they that's just fine by me. On the other hand, if someone wants to take a photo and re-work it until it looks nothing like the original capture, that's fine too. There will always be different ideas and ways of doing things and contests will always have their rules that they put into place. IMO, no one way is any better than another when it comes to photography and post processing, it's just different. I can understand though why a contest would create a more strick set of rules though as to keep the contest focused on what they want it to focus on (such as capturing an image as it was). If they didn't, it would be very difficult to judge. It would be like having a Nascar race but allowing any vehicle to enter as the owner saw fit....you would have everything from monster trucks to motorcycles......and in the end, not really a good race.

Someone get that man a ladder so he can climb down off the cross.

Declaring yourself the arbiter of what is and is not "photography" is approaching the pinnacle of ignorance and arrogance.

GoWolfpack wrote in post #15683580
Someone get that man a ladder so he can climb down off the cross.

Declaring yourself the arbiter of what is and is not "photography" is approaching the pinnacle of ignorance and arrogance.

I didn't see anyone making a statement about what is and what isn't photography. It's a contest and contests must have rules.....this particular contest choose to make rules that made the process of capturing and creating the photo a part of the contest (not just the end result). IMO, I see nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of other contests out there that allow and even encourage digital manipulation. I don't think this is an issue of what is or what isn't a photograph, it's an issue of if the contestant followed the rules of the contest (which he obviously didn't). This makes him a cheat and therefore he should forfeit his prize money. He either knew the rules of this contest and blatantly choose to ignore them or he wasn't smart enough to take the time to go over the rules......at this level, I would guess the former is the case.

chauncey wrote in post #15682752
As I said in response..."This topic has been debated ad nauseum…I defy anyone to show me an image sans PP, of any kind. The very fact that an image has been printed requires some element of post processing."

If one wishes to be the Lance Armstrong of photographers, one can expect to lose a few titles and be forced to give back a few undeserved awards.

Wayne

There is a difference between using PP to enhance what is in the photo and using editing to add things that weren't (or remove things that were). Mr Byrne added a sky that wasn't in the original picture and did it badly (sun position doesn't match with direction of shadows) and when challenged stated that he did it because he doesn't have time to sit around waiting. Photography is about timing - you need to be there at the right time to get the great shot - adding stuff is fine when creating digital art but not when you are entering a photo contest. Plus of course it was a simple and clear breach of the rules.

I'll just leave that here. He makes some statements where he very clearly has already decided that this certain category is "photography" and this other category is not.

But really, if your adding a sky or elements into a picture that weren't there, I agree with the guy, it has now become digital art. There is a line.

Photo manipulation is nothing new! See: Firsts In The Field Of Photography - Photo Montage (1858)
http://www.buzzfeed.co​m …-the-field-of-photography

namtot wrote in post #15685679
But really, if your adding a sky or elements into a picture that weren't there, I agree with the guy, it has now become digital art. There is a line.

That's exactly the way I see it, too.

In my view, there is Photography, then there is Photo Art. They are two completely different things to me. I have no problem with either, but I hate it when someone produces Photo Art and calls it Photography.

We really do need to put more focus and deliberation into the words and terms we use, and attempt to define things as accurately and specifically as possible.

GoWolfpack wrote in post #15685605
I'll just leave that here. He makes some statements where he very clearly has already decided that this certain category is "photography" and this other category is not.

I did overlook that part.....but back to my main point, the photographer did break the rules set forth in the contest.

Putting specific competition rules aside, it's all photography...photogra​phy allows for manipulation. I know this, because I keep buying or picking up all these books about photography and, lo and behold, they include photos that have been manipulated.

There's absolutely no reason to call it anything else; none.

But if one is incessantly insistent about segregating that which is ultimately the same, then yes, please stick with calling it 'photo art' as opposed to 'digital art,' since such manipulation has been around since the beginning of photography (because, it's, well, part of photography, hence my preference to keep things semantically simple).

Let's assume ya buy a photograph to hang on your wall and come to discover that the scene has been photoshopped...do you have a "right" to be angry.
Or, you buy a high dollar painting only to discover that the painting was done over a photograph...is that a reason to be upset.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
I don't know that I would be "angry", but I certainly wouldn't want the photoshopped print on my wall. I would try to return it to the seller and get my money back. Failing that, I would try to sell it to someone who doesn't mind the fact that it was faked. There are people out there that like photoshopped images, a.k.a. "Photo Art". It is actually quite popular, so I would probably be able to sell it and recoup some of my money.