Camera club competitions most shots look like watercolors

I joined the Stony Brook camera club www.stonybrookcc.com and attended my first competition last night. They had several digital categories and one thing I noticed is that virtually all the images looking like paintings or watercolors.
I wonder if I am just old school, raised in the Kodachrome era but is this a common thing? I haven't noticed it that much here but I am mostly poking around the bird forums.
How do they do that is it extreme HDR or what? Seems like if you want to do well in the comps you need to make it look I won't say fake but more like a painting. Of course B&W doesn't have that problem and I am going to enter a couple images there. I am going to edit this image to bring up the whites a bit

There are lots of ways to make it look like a painting. Photoshop has several filters design just to do that.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. I, too, started out on a film diet in the darkroom and eventually moved to slides and now digital but it is disappointing when I see a couple of national photo organizations hosting contests and the winners are more works of graphic arts/photoshop than of strict photography.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19022202
.
I joined the Stony Brook camera club www.stonybrookcc.com and attended my first competition last night. They had several digital categories and one thing I noticed is that virtually all the images looking like paintings or watercolors.

How do they do that is it extreme HDR or what?
.

.
I would ask the folks at the club who are presenting the images. . The main benefit of being part of a club is the ability to talk with others about how they created their photos. . That's how you learn and get to know others in the club.

I have been involved in two camera clubs; one back in Pennsylvania where I'm from originally, and one here in Washington. . I really like the club here in WA, but it is 100 miles away, and sometimes I'm just not up for a 200 mile round trip on a Tuesday evening. . Every time I go, I'm really glad I did, but I miss a lot of meetings because of the distance. . Consider yourself fortunate to have a photography club within a reasonable distance - that is something that some people really long for, but just don't have available to them.


.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19022202
.
Seems like if you want to do well in the comps you need to make it look I won't say fake but more like a painting.
.

.
It's hard to know how they do it, because we aren't able to view the images you're talking about.

But I am able to see quite a few bird photos on your club's website. . They are the ones that have won club awards. . They appear on the home page, one at a time, and appear in slideshow fashion. . Each of the images that they have there is given a title, so I can refer to each by its title, and give a suggestion as to how I think it may have been created.

I'll just stick to the bird photos, as that seems to be what you are primarily interested in knowing about.

Honeysuckle Visit ..... appears to just be a straight-up photo with only minimal processing done. . The background is nice because the photographer shot the image from a perspective level to the bird, and with a nice neutrally-colored area behind it with no distractions.

A Big Stick .....Appears to be another straight-up photo with minimal processing. . But it doesn't look very painterly. . Not sure why it won an award - it has a choppy background that detracts from the subject.

Anhinga Lunch and Dinner on the Skewer ..... both appear to be images with very minimal processing. . They are not painterly at all, as the background is very choppy and distracting. . Very poor subject isolation - could have been so much nicer if the photographer had shot from a much lower perspective, such as eye level to the Anhinga - then these images would have had the painterly qualities that you mentioned.

Autumn Aura ..... it appears that the photographer found a nice background with natural fall color, and aligned the bird up with it nicely. . It does appear if the color was enhanced by cranking up the saturation, and possibly warming up the white balance. . Other than that, it doesn't look like any other Photoshopping was performed. . The background is nicely out of focus, which isolates the bird quite effectively. . This is the result one can typically expect when shooting with a big prime with a relatively large aperture, such as a 500mm f4, 600mm f4, or 800mm f5.6. . This is the kind of pleasing background blur that the 150-600mm f6.3 zooms have trouble producing in many situations.

Big Gulp ..... this appears to just be a straight-up photo with very minimal processing. . The photographer filled the frame effectively, which helps to isolate the subject from the background. . However, the background is still not very aesthetically pleasing, as it is too much in focus and choppy and distracting. . This could have been improved by getting down lower, or by shooting with a larger aperture, or, preferably, both.

Brunch ..... another image that appears to have had very little processing done. It isn't very painterly, as the light was rather harsh and the aesthetic appeal of the photo really suffers because of it. Kind of hard to believe that this image won an award - I guess the judges sometimes put subject matter above aesthetic qualities when evaluating the photos.

Keeping Watch ..... a very simple, minimalistic composition that is nicely done. . Nice even light on the subject - no distracting shadows, and a clean, even background. . This is usually accomplished with no need for photoshopping, if the photographer is careful to shoot when the light is nice and even and to make sure that the background is nice and clean, with nothing behind the bird.

Owl on the Prowl ..... this is yet another bird image that looks like it had very little photoshopping done to it. . It's pretty much just what you get, straight out of the camera, when you are close enough and shoot in decent light and have a nice, distraction-free background. . The side lighting works very effectively, with the exception of the shadow that runs along the bottom portion of the near wing. . That shadow on the wing is really a shame, as it really detracts from an otherwise wonderful image. . This is a case where maybe the photographer could have or should have used Phtooshop more liberally, in order to brighten up that shadow so that it wouldn't be so readily noticeable.

Sharing ..... the background is nicely blurred and distraction-free, mainly because the photographer was on a level with the birds, and therefore didn't have to shoot at an awkward upward angle. . That background appears to be what you usually get when you are able to get choosy and take the time to line your subject up with the nicest part of whatever is behind it. . It doesn't look like this got it's look from processing, but rather just from good decision-making by the photographer when he took the image.

Juvenile Great Horned Owl ..... this doesn't look like it was Photoshopped too much, either. . It does appear that the saturation was cranked up and the contrast or levels were cranked up, but it doesn't look like anything extreme was done, like HDR or compositing. . Personally, I find the saturation to be too strong and the contrast to be too heavy-handed and the overall image to be too dark. Its jus too "strong". . Lightening it up and reducing the saturation would give it a lighter, more natural, easier-on-the-eyes look. . The background appears to be what one gets when shooting nice and close to the subject, and I would think that that is the "real" background and that the photographer didn't fake it or manipulate it in Photoshop.

Dinner's Coming ..... the Puffin itself is rendered very nicely, thanks to the nice even light that you get on an overcast day. . No direct sunlight meant no distracting, ugly shadows on the bird - which is great! . The background, while not horrible, could have been much nicer if it would have been blurred out more effectively. With regard to the not-blurred-enough background, I suspect that either this is a crop, or that a relatively small aperture was used, such as f6.3 or f8. I think that if this had been shot the way it appears (filling the frame, with no need to crop) and at f4 or f5, then the background would be much more blurred, and the Puffin would "pop" much more nicely. . By the way, I love that the Puffin's head is nice and sharp and his wings are slightly blurred - that rocks!

Fitzy the Snowy Owl ..... I was happy to see this, as it is very similar to Owl on the Prowl, but with better wing position and without the distracting shadow across the near wing.

Great Blue Heron 2 ..... I am not seeing anything about this that leads me to believe that much Photoshopping was done. . It's pretty much just how such a scene would appear right out of the camera. . The grasses behind the Heron's head are too in-focus, and that doesn't allow the Heron to be isolated at all. . This probably could have been photographed more effectively if the photographer had gotten down lower, so that the grass behind the Heron's head would be further away, and hence more blurred.

Grey is Your Color ..... nothing about this makes me believe that any extensive processing was done. . Perhaps some processing should have been done, as that lone blade of dried grass to the left of the bird is incongruous with the surroundings and is a distraction.

Here's Looking at You ..... well, there is nothing painterly about this image, and that is a shame, because it very easily could have been photographed in a much more appealing way. . The water all around and behind the bird is way too in-focus, and that means that the Swan just isn't isolated at all. . If only the photographer would have gotten his camera down at water level, just a couple inches above the very surface of the water, then this could have been a really special image with a magical, mystical look. . By shooting it from a standing-up position, it is pretty much just another snapshot of a Swan on a city park pond.

Okay, I have had enough!

I had first intended to talk about every bird image on that home page of your club's website, and explain how I thought it had been created, especially when it comes to what I thought was done in-camera and what I thought what was done on the computer ..... because that is what you asked about. . But there are way more photos there than I had thought there would be, and I am now tired of typing out my thoughts and I want a break and to relax with a cup of coffee. . So I will stop here, after having assessed these 16 photos.

Overall, the images all appear to be pretty much what you get straight out of the camera, along with the standard, rather minimal adjustments made to exposure and color correction. . I'm not seeing any evidence of heavy editing, such as HDR, as you had suggested, or of compositing. . So all of these bird images look like straight photography to me, and not graphic art or computer-generated or anything like that. . It's just solid bird photography. . For the most part, it's what you get when you are particular about the way the light is falling on the bird, and when you are particular about the backgrounds, and when you shoot from eye level.

There are many other images on that home page slideshow that are not bird photos, and many of those do appear to be very heavily edited and are not what I would call straight photography. . They are a blend of photography and graphic art. But I didn't assess any of those because I know your main interest is in bird photos. . And when it comes to bird photos, it looks like the members of your club "keep it real".


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19022442
.
I would ask the folks at the club who are presenting the images. . The main benefit of being part of a club is the ability to talk with others about how they created their photos. . That's how you learn and get to know others in the club.

I have been involved in two camera clubs; one back in Pennsylvania where I'm from originally, and one here in Washington. . I really like the club here in WA, but it is 100 miles away, and sometimes I'm just not up for a 200 mile round trip on a Tuesday evening. . Every time I go, I'm really glad I did, but I miss a lot of meetings because of the distance. . Consider yourself fortunate to have a photography club within a reasonable distance - that is something that some people really long for, but just don't have available to them.

.

I would take Tom's suggestion on this. Typically most clubs will actually have a "Competition Chairman" who is the person that decides when they will be held, the format, subject matter, specific rules, etc. Ask that person or committee - they will give you the most direct answer.

Tom, kudos for driving such a distance to hang with like-minded people...good for you!

From the standpoint of proximity I'm more fortunate. I live in NE Ohio where we have at least a dozen clubs of varying sizes. I'm a volunteer judge at many of them and the competition committees are often quite elaborate in their rules, requirements and categories of events. Often a club will have a CREATIVE category where members use whatever PS filter they wish for their entry. Things tend to go in fads and cycles though - the members will become inspired and share talented suggestions which is a good thing, but then everybody is using the same old "filter" or technique and we move onto something else. The same evening the club may also have a B/W category, or photojournalistic. Everything varies from month to month.

I come from film so I prefer a more realistic viewpoint but that's just me. I leave the painterly techniques to the artists at the museum where I work

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19022478
Overall, the images all appear to be pretty much what you get straight out of the camera, along with the standard, rather minimal adjustments made to exposure and color correction.

It would be an interesting study to relate these images to age group and perhaps when the photographers obtained their basic skills. I say that because as a “senior” here in Pennsylvania I can take free college level courses in photography at my local state university. What I find is that younger photographers will fire off a dozen or so images of a static object and then rework the image heavily in PP. There is little regard for the subject matter and what will be done with the image later. IMO, this results in heavy use of PP capability. Older individuals, perhaps like myself that learned their skills at a time when manual cameras were the norm, take time to carefully compose before the image is acquired and then take relatively few shots and use far less of the PP tools. Note that I’m emphasizing static image, not something like wildlife where I think by necessity numerous images are acquired and the culling process is then composition driven. You can walk around that flower and determine composition, lighting, etc. before you take the image but you can’t tell that eagle, owl, or bison turn its head.

WOW Tom and I thought having to drive 25 minutes each way to my club was bad. There are a bunch of clubs in the Boston area, more if I include RI, I am halfway between Boston and Providence.
I also come from film and was educated at the Naval Photoschool in Pensacola FL. Love 4x5! Love Ansel Adams and often do my Ansel thing on static subjects and really try to visualize. Actually use my 5D Classic a lot in Manual since it doesn't have auto ISO it is almost old school in manual.

Tom always appreciate your posts. I submitted two images for the last comp, they are on the website, only got 22 and 23 points, but for the boogie boarder the judge talked about it and I agree with what she said, it was washed out and the boogie boarder was muddy, will work it in PS to bring up the colors. The "Homeward Bound" they were running out of time so she didn't give an opinion on it, just gave the score so I don't know why it didn't go higher unless it was because while the picture is straight the train is leaning in the station, you can see that in the conductor who is standing straight up but it makes the picture look slanted maybe

here is the shot submitted and then the reworked shot that I will resubmit next fall.

and here is the train I will post it in the critique corner

Tom
I guess the painterly was what I noticing the most were in the landscapes.

Thanks for the help!

The camera clubs I've been involved with tend toward that sort of thing. I used to get invited to judge a couple times a year and you notice trends. The first is that many of regulars tend to shoot the same subjects the same way over and over again. You'll see the same flower shots each competition, not the same actual flower but the same framing and composition with a different bud. You'll see people who rely on process to differentiate their work, using HDR or some other post effect to add pop to an otherwise boring subject. You'll also find that judges are challenged to be entirely objective as nobody wants to be too harsh to well meaning but less talented club members.

I wonder if you will see any value from the club in the long term. They seem less like places to grow, but rather groups designed to congratulate each other.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19022562
The camera clubs I've been involved with tend toward that sort of thing. I used to get invited to judge a couple times a year and you notice trends. The first is that many of regulars tend to shoot the same subjects the same way over and over again. You'll see the same flower shots each competition, not the same actual flower but the same framing and composition with a different bud. You'll see people who rely on process to differentiate their work, using HDR or some other post effect to add pop to an otherwise boring subject. You'll also find that judges are challenged to be entirely objective as nobody wants to be too harsh to well meaning but less talented club members.

I wonder if you will see any value from the club in the long term. They seem less like places to grow, but rather groups designed to congratulate each other.

I am not sure what I will get out of it in the long term but I think a lot of it will be what I put into it. I have been asked to do a workshop on solar photography for the members and I am happy to do that, I will eventually do one on astro imaging although I have gone away from DSLR's for than and on to dedicated CMOS cooled cameras such as the ZWO ASI family, also CCD cameras. My solar stuff can be seen at www.solarhead.net

For my workshop I will bring in some astro cameras (for Solar I use a highspeed ASI174mm (monochrome) that is cooled to maintain -40 degrees C below ambient temperature) and a telescope or two but not my tripod mount which weighs 80 pounds. and then discuss capture and processing. I will usually take 3,000 to 5,000 frames at 120 FPS and then stack the best 50% of them.

I think it is human nature to want to share (show off?) our images or work and usually are hoping for positive feedback, if we didn't I don't think we would be posting anything you would just keep it to yourself. I think even if you are a pro you will have examples of your work in a portfolio or website to attract clients. I like POTN because it is helping get better as a photog and get away from being a snapshooter.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19022598
I am not sure what I will get out of it in the long term but I think a lot of it will be what I put into it. I have been asked to do a workshop on solar photography for the members and I am happy to do that, I will eventually do one on astro imaging although I have gone away from DSLR's for than and on to dedicated CMOS cooled cameras such as the ZWO ASI family, also CCD cameras. My solar stuff can be seen at www.solarhead.net

For my workshop I will bring in some astro cameras (for Solar I use a highspeed ASI174mm (monochrome) that is cooled to maintain -40 degrees C below ambient temperature) and a telescope or two but not my tripod mount which weighs 80 pounds. and then discuss capture and processing. I will usually take 3,000 to 5,000 frames at 120 FPS and then stack the best 50% of them.

I think it is human nature to want to share (show off?) our images or work and usually are hoping for positive feedback, if we didn't I don't think we would be posting anything you would just keep it to yourself. I think even if you are a pro you will have examples of your work in a portfolio or website to attract clients. I like POTN because it is helping get better as a photog and get away from being a snapshooter.

I agree with your motivation and applaud your efforts to bring something to the club. My point is simply that the bulk of the camera clubs membership tend be people who have risen to their own level. After that the group politics tend to be a factor and will influence judging, choices of workshops, etc. The curiosity and enthusiasm that you posts here exhibit make me believe you'll thrive better in a bigger environment like here and in other places.

"Photographing for points" has always seemed to me to be a way to gradually make your photographs look like the other members' images. If that's what you want, that's okay. From a technical perspective, it may be a good exercise, if you're getting specific feedback as well as a score.

Most of my subject matter doesn't have the exacting technical requirements that a great wildlife photo has, and isn't what you'd usually find at a club competition (none of the photos at your club's link resemble any of mine). I've managed to find a few people who understand what I'm trying to do and can provide useful feedback to help me get there. Even when I don't agree with them, their comments help me see my photos more clearly. For you, a few of those people might be responding in this thread. You might find one or two more in the club.

If you enjoy the competitions, by all means keep doing them. But listen for the individual voices that can make the biggest difference in your work.

moose10101 wrote in post #19023507
.
I've managed to find a few people who understand what I'm trying to do and can provide useful feedback to help me get there. Even when I don't agree with them, their comments help me see my photos more clearly.
.

.
I find this kind of thing very interesting ..... where one photographer's thoughts about an image are different than another's. . I am also interested in the phrase, "what I'm trying to do", as it indicates that you have a clear objective that you are looking to fulfill with the image.

When giving feedback on an image, it is important to know what the photographer's objectives were. . That's why good feedback will often include some questions, such as, "what is it that you were trying to showcase in this image?", or, "what was it about this scene that made you want to photograph it?"

If you have any examples that you could post of images that you received feedback that you did not agree with, I would be very interested in seeing those image, and what the feedback was, and why you didn't agree with it. . That kind of stuff is extremely interesting to me.

.