Info on Photo Contest and BORDERS!!

[fitzperry]

I'm pretty much in the same boat. Ive recently (almost) finished converting RAW files from my DWO trip and was looking forward to posting them up in the weekly competitions. I dont know if they are allowed now?

I'm with you. I hope I don't sound like a whiner here, but despite the fact that I've always enjoyed these contests, at this point I'm kind of reluctant to enter, not so much because I'm afraid of being accused of too much editing (although maybe my images look more "processed" than I think they do), but because I don't know where that line is that I shouldn't cross. Most of my WDW pictures were shot in RAW, and many of those that weren't have had minor editing like levels or white balance adjustments. I don't want to feel like I might be cheating because I boosted the exposure by 1/2 a stop when I opened the image in Lightroom. But at the same time I don't want to post a picture in a contest or anywhere else for that matter that I think will look a whole lot better if I take 10 seconds to drag a slider to the right a little or run it through a free noise reduction program.

 

[fitzperry]

How do you come up with a list of what can be edited?

It wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a list of things that can't be done. Things like no cloning except to remove dust spots; no composites, HDR's or images that otherwise combine more than one exposure; no spot editing or selections; no effects filters. Those all seem to be things that Dana would like to avoid.

Are brightness, contrast, saturation, vibrance, sharpness, etc allowed? Do you have to use levels or can you use curves? Can you use layers to selectively edit the brightness? I don't think its fair to put Andromedaslove in the position to have to police that.

As you say, it gets trickier when you start talking about contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc., but it seems to me that if you want to make it simple to police, then you might as well allow those types of adjustments, especially if you're going to allow images that were shot in RAW. How much saturation is too much? It's awfully subjective. Maybe I'm making this too difficult (sorry, I'm a lawyer, I can't help it). But unless you use the default presets (which defeats the purpose of using RAW), you can't submit an image that hasn't had some adjustments.

So I think that this is Andromedaslove's contest and she can make the rules to best suit her. She can leave it worded as "minimal editing" and reserve the right to disqualify anyone if something looks overdone.

True, but I can't help but think that being more specific would make things easier on Dana in the long run.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

It wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a list of things that can't be done. Things like no cloning except to remove dust spots; no composites, HDR's or images that otherwise combine more than one exposure; no spot editing or selections; no effects filters. Those all seem to be things that Dana would like to avoid.

I agree completely with you, here.

As you say, it gets trickier when you start talking about contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc., but it seems to me that if you want to make it simple to police, then you might as well allow those types of adjustments, especially if you're going to allow images that were shot in RAW. How much saturation is too much? It's awfully subjective. Maybe I'm making this too difficult (sorry, I'm a lawyer, I can't help it). But unless you use the default presets (which defeats the purpose of using RAW), you can't submit an image that hasn't had some adjustments.

RAW processing definitely gives an advantage to the photographer using it because just about anything and everything can be adjusted and checked and adjusted again before a "final" JPG is created.

However, without RAW processing, the photographer has NO picture to submit!

Maybe Dana should just take a harder line on the obvious cloning/effects as well as sizing and borders. I don't think it would be too harsh for her to simply disqualify pics that she doesn't believe are valid for the competition and there could always be an "appeal" process (if necessary).

As steery1 points out regardless of whether these any real prize at stake, this IS a competition and competitions should be as fair as possible.

As it is, people with $200 P&S cameras are competing against DSLRs worth thousands of $$$! However, as we all know, it's not (only) the quality of the camera that makes for the best pictures and when scaled down to 800x600 a lot of the IQ issues are moot, anyway.

In any case, I'd rather see these competitions continue as a test of the photographers' eye and skills, and not simply "who's got the best camera gear and the most time and the latest/coolest software to PP their files."

 

[andromedaslove]

I'm with you. I hope I don't sound like a whiner here, but despite the fact that I've always enjoyed these contests, at this point I'm kind of reluctant to enter, not so much because I'm afraid of being accused of too much editing (although maybe my images look more "processed" than I think they do), but because I don't know where that line is that I shouldn't cross.

I don't want to make anyone feel like they shouldn't enter the contest. That's not the point I am trying to make whatsoever. The more talented/professional shots are the ones that give us inspiration. I know my photos have improved alot just since starting this contest. However, there are lines being crossed. It is just my opinion, but when you have to reduce noise, intensify colors, sharpen, etc, you are changing the picture. There are some that are drastic, there are some that are subtle, but it is being done in almost every single contest. There isn't a way for me to police this. I can't go through every single photo trying to discern who has been editing and wether or not it is edited to the point of disqualification. I can't just disqualify people, I can't just go around accusing them of breaking the rules. If I had known that people couldn't be trusted to follow the rules of the contest and that I would have to run around policing it so strictly I may not have started it to begin with. I understand that this is a contest and people get competitive and want to win, but COME ON! I have seen some entries that it is almost plain to see that things have been edited out to make the picture better, or colors that have been so intensified that they are almost blinding.

The entire reason I went with the wording of "MINIMAL EDITING" is to allow the users that shoot RAW to continue working with their photos however they need to, but I have stated over and over again that I don't think people should be able to change the photograph. If the photo is crappy, but you can make it look better by tweaking it, then that isn't fair. If I take a picture on a dark ride and don't get my settings correct and their is too much noise, guess what?! It's a bad picture, it doesn't mean I should run it through software to make it better. It means that maybe next time I need to try different settings until I find what works. Same thing goes with blur, lighting, etc. I know there are a few of you that think that I am being too harsh, and for that I am sorry, it is not my intention. See, I go to WDW multiple times a year, and while I am there I practice taking pictures of anything and everything in sight. Looking really hard for that perfect shot or shots. I have been learning from everyone here about the f-stops, exposure, ISO, and I have been using that knowledge to my advantage and it has shown in the pictures that I am taking. What's the point of all of that if my newly found "artistic talent" is going to be trumped by those with the talent and the expensive software? See.... I wanna win too, but not by changing my pictures. I want to win more contests by taking better pictures. Does that make any sense?

Dana

 

[steery1]

Dana, I feel your pain. It is a difficult one and I'm glad I'm not in your shoes having to deal with it on top of the laborious work of running the contest also.

I see it the same as Fitzperry and LPZ Stitch. ................

Sizing and borders - easy, black and white, no grey areas here

Editing/RAW conversion - not so easy. To reduce the "grey area" here just have a simple list that I (and everyone else hopefully) can stick to. If its not on the list you cant do it. I know I will stick to it and if some dont - hang them up and beat them with sticks.
Only kidding. If some dont stick to the list theres absolutely nothing can be done. But at least I and us all will know EXACTLY what is permissable and what is not.

 

[DVC Jen]

My one big concern since I do know my colors can come across as really eye popping sometimes is that they may be viewed as my enhancing them via photoshop or even raw processing when I am not.

I simply have the settings on my camera set to make them pop a bit more in landscapes and to soften them up a bit in portraits.

Is that considered editing? And if so - why would it be considered editing any more than exposure compensation would?

Not an easy decision and I am certainly glad I am not the one who has to make these calls.

 

[MICKEY88]

I guess I'm still confused on the raw thing also, I've debated this before, a raw image does not have to be edited, when you open it with your software, the software has a set of default values..

open it,save it as a jpeg without making changes and you have your contest entry..

if you absolutely need to edit every raw file, then you are not getting a proper exposure..

another option would be to shoot in raw/jpeg format..that way you have your raw for your own personal use and a jpeg for the contest..

I agree with the idea that the purpose of the contest is to share pics with everyone, but when some people are editing there pics to make sure they stand out above the rest, other people are discouraged from entering.., no editing would even the playing field for those with pro dslrs and those with a 100 dollar p&s.


as I've said everytime this topic comes up I'm thankful for the time & work that goes into this contest for us,

for those people wanting editing in a contest, start a seperate contest..

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I simply have the settings on my camera set to make them pop a bit more in landscapes and to soften them up a bit in portraits.

Good point. My Canon S3 has a lot of color options from Neutral to Vivid (I generally just use Positive Film for a little kick, but not so much as Vivid). You can also set the sharpness and contrast and some other "JPEG processing" right in the camera.

For the most part, I think anything that can be done in-camera should be legal in PP (for you RAW guys).

I don't think any of the cameras on the market can do Levels or Curves; but Sharpness/Contrast should be fair game....

It would be nice if we could all just agree that if you're spending way more time in PP than in composing the picture and selecting camera settings, you're doing too much PP...!

 

[MICKEY88]

I simply have the settings on my camera set to make them pop a bit more in landscapes and to soften them up a bit in portraits.

Is that considered editing? And if so - why would it be considered editing any more than exposure compensation would?

.

it actually is different, exposure compensation forces the camera to give more or less exposure than the meter is recommending..and can be done with film cameras an easier way than getting a meter reading, then opening your aperture or changing your shutter speed to give more or less exposure...it has nothing to do with the in camera processor.it's done before the image is captured


increasing or decreasing sauturation, is done with the in camera processor..

changing the image that has been captured..

 

[MICKEY88]

Good point. My Canon S3 has a lot of color options from Neutral to Vivid (I generally just use Positive Film for a little kick, but not so much as Vivid). You can also set the sharpness and contrast and some other "JPEG processing" right in the camera.

For the most part, I think anything that can be done in-camera should be legal in PP (for you RAW guys).

I don't think any of the cameras on the market can do Levels or Curves; but Sharpness/Contrast should be fair game....

It would be nice if we could all just agree that if you're spending way more time in PP than in composing the picture and selecting camera settings, you're doing too much PP...!

this all sounds good in theory, but realistically in the world I live in, if you don't like the rules of a contest, you simply don't enter, where else other than here would people try to change the rules rather than just abiding by them..

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

this all sounds good in theory, but realistically in the world I live in, if you don't like the rules of a contest, you simply don't enter, where else other than here would people try to change the rules rather than just abiding by them..

I'm not recommending that we change the rules at all ... I'm just looking to clarify what Dana's "MINIMAL EDITING" really means.

Personally, I'd be happy if the rules were a flat "NO PP, except for resizing" -- I'm much more satisfied when the pic that comes out of my S3 is as good as I want it to be, when I know I've nailed the exposure and the composition -- but, I'd also hate for people to think I was cheating just because my camera is set on Vivid for a shot of colorful flowers.

 

[fitzperry]

open it,save it as a jpeg without making changes and you have your contest entry..

if you absolutely need to edit every raw file, then you are not getting a proper exposure..

That's not necessarily true. If I'm shooting JPEGs, I can adjust settings in camera--color, sharpening, etc.--but not when I'm shooting RAW.

another option would be to shoot in raw/jpeg format..that way you have your raw for your own personal use and a jpeg for the contest..

That's not much help to those of us who have a hard drive full of RAW files and no new trips to Disney planned. Not only that, my only RAW+JPEG option is a basic JPEG. Who wants a bunch of those on their computer?

 

[fitzperry]

this all sounds good in theory, but realistically in the world I live in, if you don't like the rules of a contest, you simply don't enter, where else other than here would people try to change the rules rather than just abiding by them..

I'm trying to understand the rules so that I can abide by them.

 

[gokenin]

ok have it on I think it all comes down to the old SLR vs everyone else contest. I understand that having and SLR gives you greater control over almost everything but it also tends to give you a greater advantage in any contest as well. The average person that has a P&S will take a picture that they love and think is great but they will more than likely never have the courage to post it because theirs looks worse than an SLR image of the same thing. The only way to make the contest far is to really make the SLR images be a seperate contest that way they can edit the raw all they want and make it perfect. No point and shot not even the most advanced bridge cameras shot in raw so there is no way a non SLR owner can tweek his or her images to compete with someone that has full access to all the RAW information. Now I am off to play with my S3 right after i take off the asbestos suit

 

[MICKEY88]

That's not necessarily true. If I'm shooting JPEGs, I can adjust settings in camera--color, sharpening, etc.--but not when I'm shooting RAW.


adjusting in camera is not post processing, pics should be used as they come from the camera,it's rather simple..


That's not much help to those of us who have a hard drive full of RAW files and no new trips to Disney planned. Not only that, my only RAW+JPEG option is a basic JPEG. Who wants a bunch of those on their computer?

a lot of my entries have been files that came from my days of shooting film and the first generation scanning to cd that labs did, which didn't produce the best of digital images, but if I want to enter badly enough that's what I use..

again, the initial thought still holds true, what other contest, changes the rules to make it convenient for people to enter.

 

[fitzperry]

If I had known that people couldn't be trusted to follow the rules of the contest and that I would have to run around policing it so strictly I may not have started it to begin with. I understand that this is a contest and people get competitive and want to win, but COME ON! I have seen some entries that it is almost plain to see that things have been edited out to make the picture better, or colors that have been so intensified that they are almost blinding.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I think that most people want to follow the rules. It's just that reasonable people can differ on the subject of what constitutes "minimal editing." For instance, it sounds like you would consider using Noiseware to be outside the bounds of minimal editing. I wouldn't have thought so. Many cameras perform some sort of noise reduction in camera, and it's not done to "change" the image but rather to clean it up and more accurately reflect the scene you were trying to capture. It's also not just useful to salvage an image that was screwed up to begin with. I mean about the only way you're going to get decent shots of a nighttime parade is to bump up the ISO, which is likely to result in some noise, even in a properly exposed image.

See, I go to WDW multiple times a year, and while I am there I practice taking pictures of anything and everything in sight. Looking really hard for that perfect shot or shots. I have been learning from everyone here about the f-stops, exposure, ISO, and I have been using that knowledge to my advantage and it has shown in the pictures that I am taking. What's the point of all of that if my newly found "artistic talent" is going to be trumped by those with the talent and the expensive software? See.... I wanna win too, but not by changing my pictures. I want to win more contests by taking better pictures. Does that make any sense?

Maybe that's the difference. I don't go to WDW multiple times each year, so I can't go back and try again when I screw up. I have no choice but to sit in front of the computer and try to make the crappy image look presentable.

 

[MICKEY88]

No point and shot not even the most advanced bridge cameras shot in raw so there is no way a non SLR owner can tweek his or her images to compete with someone that has full access to all the RAW information. Now I am off to play with my S3 right after i take off the asbestos suit

I respectfully disagree, my Minolta A2 does indeed shoot in raw,


plus I think a person getting a good exposure with a p&s can indeed edit a jpeg, resulting in a pic that could compete with a raw from a dslr..

 

[ukcatfan]

No point and shot not even the most advanced bridge cameras shot in raw so there is no way a non SLR owner can tweek his or her images to compete with someone that has full access to all the RAW information.

You are incorrect. There are actually a decent number of them that do offer RAW. The Canon "G" series for example. The G7 does not, but the announced G9 does as well as the older models.

Kevin

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

again, the initial thought still holds true, what other contest, changes the rules to make it convenient for people to enter.

Contests and competitions always upgrade their rules as needed.

In addition, I don't think anyone is suggesting any radical rules changes, just clarification on the existing rules.

I know with *I* think "MINIMAL EDITING" is ... but, it seems, some people think that minimal editing also includes sitting down with Photoshop, and the Clone tool, to (essentially) completely alter the picture that they actually took!

And, as has been pointed out, the folks taking RAW pics *do* gain a significant advantage (on top of their already better DSLR performance), because the very nature of RAW processing necessitates tweaking the White Balance/Sharpness/etc....

 

[MICKEY88]

Maybe I'm being naive, but I think that most people want to follow the rules. It's just that reasonable people can differ on the subject of what constitutes "minimal editing." For instance, it sounds like you would consider using Noiseware to be outside the bounds of minimal editing. I wouldn't have thought so. Many cameras perform some sort of noise reduction in camera. It's also not just useful to salvage an image that was screwed up to begin with. I mean about the only way you're going to get decent shots of a nighttime parade is to bump up the ISO, which is likely to result in some noise, even in a properly exposed image.



Maybe that's the difference. I don't go to WDW multiple times each year, so I can't go back and try again when I screw up. I have no choice but to sit in front of the computer and try to make the crappy image look presentable.

reasonable people can cetainly differ, but in the end, the person running the contest sets the rules, enter any contest in the real world, and if you are found in violation of the rules, you are disqualified.


as for noiseware yes it is beyond minimal editing,

ok so if evryone has noise in there night parade shots, then the playing field is even,