Please read if you enter Weekly Photo Contests!!

[roger_ramjet]

Those are the rules (and I admit I had never read them) but I respectfully disagree with the idea entirely. There is no "straight out of the camera", all of our cameras do a lot of processing between the sensor and the output. The exception is RAW, where the photographer makes the decisons instead of the camera. The point is the decisions are made regardless and "out of the camera" becomes nonsense.

Ansel Adams, credited with being a "realist" photographer considered the idea to be hogwash, explaining that his photographs were a very great departure from what the scene actually looked like. He *made* the image into what he saw in his mind. His most famous prints included much processing in the camera, the developing, and the printing. By definition, Adams fine prints would not be welcome in this board's contests.

What is photography? In this case it is limited by an arbitrary set of rules that are both nonexistent and unenforceable. I have seen the same mindset in other contests and the fact is apart from the obvious, you can't tell what has been done to an image when it has been done well. Which has been much the point of creative photography all along.

Obviously I am disappointed in this decision and feel it reduces the contests to little more than snapshots. I had hoped we were striving for better than that, at least in the interest of showing what can be done and learning from it. Setting too many limits only limits our horizons.


sincerely,

boB

Perhaps you can begin a contest regarding 'Best Edited Photos,' then. Not everyone has access to high-end editing equipment, or even high-end cameras for that matter. This isn't a fine arts photography forum. Sure, this isn't a purists' contest, but a more even playing field is warranted, unless we wish to restrict the contest to the same, excellent photographers submitting award-winning images every time.

This is supposed to be fun, not super-competitive.

 

[andromedaslove]

boB,
Unfortunately, we will just have to agree to disagree. Have you taken a look at our list of winners? winners list. I just went through that entire list and there are some amazing photos that have not been so obviously edited. There are actually more than a few of them that look to have come straight outta the camera, I know the ones that I have won with have been.

A picture can show so much, it can show every single bit of the magic of WDW without being edited to do so.

Obviously I am disappointed in this decision and feel it reduces the contests to little more than snapshots. I had hoped we were striving for better than that, at least in the interest of showing what can be done and learning from it. Setting too many limits only limits our horizons.

Lord knows I don't wanna limit anyone's horizons.... and here I thought I was doing something fun for everyone. I just didn't want to see those people that are using photo editing software having an unfair advantage to those that are doing the best that their cameras and eyes can do.

You know what?! For tonight I am done discussing this. I will come back in the morning when I have had some time to simmer down, and look at all of this with a much clearer set of eyes.

 

[boBQuincy]

You *are* doing something fun for everyone, and please don't ever stop. The time and effort you put into the contest is greatly appreciated!

boB

 

[MICKEY88]

EVEN Minolta DSLRs allow you to adjust settings that will be applied to jpegs, I am not sure what factory default settings would be.

Minolta 7D custom image parameters.
• Contrast (-2 to +2)
• Saturation (-2 to +2)
• Sharpness (-2 to +2)
• Hue (-2 to +2)


I know that, I already said Minolta allows you to boost the settings, I have a 7D, but Minoltas factory default settings don't do the sharpening or saturation that other brands do....


I guess since I shoot RAW, I can not enter the contest since ALL RAW files REQUIRE adjustments "post camera."

A properly exposed RAW file doesn't {require} any processing other than conversion to jpeg or tiff for use with other programs

 

[MICKEY88]

I don't so much have a problem with a photo that is converted to B&W or Sepia, as long as the picture itself remains the same.

the problem is, a picture converted to sepia or b&w doesn't remain the same, one way to rescue a poorlyexposed picture, whuch will lack color and punch, is to convert it to b&w, it will look 100% better...

 

[MICKEY88]

Those are the rules (and I admit I had never read them) but I respectfully disagree with the idea entirely. There is no "straight out of the camera", all of our cameras do a lot of processing between the sensor and the output. The exception is RAW, where the photographer makes the decisons instead of the camera. The point is the decisions are made regardless and "out of the camera" becomes nonsense.


Obviously I am disappointed in this decision and feel it reduces the contests to little more than snapshots. I had hoped we were striving for better than that, at least in the interest of showing what can be done and learning from it. Setting too many limits only limits our horizons.


sincerely,

boB

I respectfully disagree.. out of the camera is not nonsense...processing in camera is unavoidable....processing by computer is not unavoidable

if any picture that has not been edited with software is nothing more than a snapshot, then every portrait/wedding photographer etc. that worked pre-pc took nothing but snapshots ??

people will learn more by trying to get a great shot at the moment of shutter release than they will by just taking rapid fire pictures and processing the heck out of them..

but no matter what we all feel, this was a great idea, started by someone who wanted to do something fun for everyone, it is a much more level playing field if post processing is left out of the contest.

I'm quite sure the moderators would allow someone to run another contest that would include processing for those people who feel the need to process/edit every photo

 

[fitzperry]

Perhaps you can begin a contest regarding 'Best Edited Photos,' then. Not everyone has access to high-end editing equipment, or even high-end cameras for that matter. This isn't a fine arts photography forum. Sure, this isn't a purists' contest, but a more even playing field is warranted, unless we wish to restrict the contest to the same, excellent photographers submitting award-winning images every time.

This is supposed to be fun, not super-competitive.

You don't need "high-end editing equipment." In fact, one could make the argument that allowing photos to be edited (with inexpensive and sometimes even free software) actually levels the playing field. As you note, not everyone has the same quality camera. Some photos "come out of the camera" looking better because they were taken with a better camera. Or maybe with an expensive filter, the effect of which one might be able to approximate with a few clicks in Photoshop Elements. There's really no way to level the playing field completely, except perhaps to gather up everyone here, give each one the same disposable camera and turn 'em all loose in WDW.

Edited to add: I'm not trying to start a fight here. The person who is doing the work is free to impose whatever rules she wants, and the rest of us can either follow them or not enter. I just don't agree with the notion that "no editing" is necessarily the most egalitarian way of doing things.

 

[T. Lynn]

There's really no way to level the playing field completely, except perhaps to gather up everyone here, give each one the same disposable camera and turn 'em all loose in WDW.

Does that mean a free trip to Disney? If so, I'm game...

Anyway, I think the contest is fun. I just posted my first picture taken in 2003 and with my first digital non-the-less.

Even if we were allowed to edit, it wouldn't do me any good. It's all too new to me. Snap a picture and post it. Doesn't matter to me if someone has a better camera than myself. Doesn't mean they'd win either...

Your doing a great job and won't be able to please everyone. Thanks for the contest. I enjoy viewing the pictures.

 

[Anewman]

A properly exposed RAW file doesn't {require} any processing other than conversion to jpeg or tiff for use with other programs

I respectfully disagree...

Even if everyone could agree on what constitutes "properly exposed" the image still needs all the other variables to be adjusted just as they are in camera.

EXAMPLE(shot today)= Notice all Sliders including exposure are set to AUTO, so those adjustments are what ADOBE ACR felt were needed.

Now in your "opinion" it may not have been "properly exposed", I prefer to not agrue opinions. But I can tell you in the 2 years I have been shooting 99% RAW and over 50,000 shots, not once have I ever had an image that would look better with all those sliders set at zero(unprocessed).

Fact is that all those adjustments are made in CAMERA(when shooting Jpeg), so why would you feel that RAW files do not require them?

 

[fireplug]

Wow here I thought this was a fun way to share pics taken at WDW, etc and my wife and I actually were enjoying going through and picking out some pics to use each week. I guess in my naive little world that was that fun of this. I think that those of you who are experts in the field of photography and digital image manipulation can and do produce wonderful images. But I am not sure that was the purpose of this "contest".
Andromedaslove puts a lot of effort into this each week, and has posted the rules. Participate if you want, within the parameters of the contest. Or start your own artistic digital image presentation .


Steve

 

[CheshireVal]

You don't need "high-end editing equipment." In fact, one could make the argument that allowing photos to be edited (with inexpensive and sometimes even free software) actually levels the playing field. As you note, not everyone has the same quality camera. Some photos "come out of the camera" looking better because they were taken with a better camera. Or maybe with an expensive filter, the effect of which one might be able to approximate with a few clicks in Photoshop Elements.

I don't think so. First off, not everyone has Photoshop or anything like it. Heck, I use Irfanview for my pictures, and its editing capability has definite limitations. Secondly, not everyone really knows enough about photo editing to be able to compete with those who do it every day.

I love having this contest stay simple. I think there are plenty of threads here where people can showcase their editing skills (the selective coloring thread comes to mind). Maybe you guys could start your own contest.

Andromedaslove, please don't be put off by all this-- your contests are great and I think most people here are really enjoying them. Thank you!!

Edited to add: I do believe-- and have always believed-- that a truly good photo comes from the eye. You can have a fantastic picture without editing anything, and that has been shown in these contests.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Edited to add: I do believe-- and have always believed-- that a truly good photo comes from the eye. You can have a fantastic picture without editing anything, and that has been shown in these contests.

That's what I believe too... and so does Mickey88.

 

[fitzperry]

I don't think so. First off, not everyone has Photoshop or anything like it.

You can buy a decent photo editor for next to nothing, and there are lots of free tools available on the web. If you're posting photos in an on-line photography contest, you have access to photo editing software.

Secondly, not everyone really knows enough about photo editing to be able to compete with those who do it every day.

Not everyone has a decent camera that they know how to use well or a good eye for taking pictures. Should there be restrictions on that too?

I love having this contest stay simple. I think there are plenty of threads here where people can showcase their editing skills (the selective coloring thread comes to mind). Maybe you guys could start your own contest.

It's not a big deal to me whether editing is allowed or not. It's Andromedaslove's contest, and she can make whatever rules she wants. And I too appreciate the time and effort she puts into running this contest, because it's fun. The only reason I jumped into this fray was to respond to the argument that the no editing rule makes the playing field level, and that's not necessarily true.

 

[barrie]

andromedaslove - I don't have much time for the DIS boards these days but I always find my way to your photo contests. It doesn't really matter how other people want the rules to be. You set it up, you're spending the time to keep it going - it's your baby, do it how you want. I love the photo contests! Thank you for all your hard work on them. Barrie

 

[MICKEY88]

I respectfully disagree...

Even if everyone could agree on what constitutes "properly exposed" the image still needs all the other variables to be adjusted just as they are in camera.

EXAMPLE(shot today)= Notice all Sliders including exposure are set to AUTO, so those adjustments are what ADOBE ACR felt were needed.

Now in your "opinion" it may not have been "properly exposed", I prefer to not agrue opinions. But I can tell you in the 2 years I have been shooting 99% RAW and over 50,000 shots, not once have I ever had an image that would look better with all those sliders set at zero(unprocessed).

Fact is that all those adjustments are made in CAMERA(when shooting Jpeg), so why would you feel that RAW files do not require them?

I never said an unedited raw file would please everyone, just that they don't mandate editing...it all comes down to personal taste, some people feel the need to boost saturation, others don't,


but a properly exposed raw photo, should be fine as is...

the first batch of photos I shot with my 7d were raw and I didn't feel the need to edit anything..., could they be made more interesting or more artisitc with editing, yes, but they can quite easily stand on their own..

as far as adjustments being neccessary just because they are done in camera, again I respectfully disagree, that is Why Minolta didn't include the in camera processing that other companies did, with default settings, they believed that their customers were more purists and wanted the image as natural as possible...

 

[CheshireVal]

You can buy a decent photo editor for next to nothing, and there are lots of free tools available on the web. If you're posting photos in an on-line photography contest, you have access to photo editing software.

People shouldn't have to buy software to enter a disboard contest that's just supposed to be for fun. Shareware absolutely cannot compete with Photoshop or similar programs.

Not everyone has a decent camera that they know how to use well or a good eye for taking pictures. Should there be restrictions on that too?

If someone doesn't have a good eye for pictures, I'd really have to question why they'd ever want to enter a photo contest to begin with.

 

[MICKEY88]

the bottom line is this, rules are rules,


in 30+ years of photography I have never entered a contest, that I've found online, or in the many phot mags I've subscribed to, the reason being they all have had 1 rule I didn't like.

they all included the rule that the winner turn over all rights for the winning photo.

did I like that rule...no, did I think I should complain and expect the contest rules to be changed for me...no


the reality is, I had 2 choices, accept the rules and participate, or not accept the rules and not participate...

again I invite anyone who disagrees with these rules, to start up their own contest which allows any and all editing, I'd love to see what others can do, as well as to share some of my edited stuff, I have a folder on my pc that is titled "altered reality", it's full of pictures of the world as no one has ever seen it..unless they've been inside my warped mind...

 

[MICKEY88]

People shouldn't have to buy software to enter a disboard contest that's just supposed to be for fun. Shareware absolutely cannot compete with Photoshop or similar programs.


GIMP which is freeware is a very good program and will do much of what photo shop and paint shop pro will do, it's just not the most user friendly



If someone doesn't have a good eye for pictures, I'd really have to question why they'd ever want to enter a photo contest to begin with.

for fun...

 

[fitzperry]

People shouldn't have to buy software to enter a disboard contest that's just supposed to be for fun. Shareware absolutely cannot compete with Photoshop or similar programs.

If someone doesn't have a good eye for pictures, I'd really have to question why they'd ever want to enter a photo contest to begin with.

Interesting that you keep ignoring the point about camera equipment. Sure it's possible to do more with more expensive software. But it's also possible to do more with a high-end camera and lots of peripheral equipment. What's the difference?

 

[CheshireVal]

Interesting that you keep ignoring the point about camera equipment. Sure it's possible to do more with more expensive software. But it's also possible to do more with a high-end camera and lots of peripheral equipment. What's the difference?

Honestly I really don't understand why this whole thing has turned into such a big argument. Maybe I'm just not enough of a rebel to want to argue every little thing. Sometimes I like to sit back and just follow the rules.