As the newspaper report stands without further clarification nothing makes sense.
The original winners image is better, no doubt about that.
The key is the phrase "but the level of manipulation means that the photograph gained an unfair advantage" So obviously some manipulation was allowed which begs the question what is too much? If a detailed list of allowed manipulation was given then no argument if the rules were broken. If no such detailed list was given then it means what amounted to too much manipulation was down to the whim of the judges on the day which is hardly fair. To my simple mind, without further clarification about the rules, if the amount of manipulation allowed was not tightly and clearly defined in the rules then the original winner should stand.
|