A step to far in landscape competition
 

A photographer disqualiifed for photoshopping his entries in national comp.
A super photo, but what are your thoughts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oshopping.html

Harry

Hard to say without seeing the rules of the competition. It must be very hard to write rules which actually specify precisely what is allowed and what is too much. If the rules do not ban something then it is allowed. On a personal level the amount of photoshopping is up to each photographer and what he is happy with but to be honest about what has been done. For instance deliberately trying to pass a captive animal off as true wildlife which has also been done in the past in major competitions.

I really like the entry, that would be hard to take, thinking you had won then be disqualified...you would think there would be rules stated before you entered the comp...I think if you entered a competition you would have to make sure you read all the rules...I am happy to use photoshop but never try to pass anything off as a true photo.

I guess it really comes down to what is in the rules - if these do in fact specifically ban the type of processing he has done then fair enough. It's just a shame that it was identified so late. However, what is too much manipulation? Bear in mind this is a monotone image, so just to achieve that already involves some major transformations of the original image. I dont think anyone would object to a mono conversion. Beyond that, if he has done any major work, it has been done very well as it is hard to spot anything that couldnt be done with 'standard' techniques of dodging, burning etc.
I rather like the image - certainly more than the new winner, though that does also have appeal.

I too wondered what exactly made the judges take such a huge decision. They must be aware that most images are manipulated in order to present their best colour/contrast etc. Perhaps the judges caught sight of the RAW original and realised that - for example - Lindisfarne was transposed from another shot! Now in my books that would constitute grounds for disqual. The fact is we just don't know, I wish the judges would make a fuller statement.

My guess is, having been to Linisfarne several times, that the upturned boats and the castle are from two different shots that have been brought together. Not sure of course, wish the judges had said.

Before digital photo era in darkroom was done a lot of "manipulation" (dodging, burning, masking, sandwitching, cross processing, toning, polaroid transfer....not mentioning also while photographing: masking, double explosures,...) and no one had a problem with it. Why now is such a fus about digital manipulation? Every photographer/artist! has his idea about how his photo should look, how he wants it to be, how his mind eye see it. From my modest point of view PP is an important part of a final result, as important as the original image. As you say it's all down to "small print". Also agree that old winning picture had higher standard than the new winner.

Susan

+1 to that Susan

Completely agree with Susan in general terms. However, for this competition, if the original winner did break the rules of this competition then it should be disqualified or the other competitors would have been at an unfair disadvantage for following the rules.
We cannot judge whether the rules have been broken or not so can make no judgement. In this case the fact that the original winner may be better is irrelevant.

"Charlie Waite, the competition’s founder, said: “This is extremely regrettable and it appears there was no deliberate intention to deceive the judges, but the level of manipulation means that this photograph gained an unfair advantage in this category and in winning the overall competition."
- copied from the newspaper. No mentioning about breaking rules of this competition (as these are not rather mentioned). For me this bit translated into simple english: The first winner is simply better! And we all know this.

Susan

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.

The point is not probably in manipulation, but the vinning price is very big, so depends....
I live in Italy and learnt not to trust anyone..... everything is possible... but this way it shouts a bit too much to me.... rather stop

Susan

I find myself with a foot in both camps here. I did like the Lindisfarne picture very much and I do not like the newly promoted winner at all in fact in my view it is not landscape, however:

Extract from the competition rules:
"Banned editing procedures include removal of fences, moving trees and stripping in sky from another image. "

Apparently this is what Byrne did. The sky is false and therefore breaks the rules. He also says that he cloned out some unwanted boats and further states that, ‘I did not remove anything that was fixed down and if you stand in that spot my photo is what you will see.'

Interestingly, he admits to not reading the rules before entering the contest. Writing on his website after being stripped of his title, he said: ‘While I don't think what I have done to the photo is wrong in any way, I do understand it's against the regulations so accept the decision. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.'

What to say? He did break the rules and admits doing so. I say what a shame, it was a lovely image, he was not cheating, just ill-informed and I wish him well after his disappointment.

Thanks Graham, I do agree with you. If he broke the competition rules then there is unfortunately no argument, he has to be disqualified. Great shame as the final image is superb.

I am glad I was not right here, so I appology. Fantastic image, it would make a nice print on the wall in any modern interior.

Susan

I agree Mike - and very decent of him to behave as he has done after the event too, unlike the carry-on with the set-up shot for the wildlife POTY a while back.

My thoughts too. There's improving a photo with PS tweaking, and theres manipulation of more than one image into one. To me, that would be cheating, however, as we don't know what PS was carried out, its hard to comment for sure.