Monthly competitions and image manipulation

[Mike Young]

Further to recent discussion in the April Competition thread regarding whether images that have been manipulated should be allowed. I thought a poll may help us decide whether to have a catagory for images that have been altered past a certain point.
The guide lines for this would have to be simple and clearly defined to make it fair and easy to administer.
I'm concerned that not everyone will have the skill, desire or the software to do some of the editing techniques, so it seems to me to make things fair we should have two catagories.

Obviously my vote will be a Yes please vote on your preference.

Until a decision has been made and some rules formulated, please keep your editing to a basic level, ie; crop, sharpen, levels, contrast, brightness etc.

[Gruditch]

I voted No because as the rules have not been set out yet, I don't know what I'm voting for, will for instance the simple removal of a stem of grass, a standard practise, be outlawed .
It will be a shame if two entries that should be battling it out, are stuck in two different competitions.
I also feel this is just a knee jerk reaction, that could lead to more trouble than it solves. Its only a matter of time before someone says "shouldn't that pick be in the other comp", indirectly calling the other persons honesty in to question, and then all hell will let loose.

Gruditch

[Mike Young]

It is not knee jerk reaction, a discussion was started in the April competion thread which led me to believe that some folk may want change and that we should at least look at the present system to see if it can be improved or made fairer, this is purely a fact finding project.

In the mean time I have asked that only basic image manipulation takes place and that no comments are made on current comp entries, these points seemed to be the main areas of contention, this is not written in stone, just a temporary stage until we can establish the strength of feeling.

Commenting on monthly competition entries
From my point of view, long reams of "chat" in the current monthly comp area, make it tedious to scroll through when compiling the entries for voting.
Also, I like be be able to scroll quickly between comp images, sometimes to compare one against the other, if there is pages of text and duplicated images between comp entries, this is far more difficult.
There is plenty of room within the forums generally for other "fun", and there is no reason why a seperate topic could not be opened if an individual has something to say about any topic or image.

Regarding comp catagories
I would have thought two catagories would have been fairly easy to select, for instance;

A In this cat, only... Sharpen,crop,rotate, levels, Hue& Sat, brightness & contrast, dodge & burn ie; BASIC

B All other techniques, ie; cloning , multiple images and so on

I have planned to set up other polls, but am extremely busy at the moment so please bear with me.

[Pete Eeles]

... the simple removal of a stem of grass, a standard practise ...

Really?

I have planned to set up other polls ...

Such as "Does making non-neutral comments against polls bias subsequent votes, thereby making the poll redundant?"

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gwenhwyfar]

Ironically I also voted no, because I like the comp the way it is now, with the friendly banter included. I know that you are trying to make it even for everyone, but isn’t that the whole point of a comp - the best person wins – obviously.
Then for those who are determined to do better - try and try again. I think it took me a whole year before I got what I called a decent shot.
Keep the monthly comps fun and save the serious stuff for the yearly comp.

The photo shop stuff - Maurice Pugh advised me at the UK Butterflies photography workshop day, that my Common Blue pic, would be better if I removed the blade of grass running at an angle in front of the butterfly’s antenna.
Sorry Pete




Am I in trouble now, I mean again. Apologizes for replying to an active vote, but you said I could do what I want!!

[Pete Eeles]

Apologizes for replying to an active vote, but you said I could do what I want!!

I can see that comment is really going to cost me

I must admit, I'm coming round to the idea of just sticking with the way things currently are. I'm sure Mike doesn't need the hassle of running 2 ... or more ... competitions each month! I suggest we just "see how it goes" and if something wins that has clearly been over-manipulated ... then we can think again.

And there's something dead weird about your Common Blue. It's not only a "regular" aberration (in my opinion), but it's also missing the upperside, underwing "spot" that distinguishes Common Blue from Brown Argus. Unless you removed it, of course

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

I don't have very strong feelings either way, because we can always have discussions (like these) after the voting anyway, and we can ejnoy disagreeing with each other and teasing each other and discovering how other people see things - nothing is really at stake in the monthly competitions except the pleasure we get from them.

As a naturalist, though, not an artist (I'm not saying people can't be both), I take particular pleasure when a moment of life is captured, rather than created. I will always vote for photos that enable me to witness something special or beautiful as if I were there. I don't get quite the same thrill if I know that what is special or beautiful about it was added. Other people will think differently, and that is fine by me!

Guy

[Gwenhwyfar]

Here are some closed wing shots of the same common blue, apart from resizing to fit on the web, each one of these common blue shots taken, has not been altered in anyway.

[Martin]

there's something dead weird about your Common Blue.....it's also missing the upperside, underwing "spot" that distinguishes Common Blue from Brown Argus.

I've got one of them too, except mine's a male...



Martin.

[Padfield]

This form, icarinus, is occasional in males and females. On the continent it makes females very hard to tell from Chapman's blues. Chapman's blue is, however, always associated with sainfoin.

Guy

[Mike Young]

The photo shop stuff - Maurice Pugh advised me at the UK Butterflies photography workshop day, that my Common Blue pic, would be better if I removed the blade of grass running at an angle in front of the butterfly’s antenna.

And I think he's right, Lisa, I would have defo got rid of it, it improves an already great shot and in my opinion does not drastically damage the natural integrity of the image.
Nothing more than digital "gardening" and certainly better than ripping up half the grass for real

[Gwenhwyfar]

I like your gardening term Mike

[Jack Harrison]

We have to be realistic here and think of PhotoShop etc as the "digital darkroom" (not a term that I invented - but it's a very good one). In the old days of film and slides, people quite happily used graduated filters or in the darkroom, dodged and burned. What's the difference with what people do today using digital techniques?

BBC Countryfile photo comp 2008 has this in the rules:

"Images may be digitally enhanced to remove spots or scratches, but not manipulated. Entrants can enhance the picture to make it brighter, clearer etc, but not manipulate the content. BBC Countryfile and the judges reserve the right to exclude any image they believe may have been excessively treated so as to alter its authenticity."

Last Sunday, John Craven amplified and said that that sharpening, rotating, cropping, and similar were all allowed but that nothing should be added or taken away. That seems simple enough. I think the BBC have struck the balance just right. It happens to be pretty much what I do already.

Jack

[Rogerdodge]

.........but that nothing should be added or taken away. That seems simple enough. I think the BBC have struck the balance just right. It happens to be pretty much what I do already.

This is so very tricky - sadly nothing is black & white (pun intended).
In my latest competition entry I had to remove a lot of dust spots from the image.
(I cannot afford an Arctic Buttefly" at the moment )
Whilst I was "at it" a very out-of-focus grass stem that just appeared in the lower rhs of the picture, and upset the compositional balance, also got removed.
Did I do wrong?
Would anyone ever know had I not mentioned it?
Does it really matter?
If the original image isn't well focussed, sharp due to good lenses or good technique (or both), reasonably well composed, and exposed such that whites aren't blown, and shadow isn't black, then no amount of Photoshop can save it!
I say, let anything go - the voting will sort it out.
All, of course, just my humble opinion.

Roger Harding

[Martin]

This is so very tricky - sadly nothing is black & white (pun intended).
In my latest competition entry I had to remove a lot of dust spots from the image.
(I cannot afford an Arctic Buttefly" at the moment )
Whilst I was "at it" a very out-of-focus grass stem that just appeared in the lower rhs of the picture, and upset the compositional balance, also got removed.
Did I do wrong?
Would anyone ever know had I not mentioned it?
Does it really matter?
If the original image isn't well focussed, sharp due to good lenses or good technique (or both), reasonably well composed, and exposed such that whites aren't blown, and shadow isn't black, then no amount of Photoshop can save it!
I say, let anything go - the voting will sort it out.
All, of course, just my humble opinion.

Roger Harding

Agree 100%

[Jack Harrison]

Here's one I took on Saturday.

With white species, I find it worthwhile underexposing by 1/3 stop to avoid washing out the subtle whites. But then the other colours, in particular the background can be rather too dark. This is where PhotoShop (Adjust lighting = Shadows/Highlights) can work its magic.

The left image is unprocessed except for resize. The right after PhotoShop.

Now I realise that some will say the result isn't natural, but I would argue it's much closer to the scene AS I SAW IT at the time, ie background foliage wasn't appearing especially dark in the strong sunshine. I would agree that the dandelion colour isn't quite right, but that could easily be tweaked.

Jack

[NickB]

"Gwenhwyfar"
"The photo shop stuff - Maurice Pugh advised me at the UK Butterflies photography workshop day, that my Common Blue pic, would be better if I removed the blade of grass running at an angle in front of the butterfly’s antenna."
Exactly the same advice I have had when showing pictures at my camera club! Doing some gardening seems to be expected in some quarters!
I'm happy to avoid this for the purposes of the competition here; I am improving my skills to improve the reception my pictures receive elsewhere!
N

[BRIAN]

After reading all the comments for and against another competition section, I go with the no's, perhaps just a comment with the entry, although some image manipulation is obvious, a bit of digital gardening to any photo to enhance it should be allowed, we do have a high standard from a few members and the rest of us have to try harder.
Looking forward to entries for the May competition, perhaps a night school course on digital photo manipulation is required, if only I had the time

[NickB]

Having had a similar debate at my camera club recently .....
I have come to the conclusion that the use of image processing - especially "gardening" in wildlife photography - comes from the fact that we are all getting lazy!
Lazy in that we want instant results!
Lazy in that we may not move or wait to get a clearer angle (difficult and not always possible)
Lazy so that we just snap away and "clean" it up later!
And it seems to apply to all types of photography.
Just because we have Photoshop, it appears we should use it!
How about right first time?
If we can "create" the perfect image, why even bother to try to get it right first time?
That's why I say image manipulation helps promote lazy or sloppy practice........
Rant over......
N