Photo Competition Discussion Thread

[henk4]

Pretty much, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Rather have a great shot with significant processing than a mediocre/poor shot with none. Not to say great shots aren't possible without post-processing, but very few can't be improved in some regard with some processing.

I would seriously be interested in seeing your shot the way it was recorded by the camera.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Editing is fine, There is no limit to it; editing is a process in itself that is taken into account even as you are depressing the shutter. Post-processing has long been important in photography though no more so than now. Post-processing is what makes photography an art is most cases, I'm not saying it can't be without it but what people strive to portray in their images is suited to certain post processing steps; originality is found in post processing and it refines their images. Any shot can be helped by editing, and mostly, I agree with all Pat has said.

fernando cascais photos - This guy has fantastic images, but without post processing their effect would be minimal and not the same at all.

The same goes for cubist photographers such as David Hockney. What they are trying to achieve isn't possible without minimal or extreme pp.

Leon, I do not understand the idea your trying to convey in terms of what the criteria of a "great" shot is. Henk, you seem to be constantly arguing your case against these wonderful images, yet its seems pointless and slightly ignorant (not intending to offend just inform).

[henk4]

Any shot can be helped by editing, and mostly, I agree with all Pat has said.

Any shot can also be destryed by editing....I showed the trigger photo for this debate to one of the best automotive photographers in the world, and his comment was: It does not look real.
I read the intro to Fernando cascais site, and he said something that images started with being painted. IMHO some images now look still like being painted.....(in the mean time photography was invented).

[pat_ernzen]

Any shot can also be destryed by editing....I showed the trigger photo for this debate to one of the best automotive photographers in the world, and his comment was: It does not look real.
I read the intro to Fernando cascais site, and he said something that images started with being painted. IMHO some images now look still like being painted.....(in the mean time photography was invented).

Who is this "one of the best automotive photographers in the world"? And nothing wrong with it being slightly surreal. Especially considering the nature of the photo/piece. Do you consider my shot "destryed by editing"? This is all good for a laugh. You seem to have a painfully narrow view of what photography is or "should be".

[LeonOfTheDead]

Leon, I do not understand the idea your trying to convey in terms of what the criteria of a "great" shot is.

Are there any objective and standard parameters to state a certain picture is "great", if not personal taste mostly?
Given the basic rules are respected, that the image is not blurred and so on, how could we all agree there is a way to state a picture is better than another one? We wouldn't "need" the competitions, right?

Like the last shot to win in the general competition from Roetgen. It won, so the majority of the voters thought it was the greater shot among the entries. On the other hand, the fact there were huge pixels on the side pf the flcused area made me thinks it was horrible (with all due respect that is), even if I liked the shot otherwise.

That may even be an artistic touch, a detail Roetgen wanted to apply to express something, and even more I'd say we need something more than just date/camera/title to decently judge a shot. Not that we are pros or something.

I like, for fun, to take long exposure shots while walking, or just leaving the camera on a table and doing my things. I took a shot from a pub a while ago, and it ended up with everything blurred except the empty wine glasses.
Clutch liked the idea of the blurred vision, now that the wine was over, and indeed I thought that too, but I didn't realize it until Clutch said that.

I'm pretty sure not everyone take shots without properly considering everything, especially those who do this for a living. What I'm saying is that knowing more about a picture would highly help understanding it, let alone "judging" it. Being technical settings, post processing or why I shooted that thing that way.

Nothing wrong with taking shots "randomly", as I did myself as in the pub, and certainly I'll keep doing it. Just, if there is something in a shot, explaining it a bit would be great.

[henk4]

Who is this "one of the best automotive photographers in the world"? And nothing wrong with it being slightly surreal. Especially considering the nature of the photo/piece. Do you consider my shot "destryed by editing"? This is all good for a laugh. You seem to have a painfully narrow view of what photography is or "should be".

I am glad you edited in "one of" because that is what I said. And no I will not reveal his name, just to prevent discussions about his qualities, but may be it tells you something that he already covered the LeMans 24 Hours before you were born and still does. (apart from many other things).
I asked you to show your shot the way the camera saw it. You have responded to that. So before I have seen the shot I cannot say that it was destroyed by editing. (not everything I say here is about you)

NB: There is a difference between "not real" and surreal.

[pat_ernzen]

I am glad you edited in "one of" because that is what I said. And no I will not reveal his name, just to prevent discussions about his qualities, but may be it tells you something that he already covered the LeMans 24 Hours before you were born and still does. (apart from many other things).

I asked you to show your shot the way the camera saw it. You have responded to that. So before I have seen the shot I cannot say that it was destroyed by editing. (not everything I say here is about you)

NB: There is a difference between "not real" and surreal.

Well, without saying who it is, there's no basis for his creditability. I could say that I showed the same photo to "the best automotive photographers in the world" and he said it was great. And I haven't been into photography for a great length of time, but I've been around long enough realized that there are two things that often mean dick when it comes to "photographers": Their gear and how long they've been doing it. I've seen old men with thousands of dollars of gear that have been taking photos for decades that consistently turn out shots that are no better than what kids are putting out with 1/10th the gear and 1/10th the experience.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "not real"/"surreal" argument, but "surreal" and "unreal" are synonymous and even when you look at the less literal definition (essentially dream-like), I'd say my shot certainly leans in that direction. If you're saying that the event just didn't happen or something, then I don't know what to say.

And to stay sort of on those same lines, I'd say that your shot in comp 255 is as "unrealistic" as mine, just in a different way.

I'll post the original JPEG a little later.

[henk4]

Well, without saying who it is, there's no basis for his creditability. I could say that I showed the same photo to "the best automotive photographers in the world" and he said it was great. And I haven't been into photography for a great length of time, but I've been around long enough realized that there are two things that often mean dick when it comes to "photographers": Their gear and how long they've been doing it. I've seen old men with thousands of dollars of gear that have been taking photos for decades that consistently turn out shots that are no better than what kids are putting out with 1/10th the gear and 1/10th the experience.

Thank you for trusting me.... ends the discussion.

[Sauc3]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to wade in here.

The biggest issue I see is that the idea of photography isn't one that is generally agreed upon here.

Photography is a form of art, a form of documentary and a form of commercial work. This means that there is essentially no bounds for photography, no boundaries to what can and cannot be created, both with camera and with processing afterwards.

There is a point where a photo becomes a 'photo-manipulation' with enough editing. There is a point past that where a photo stops being a photo, that is a VERY long way away from 99.9% of photos entered in these competitions. Pat's shot in competition 225 is nowhere close to either of these states, and is by all accounts a photo. There is processing that is applied that is in a sense a signature, but also a method of improving a photo, to either Pat or the viewer of the final product. I daresay that the style of photo is an improvement - IN MY EYES - from what the image originally would've been. This style of photo is one that is very often seen in commercial car photography, which is a very legitimate and recognized business that accepts the images as photos.

Henk's image, on the other hand, is one that is purely documentary, something which captures an occasion that happened not of his own accord, and has done nothing other than preserve the moment in a photo. One of the problems with this approach is that there is no technical thought put into this photo, there is no thought put into the composition of the image. The image lacks depth through anything other than depth of field, the highlights are blown and the shadows lack contrast and detail. The only reason that this image works is because of the flames, not because of the photography involved. This is a perfect example of where an image would benefit from the proper post-processing. Anything from minor to major work could be used to improve it, depending on the opinion and output of the work.

Looking at official awards - and I'm using some recent Australian professional awards as an example - I can daresay that none of the images that won any award did so without post processing.
Australian Institute of Professional Photography
The images in the above link are all judged to the highest standard and considered outright and without question photographs. In the various arguments I've seen it's claimed that if you want to achieve something in the end result, get it right in camera. That is simply not possible. You can get close to an end result, with in camera settings, but the tolerances are too great and the control of minute details not refined enough to realistically expect to get print worthy images straight out of the camera.
I've spent hours upon hours and 4-5 prints testing different methods so I could see the difference that careful post processing would make to a straight from the camera image. The results are astounding, the dodging and burning, selective contrast, slight colour manipulations etc. etc. that are achievable and make for a barely noticeable but very significant difference are so intricately a part of this thing we call photography it's impossible to ignore.

Photography is not just an image you take with a camera, it is having vision, an idea, a concept, a meaning behind the image. I know that Pat knew exactly what he wanted from his photo when taking it originally, and that it would not have been close to his vision straight from camera.

I believe that the seemingly eternal editing debate should be put to rest because it's simply just not photography without editing, it's point and shoot. And that's not what I'm about, and hopefully others aren't either.


Please note that I mentioned nothing about technical details, because that's again something that people are using as a way to attack images. If someone is genuinely interested in what settings a photo are taken with then by all means, ask, but if exif data gets put with every image then people start to focus more on these details and less on the images that should be garnering all the attention. Rarely exif data can help someone else recreate an image, it's the idea and intent that conquer problems. It can, however, be used to give - opinionated - advice on how to improve a shot.

All the above is my 2c, and I don't expect much will change from here on, but I can hope...

[henk4]

Daan, I note you make several remarks about my picture. Some of them give me the idea that you failed to read what I posted when I entered the shot in the competition, and why I entered it. My primary reason was to show the difference between two pictures, shot at almost the same time, and the way the light of the flames influenced the outcome.
Then you suggest that there was "no thought" behind my shot. The thought was that this pitstop was going to be decisive for the final race result. Therefore I thought it to be a good idea to be around in case something would happen. Fortunately for me something did happen (and fortunately for Spyker it did not make the Spyker loose a position).
You also make some comments regarding the composition. Have you ever been shooting in the pit lane during a race? You are clearly limited in your movements. (Motor racing is dangerous). Do you also think I could have asked the Spyker crew to make it so that the car would stall on leaving the pit and then produce some flames so that I could shoot them, so that I could have adjusted my camera settings right for that well in advance? Motor sport photography is about grasping the moment and I just got that. (Because I knew I had to be there and I was there). You may call that "point and shoot" but it first requires you to be in position where P&S produces results.
Finally, you start making remarks about removing the shadows. Of course you can do that, until somebody who knows the time of the shot and the pitlane at the Nuerburgring is asking the question: "Have they changed the exit of the pitlane into a North Eastern direction?"
It was almost six o'clock and the sun had already started to sink. By doctering with the light conditions of the shot I would have removed that important element.
I wanted to show what the camera does and how it react to changing circumstances. This is my primary interest in PHOTOGRAPHY, which means as much as "writing with light". I am less interested in what a computer can do which for me is tantamount to "writing with a mouse" (I am sorry to have forgotten the ancient greek word for mouse)

So IMHO this shots does not benefits from post processing, but it rather begs to be left alone.

[csl177]

Why does the building look bent?

It's called parallax distortion. Use a tilt-shift lens to correct, or distort as desired regardless of lens size. Every pro photographer I know has one as you can't shoot architectural work without it. I have one for my old Nikon F but it unfortunately won't work on my digital Nikon. There are several reasonably priced models on the market, or you could make your own:
http://www.creativepro.com/article/b...a-lens-peanuts

[csl177]

Regarding the compettions, my only gripe is the requirement that images be recent.
Some of us don't shoot often so we're out.

[pat_ernzen]

Re: henk4

I'm immediately reminded of a former member/competitor's comments about misguided "purism" and unwarranted elitism. I read why you chose that photo and I read your expanded explanation in this thread, but the fact of the matter is, it's a poor photo (my opinion, obviously) regardless of the circumstances and your intentions. Your explanation in the post in this thread basically says that you're solely interested in the mechanical and electronic aspects of how the camera functions, not on the image produced or even the subject. Seems to me you should just take photos of grids and color wheels if that's what you're interested in.

You say you're "interested in how the camera reacts to changing circumstance", but really it's simply how that particular camera reacted on those particular settings in that particular situation. It's seems like nothing more than a test shot at that point. If you'd been shooting full manual with your settings dialed in (which I always do, BTW), you'd end up with a photo that is largely properly exposed with just the flames and area surrounding the flames being overexposed instead of the majority of the image blown out and flat and it would have potential to be a quality photo. If you want to talk about a purist approach (you're breaking down the meaning of the word "photography" and talking about ancient Greece, so I'd say this is a safe assumption), you'd be shooting film, you would've actually chose your settings and again, the photo would've come out largely properly exposed (assuming you know what you're doing).

While I won't say that there is any thought put into your shot, it does look very snapshot-ish to me as well. I don't want to speak for Dann, but in regards to composition, believe is referring more to the framing of the shot than the position of the camera, subject, etc. Regardless of where you could or couldn't go, there is no doubt that the composition could be improved and I believe that's what he was getting at.

And I think you completely missed what he was saying about shadows. He's never mentions removing shadows or even "doctoring with the light conditions". I believe he's simply commenting on the fact that the technical flaws of the photo have killed the shadows by making them flat and bland.

I didn't want to bring you or your photo into the discussion, but obviously it's become part of it and again, it's just another example of what I feel is a pretty extreme case of misguided purism and unwarranted elitism. Like I said before, I really feel like you have a painfully narrow perspective when it comes to photography (which is odd, considering it seems to be a passion of yours) and not simply when it comes to post processing. The simple fact of the matter is that you are not a purist and far from an elite photographer (not saying I am by any stretch) and with your current attitude, you never will be.

[pat_ernzen]

And here's the JPEG from my comp 255 shot.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Regarding the compettions, my only gripe is the requirement that images be recent.
Some of us don't shoot often so we're out.

It happens to me too sometimes, but I see that this way we prevent users who shooted at just one event to continuously posting the same subjects...not that there is something wrong with that though.