#1. "RE: Too Much Photoshopping" In response to Reply # 0 Mon 05-Nov-12 07:14 PM by olivierrychner
I solemnly propose that we immediately write to the Sierra Club and the Library of Congress and God knows what other institution(s) concerned, and ask for a very public removal of all work by Ansel Adams from their collection and shops, because frankly, if anyone was to print from his "raw", untouched negatives, they would probably get a result very far removed from what we are now used to see.
That would prove that Mr Adams employed "excessive manipulation" in his handling of photos, by chemicals agents and/or masking, and thus render his complete work absolutely worthless.
Should the necessity arise, I'm even ready to keep one of each of his originals in a vault in the Swiss Alps for the sake of future generations faced with such forms of criminality as "arts" and their various interpretations. But that would really be a sacrifice to me to take that burden onto my frail shoulders, y'a know
Do I need to write any more?
Olivier Rychner __________________________________________ Jetez un oeil à ma galerie if you feel like it! And it's a bit void as of now, but I also have a Nikonians blog
Auta i lomë! And my Nikon's only awaiting daylight...
#2. "RE: Too Much Photoshopping" In response to Reply # 0 Mon 05-Nov-12 07:46 PM by Noel Holland
I was curious about this and the reasons given appear to be vague.
The rules included the following:
Classic View: We are looking for an image that captures the beauty and variety of the UK landscape. An iconic view; a view along a cliff-side path or of a historic village; a view down a valley; an urban skyline or snow-capped peaks; maybe showing the drama of our seasons. Recognisable and memorable; a true classic. All entries must have been taken using a camera with a sufficiently high resolution to allow the image to be reproduced at A4 size or above (at 300 ppi) or scanned from film. We recommend that you use a camera of 4 mega pixels or more.
11) Digital adjustments. Digital adjustments, including High Dynamic Range (HDR) imaging techniques and the joining together of multiple frames, are allowed in all categories. However, for images entered in Classic view, Living the view and Urban view, the integrity of the subject must be maintained and the making of physical changes to the landscape is not permitted (removing fences, moving trees, stripping in sky from another image etc). The organisers reserve the right to disqualify any image that they feel lacks authenticity due to over-manipulation. The judges will allow more latitude in the ‘Your view’ category, which aims to encourage originality and conceptual thinking. Please see How to enter for further details.
While I don't know, I suspect this entry may have fallen foul of the sky clause. Something was moved, deleted or added that wasn't in the original view for it to have been disqualified after it had won. It can't have just been the tonal adjustments or it wouldn't have won in the first place.
It's a pity because it's a beautiful piece. Such a shame the photographer didn't read the rule fully or else had the sense to enter it into the other category where it probably would have won anyway and not now have been disqualified.
They do look similar - but how many different shots can you take of a famous view? At some point judges are going to have to accept that some locations have been shot to death and that there are going to be similarities between some photographers shots. Surely you can't patent tripod holes?
#8. "RE: Too Much Photoshopping" In response to Reply # 6
Reading further in the story it seems that's it's not about plagiarism, nor some sort of Ansel Adams "filter", but more about cleaning a bit the picture and "maybe" adding a sky (still to be proved, though the shade theory seems sound enough)!
The point isn't that you can sell such a picture or hang it in a gallery, it's more about a landscape contest rules that argues for a landscape picture without modifying it !
#9. "RE: Too Much Photoshopping" In response to Reply # 6
Well, that was interesting. It appears that in fact there was indeed "too much" Photoshop. The rules seem to be quite clear about not using the clone tool, and it would seem that the clone tool was used a fair amount, and not just one sensor dust. (The rules sound reasonable to me; I seriously doubt that they really would disqualify an image for cloning out sensor dust.) The sky may well have been a complete edit too. And while I do think that the final image as presented is still photography, it apparently does violate the rules of the contest, so the organizers were well within their policy of excluding this image on that basis. On the other hand, they should have figured that out before they awarded a prestigious prize, rather than afterward.
As far as the same locations... I don't think they disqualified it for that reason. On the other hand, if it's a famous location, one would think the treatment would have to be special in some way to win a contest.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!