Another Kick in The Pants for Photoshop 'artists'.

[Nelsonretreat]

I'm sure this will amuse those who have strong views about some of the more creative users of photoshop!

Nikon takes down plane photo after row
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35457135

This is a BBC article about yet another set of photo competition judges.. this time for Nikon, who had to rescind an award after angry social media users pointed out the gross and crude photoshopping done on the image!

It also tells you everything you ever needed to know about the judges in photo competitions!

[Jim Pascoe]

I actually judged a local club photography competition a couple of weeks ago and there was a picture entered in a similar vein.  Looking up between tall buildings in London with an aircraft flying directly overhead.  It was well done and without knowing the exact location and flight paths of aircraft, I could not possibly have known if it was a 'straight' picture or a composite.  I didn't much care really - the picture did not really excite me anyway in either case.

From the web picture on the news article it is not clear to me if the picture was 'Photoshopped' or not.  I presume the judges could not tell either - in which case why are Nikon apologising?  Did the competition rules specifically state that no manipulation is allowed?
Actually, now I look carefully I can just about see a rectangular box around the aircraft.  So either the judges did not see a high-res picture, or they are not experienced photographers.  But I think the principle here is the key question - aside from the poor-quality editing skills - does it matter if the image is a composite?  Personally I'm not an enthusiast of composited pictures - but then I have seen some outstanding ones.

Jim

[drmike]

I'm not that keen on composites but I bet I have seen lots and liked them without knowing. Same with quality HDR.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Undisclosed or non-obvious composites are the antithesis of photography.

[Isaac]

Did the competition rules specifically state that no manipulation is allowed?

Apparently not - "The terms of the competition say the photos must be original works, though doesn't specifically bar editing."

[Isaac]

Personally I'm not an enthusiast of composited pictures - but then I have seen some outstanding ones.

Undisclosed or non-obvious composites are the antithesis of photography.

Unlike many of his contemporaries in the New York School who — like the Group f/64 “purists” on the opposite coast — abjured any post-exposure manipulation of the image in the darkroom, Feinstein saw photomontage as a process unique to and inherent in photography as a medium. Considering himself a visual poet, not a documentarian, he accepted photomontage into his toolkit, mastered it (one of his best-loved images involves combining eight separate negatives), wrote explanations of his techniques, and in general took it for granted as one of the necessary skills of the serious interpretive printmaker in photography.

http://www.haroldfeinstein.com/

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Isaac, how your quote has anything to do with what I said?

[Isaac]

"the antithesis of photography" :: "unique to and inherent in photography as a medium"

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, gee, I got that.

Did you get the part where I qualified it for "undisclosed or non-obvious composites"?

[Isaac]

Did you get the part where "unique to and inherent in photography as a medium" is not qualified?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

He "wrote explanations of his techniques," thus doesn't qualify as undisclosed.

[Isaac]

He "wrote explanations of his techniques," thus doesn't qualify as undisclosed.

With that reasoning, digital composites don't qualify as "undisclosed".

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

They don't, because they are obvious. I used both scenarios, "undisclosed or non-obvious," but you, being your old hairsplitting self, are splitting my duo and cherry-picking one to suit your misguided examples.

To return to the OP situation, the issue at hand is the photographer's explanation that was clearly stating it was a lucky shot, being in the right place at the right time and pressing the shutter with a Cartier-Bresson's sense for the decisive moment. In other words, a simple LIE.

Since it was undisclosed and non-obvious, it is the antithesis of photography.

But hey, feel free to surf the net in search of another exception that proves the rule.

[Isaac]

To return to the OP situation, the issue at hand is the photographer's explanation … In other words, a simple LIE.

Yes that is the issue -- the photographer's explanation; not your opinion about how photography should be restricted.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Who said anything about restricting photography!? I love Jerry Uelsmann and consider him a terrific photographer and artist, for instance.

[PeterAit]

I'm sure this will amuse those who have strong views about some of the more creative users of photoshop!

Nikon takes down plane photo after row
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35457135

This is a BBC article about yet another set of photo competition judges.. this time for Nikon, who had to rescind an award after angry social media users pointed out the gross and crude photoshopping done on the image!

Christ, talk about a tempest in a teapot! In a contest that did not prohibit photo editing, this fellow won - hold your breath - a trolley bag (whatever that is). And all the whiners came out of the woodwork because, after all, this is such an important issue. If I roll my eyes any further I'll be looking out of the back of my head!

It also tells you everything you ever needed to know about the judges in photo competitions!

Really? All judges in all competitions?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In a contest that did not prohibit photo editing...

Editing and compositing are two rather different things. Most contest allow editing, but prohibit (or separate) compositing.

[Isaac]

…after all, this is such an important issue.

To some it is an issue worth repeated discussion -- previously on Lula forums, "My argument is simply that these are not 'photographs' "

[Isaac]

Who said anything about restricting photography!?

You.

[GrahamBy]

Err, as I understand it, we are not talking about a Pulitzer. It was some crap competition run by the marketing dept at Nikon, and the guy won a camera bag.

Yeah, he lied. Big deal.