# Allow photo alterations in monthly contests?



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

I think I posted this elsewhere, but I wanted to poll the community and see what others thought. Rule #7 for the monthly photo contest states: No alterations of pictures by any image software allowed except for resizing pictures if they are too big or lighting them up.

The rule doesn't make logical sense, and is unnecessarily limiting. I hope before voting, you take into consideration a few logical arguments:


Some members of the forum have MUCH higher quality cameras that will ALWAYS take better looking pictures than compact Point & Shoot cameras- and therefore have an unfair advantage as far as picture quality is concerned.
As a photography contest, ALL members should be allowed to put forth their best examples, regardless of the method used. This is almost always the driving force behind contests in the first place- to put forth your best and see how it holds up!
The contest is generally decided based on the content of the photo, not its photographic quality- thus the rule needlessly limits something that is not always considered anyway.

Some folks had raised the point that not everyone has access to expensive photo manipulation software. I don't find this to be a valid criticism though. Until everyone is using the _exact_ same camera, then the process used to obtain the finished photograph should be considered irrelevant. Allowing software alterations helps folks with "lesser" cameras compete with the quality of those with "greater" cameras by doing things such as removing noise, or correcting a hot spot or dead pixel.

I think the above points seem to imply that post processing, or photo alterations would hardly skew the results- but would still allow people to put forth their best efforts. Therefore I personally vote this rule be removed. I am interested if the community agrees!


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

I voted yes because I edit all of my photos and as a result cannot enter them, but much of your logic is flawed. 

A p&s can take the same good pictures as my DSLR if you know what you're doing. We're looking at focus and style in the contest, not pixels and quality.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

DJEtzel said:


> A p&s can take the same good pictures as my DSLR if you know what you're doing. *We're looking at focus and style in the contest, not pixels and quality.*


Yeah... exactly. So why can't I also make sure my pixels are all there or that it iso1600 isn't incredibly noisy? P&S cameras, by the way, most certainly cannot take the same pictures as DSLRs. Let's see your P&S produce limited depth of field, or fantastic low light shots- both in focus and noise. Even *very* high quality P&S cameras such as my Canon S90 can't match DSLRs in some of these areas. That said, I can shoot iso800 and use Noise Ninja to clean up the digital noise. Or I can shoot with the aperture at 2.0 and increase the bokeh via photoshop. A full frame (or even micro 4/3rds for that matter) at an aperture size of 2.0 will NOT produce the same image as a P&S with its aperture set to 2.0. This is simple optics.

The point is- software and photo manipulation is just as legitimate in producing a nice picture as is a very expensive camera (which is fully allowed).


(Not to be argumentative. Thanks for the vote!) :toasting:


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I haven't voted because I basically (sorta, but not 100%) agree with the rule. It wouldn't be unfair to me, for example, to try and compete with my point and shoot against people with good quality DSLR, extensive photography experience and training, and access to advanced photo-editing software. You run the risk of people entering extensively photoshopped pictures with the backgrounds taken out, distracting details cloned out, or Frankenstein works, where elements of different pictures are cut and pasted to create a new one - so that the final product is a far cry from the original shot. I don't agree that people vote on pics based on content only - I've seen many a picture in contests, even though the subject matter was great and had excellent potential, not get any votes because of lack of focus, poor lighting, or cluttered, disruptive background.

I didn't vote because I WOULD like to be able to edit shots a _little_ more than is allowed. So in addition to cropping and lightning up a pic, I would like to be able to edit flash reflections in eyes and other surfaces, and enhance colours if needed.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

I voted yes, but maybe you could add a note that says if a picture has been altered it has to be mentioned.


----------



## novarobin (Oct 4, 2007)

wildo said:


> Allowing software alterations helps folks with "lesser" cameras compete with the quality of those with "greater" cameras by doing things such as removing noise, or correcting a hot spot or dead pixel.


 
But this would leave people with lesser cameras and no software even farther behind. 
I know nothing of photography, have a crappy camera and no ability to edit. I enjoy entering the contest anyway, even won once. I always thought of it as fun way to show off our dogs, not a photography contest. 

I am not sure your suggestion would 'even up' the competition. 

I am not really opposed to the rule change, I would be classified more as indifferent. Although I do support the suggestion that if it is allowed, it should be noted.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Castlemaid said:


> You run the risk of people entering extensively photoshopped pictures with the backgrounds taken out, *distracting details cloned out*, or Frankenstein works, where elements of different pictures are cut and pasted to create a new one - *so that the final product is a far cry from the original shot.*
> 
> I didn't vote because I WOULD like to be able to edit shots a _little_ more than is allowed. So in addition to cropping and lightning up a pic, I would like to be able to edit flash reflections in eyes and other surfaces, and enhance colours if needed.


Thank you for this post- I found it very interesting indeed! Unfortunately, I nether know how to edit the poll to add an option, nor do I know how to "state" the option you are describing. I'm actually totally on board with you though- I think. I certainly wasn't interested in "making" a new image by photoshopping a bunch of stuff together. But red eye, or flash reduction I find valid. I also, personally, find it valid to remove a distracting detail. See the below example- first the original, and then a corrected version with a lamp pole base removed from the foreground. To me, fixes like this are totally 100% valid, as the corrected photo more accurately describes the mental image I had in my head when I took it. [EDIT]- though I see now I went a bit overboard on noise reduction. You live, you learn.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

There are dozens of photo-editing programs available online right through your browser. No one that has access to the forum should be left behind.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

novarobin said:


> But this would leave people with lesser cameras and no software even farther behind.


It leaves them no further behind than what they already are. That's my point. There are free options out there- such as gimp.


----------



## novarobin (Oct 4, 2007)

I did not know that.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

I voted NO!


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I know the quality is very important, but the composition, pose etc, is what people really look at. 
I vote no as well.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

DJEtzel said:


> There are dozens of photo-editing programs available online right through your browser. No one that has access to the forum should be left behind.


But you still need to know how to use them. Not everyone has that technological know-how. And it shouldn't be a contest to see who has the best photo editing skills, I agree with the statement that the picture contest is more of a fun way to show off our dogs than it is a contest for technical and artistic expertise.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

It seems to me like the problem is between two absolutes - either allow no editing whatsoever or allow all editing. I think it would probably benefit everyone if there were a third option - a list of types of editing that are allowed.

I think most people who enjoy photography and would enter a photo contest, would probably like to be able to crop images, and adjust color and brightness where the shot maybe didn't come out so well. 

Even with a DSLR you still get shots where the colors, brightness, etc. were off which would be an easy fix. It does not alter the composition of the image or the pose, but improve the overall picture to make it more worth showing off and entering into a contest. (I mean, this is, after all, not a discussion about just posting photos to the board to show off your dogs, but entering them into a contest where they will be voted on - you'd want to put your best picture out there, wouldn't you?)

I think it's unfair to say that you should be able to edit a picture to improve it because "not everyone has access to" photo editing programs. For one, that isn't true. You can download Gimp for free online and it does most of the same things Photoshop does. So everyone has access.

I also don't think it's fair to say that you shouldn't be able to use a free program like Gimp to enhance your pictures because "not everyone knows how to use the programs" that are available to them. Really? There's nothing you can do in Gimp (or Photoshop, for that matter), for which you would not be able to find a simple tutorial for online.

Just some thoughts. 

I don't upload any photos to my blog or website or any forums that haven't been edited in some way - cropped, adjusted for contrast or color, for example - and even if I don't do either of those things, I usually remove red eye and add a frame and my copyright stamp.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Thanks AbbyK9- I'm glad I didn't have to say it. So far, it seems that the people who are against it are the people who "don't know how to use it." That's why there's documentation. It's a pretty lazy copout.

I made the poll a month long. It will be interesting to see how it goes...


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Castlemaid said:


> And it shouldn't be a contest to see who has the best photo editing skills, I agree with the statement that the picture contest is more of a fun way to show off our dogs than it is a contest for technical and artistic expertise.


I just don't understand this perspective. It's a _photo contest._ Nobody said it would, or should, be a contest to determine who has the best editing skills- but it IS a contest to _compete_ with your best photos. We have an entire forum dedicated to "a fun way to show off our dogs." It's funny that I am able to post better pictures in the "fun" area than I am in the "contest" area...


----------



## GSD_Xander (Nov 27, 2010)

wildo said:


> It leaves them no further behind than what they already are. That's my point. There are free options out there- such as gimp.


Exactly what I was going to say...I've used GIMP now for some time and it works great.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

If someone knows how to use PhotoShop, PSP etc. you won't be able to tell if a photo has been changed unless they use special effects. Just a thought.


----------



## Veronica1 (Jun 22, 2010)

I realize this is getting off topic, but I would like to see a relaxation in the purebred only rule. That leaves an awful lot of us out - technically anyone who has a shelter, rescue, byb, etc without the papers to prove pedigree.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> I realize this is getting off topic, but I would like to see a relaxation in the purebred only rule. That leaves an awful lot of us out - technically anyone who has a shelter, rescue, byb, etc without the papers to prove pedigree.


That's not how the purebred only rule works.  You can post photos of ANY dog that looks like a purebred German Shepherd, regardless of whether you have the dog's pedigree or not.


----------



## GSD_Xander (Nov 27, 2010)

Maybe if people want to enter altered photos in the contest then they could just state in the post what they did, in general - nothing too detailed, to the photo and post a before editing and after editing photo so people can see what was done to the photo and whether it was minor changes or something more drastic.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

GSD_Xander said:


> Maybe if people want to enter altered photos in the contest then they could just state in the post what they did, in general - nothing too detailed, to the photo and post a before editing and after editing photo so people can see what was done to the photo and whether it was minor changes or something more drastic.


I know this is a _dog_ forum, and not a _photography_ forum- but we are talking about a photography contest. Before/after shots are not good for a contest. Again, we are trying to compete with our BEST effort- whatever that might be. How we get there *should* be irrelevant and should not be distracting for people (having to sift through before/after pics).

I am also a member of a very reputable photography forum, and a subforum (the canon subforum) holds weekly photo contests. Here are the rules from that forum:

The host gives you a topic of interest and you get going.
You may enter up to three competition images.
The host chooses the winner after the challenge closes (usually after one week). The decision of the judge (the host) is final. The judge is not eligible. The winner then chooses the next topic, runs the challenge, judges the winner, and passes on the baton to that person.
If you submit a photo, please check in when the winners are posted. The first place winner is expected to host the next challenge. If the first place person cannot host, it moves to the 2nd place, etc...?
Any picture you've taken is eligible regardless of time taken and camera.
Please (!) Try to put your entries within a 'single' post.
*You may use post processing to enhance your pictures; if you do please share the treatment you applied*
Please give a title to each photo - this makes it easier to differentiate when giving comments.
Feel free to comment on other contestants' images. If you want someone to leave you a piece of constructive criticism, put an asterisk * next to the title of the image.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

If you allow Photoshop alterations then we are not judging the photography but rather the PS work.

Which is ok if that is the intent - to judge the final result of a picture not the photo work.


----------



## novarobin (Oct 4, 2007)

wildo said:


> Thanks AbbyK9- I'm glad I didn't have to say it. So far, it seems that the people who are against it are the people who "don't know how to use it." That's why there's documentation. It's a pretty lazy copout.
> 
> I made the poll a month long. It will be interesting to see how it goes...


I'm not lazy. I had no idea software was available for free. I am not creative. Even with a good camera and editing software my photos are not going to compare to some of the talented photographers here. 
I also don't have the interest or time to work with editing software either. I am not opposed to using it. I already said that. 

My point was that your argument for it is to allow those with lower quality cameras the chance tomimprove their photos. I stated that that still leaves those without the skills and no how behind. 

I misunderstood the intention of the photo contest. Like I said, I thought it was all in fun. It was kinda fun trying to get pics that fit the theme. I thought it was more about that then photography skills.


----------



## Dogaroo (Mar 4, 2003)

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with minor alterations such as brightness & contrast. Technically your camera already adjusts brightness, saturation & contrast (according to its pre-selected or default settings) with every picture you take, unless you shoot in raw format & do the post-processing yourself before saving your photos to .jpg format.

With that said, it's possible to take phenomenal photos with even the simplest of point & shoots. The trick is to know what your camera can & can't do, and work within its limitations. You might have to work a little harder to get a good shot with a cheap camera, but it can be done. In some situations, you can even use those "limitations" to your advantage. I've taken some pretty nice pics with my $70 camera.... and bawled my eyes out when I loaned that same camera to a friend of mine & she had the nerve to take PHENOMENAL pictures that looked better than anything I've ever produced with my very fancy & expensive dSLR. Talk about a blow to the pride! ;-)


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

codmaster said:


> If you allow Photoshop alterations then we are not judging the photography but rather the PS work.


On what basis do you find this to be true?


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

I believe the reason the current rules are in affect are to kind of even the playing field and take out the 'professional' photos and allow anyone and their ability to catch a great photo to have a chance.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

This really shouldn't be about the photo techniques nor the quality of one's camera. This is a GSD board, the picture contests are just for fun, and should remain that way. 

I really enjoy the better photographers posting their pictures in threads or in the contest, I have learned a lot about good photographs from seeing other people's work. And telling people who have no serious interest in photography but like to share the occassional pics and participate in a contest that they are lazy because they have not become more familiar with photo-editing software, is not appropriate for the intent of the contest on this board.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Castlemaid said:


> And telling people who have no serious interest in photography but like to share the occassional pics and participate in a contest that they are lazy because they have not become more familiar with photo-editing software, is not appropriate for the intent of the contest on this board.


That's a great way to take someone's comments out of context. Gold star for you! Read it again, you'll see that I was agreeing with AbbyK9's post:



AbbyK9 said:


> I also don't think it's fair to say that you shouldn't be able to use a free program like Gimp to enhance your pictures because "not everyone knows how to use the programs" that are available to them. Really? There's nothing you can do in Gimp (or Photoshop, for that matter), for which you would not be able to find a simple tutorial for online.


For those people who accept that there are free programs out there, but still maintain the pisspoor excuse that they "still don't know how to use them" and therefore have an unfair disadvantage- those people are being lazy and using lame excuses. As Abby pointed out- there are many, many, MANY tutorials online to help you accomplish simple photo touchups.

Not once did I claim that anyone was lazy because they didn't want to use software.
_________



Castlemaid said:


> This really shouldn't be about the photo techniques nor the quality of one's camera. This is a GSD board, the picture contests are just for fun, and should remain that way.


Further- *never* have I made a claim that this *should* be about photo techniques! I don't understand why people keep throwing that out there. What I said is that photo techniques are _part of_ photography, and this is a _photography_ contest. Is it not called "Monthly Photo Contest?" It makes no logical sense at all to claim that if photo techniques are allowed- them people will only judge the photo techniques themselves. It's just nonsense. It's like saying that if we allowed cat pictures, then the GSDs would look less beautiful. The argument has no merit. It has no logic. It can't be strung together with any substance to connect the claim being made. Why would cats make the GSDs look less beautiful? Why would photo alterations make people judge the alterations themselves (even though most would never know the photo was altered in the first place)?


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Okay, after reading some of the debates, I voted. I said no.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Castlemaid said:


> Okay, after reading some of the debates, I voted. I said no.


Either way- thanks for voting.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

You could always just suggest they have two contests, one for altered photos and one for unaltered. Same theme, two winners.


----------



## counter (Feb 20, 2009)

My 2 thoughts:

1. You could have 2 separate photo contests per month, with one titled "unaltered photos" and the other titled "altered photos." It might sound ridiculous, but it would be a compromise for both parties and possibly make everyone happy.

2. Like others mentioned, those who alter the photos and enter them must admit that the photo is altered. That way, people who are against altered photos would know in advance and simply would not vote for those who altered their photos.

Not everyone has the time to figure out how to make their photos look professional (and thus competitive) through editing programs. Someone who does simple touchups (like removing red eye, or cropping, or adjusting lighting, etc.) would still not be able to compete with a photoshop expert. I used to work in the music business with bands, and would work with art designers who use photoshop to make album covers and layouts, and would sit next to them as they touched up photos. Photoshop (and those who know how to use it) can do some pretty amazing things that I'll never in my life have the time to learn how to do, and I know how to do the simple editing.

Some of us have lives, and families, and jobs, and DOGS (to train and exercise)!!! Sometimes it's difficult enough just to find time to take the pictures, much less upload them, delete the bad ones, upload the good ones and post them on here. There's no way I can find the time in my busy life to learn a photo editing program just for a photo contest. I barely have time to get online, and would much rather spend that time with my family and dogs instead of debating on here about a photo contest. Haha! I voted NO, just because I think that some of the pics people claim are unedited are actually edited, and they obviously look so much better than your average photo. My wife is a photographer with a Canon digital Rebel. I have a Canon P&S. Her photos 90% of the time naturally look better than mine, without even editing them at all, and I'm a pretty decent photographer myself.

I think photos should be allowed to be edited, but they should be entered in a separate contest. When you scroll through the photos in a contest and you see a slightly blurry pic with red eye, you cringe and feel bad for that person, because as much as they love their dog, you know their pic has zero chance of winning. But then you see some average to good photos, and then there's that one photo that is obviously edited with photoshop and looks 10 times better than the best "good" photo, and you hope that the photoshop pic doesn't win because it's unfair to everyone else. Well, usually that photoshop pic DOES win, and it just doesn't seem fair (to everyone else), even though it's a beautiful pic that should be in a frame on the wall. It's the best pic for sure, but for a reason: photoshop!

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Just wanted to say that although I voted yes, when I look at the dog photos I don't pay much attention to the quality of the photo, I'm looking at the dogs and what they're doing.

It's the ones that make me smile or laugh that I pay attention to...even if they're fuzzy.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Hey Wildo,

Could you send me the link to the canon site - my son is a very avid amatuer photographer and has a load of Canon equipment?

Thanks.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

codmaster said:


> Hey Wildo,
> 
> Could you send me the link to the canon site - my son is a very avid amatuer photographer and has a load of Canon equipment?
> 
> Thanks.


DPReview.com. They have a subforum for pretty much every brand- and every brand pretty much has a cult following. I participate in the canon forum here.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

wildo said:


> On what basis do you find this to be true?


Because I have seen what the people good with PS can do to a picture - I didn't say it was wrong or that everyone would do iy even, just that it could happen. The question is whether that is the intent of these contests.

I am not a photographer altho I do have a P&S that I like to use.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

wildo said:


> DPReview.com. They have a subforum for pretty much every brand- and every brand pretty much has a cult following. I participate in the canon forum here.


 
Big thanks!


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Sigh. I guess I am going to sit back, bite my tongue (It will bleed, I'm sure), and let this poll run its course. I just have to say this closing thought:




counter said:


> My wife is a photographer with a Canon digital Rebel. I have a Canon P&S. Her photos 90% of the time naturally look better than mine, without even editing them at all, and I'm a pretty decent photographer myself.


You folks seem to generally agree that _most of the time_ a better camera is going to produce a better image. And you all have no problem with that.



counter said:


> But then you see some average to good photos, and then there's that one photo that is obviously edited with photoshop and looks 10 times better than the best "good" photo, and you hope that the photoshop pic doesn't win because it's unfair to everyone else. Well, usually that photoshop pic DOES win, and it just doesn't seem fair (to everyone else), even though it's a beautiful pic that should be in a frame on the wall. It's the best pic for sure, but for a reason: photoshop!


...But you all seem to negate that fact with cynicism and disbelief when you see a really well done shot. I don't understand how on one hand you can agree that a better camera will generally produce a better picture, but a better picture must (or more accurately- "obviously is") photoshoped. This is the breakdown I just can't get past.

Nobody is arguing that if you put a crappy camera in a pro's hands that you won't get a great picture. That is why they are a pro. Allowing post processing doesn't cater only to pros, or hobbyists- it caters to anyone who wants to take that endeavor. You all are not required to use post processing and since you aren't currently- you are out nothing if you don't. Yet you guys continually compete against admittedly much better products without batting an eye.

Competition is competition. You can call it friendly, fun, or whatever you want- but it is still a competition. Merriam-Webster defines contest as: "a struggle for superiority or victory." A contest is all about putting forth your best; this is what humans do! We would never put a child in a pro football game thinking they would be competitive. We would never put our young figure-skating daughter in the olympics thinking they would be competitive. We would never enter our Chihuahua in a SchH III trial thinking they would be competitive (though maybe we should- those nippy little bastards!). The fact is- competitions are meant to show off the best; that is why it is a competition. That is the very definition of competition. 

This is a photo competition. If it was in-person 20 years ago- we would all be slaving away in our dark rooms dodging and burning trying to remove our imperfections. Why it is that in modern times we cant be removing a distracting foot, or correcting redeye via software- which is just as much part of modern photography as dark room work was in yesteryear- is beyond me. Complacency and apathy are such good inhibitors to progress. And Americans are so good at both. If there are better ways to be doing things, then we should be embracing them. We should be striving for our best in contests, and showing off our other "just acceptable" work in non-contest areas.

I've said my piece. I've fought my case. I don't have much else to say... I'll be monitoring this thread no doubt, but I will be biting my tongue in non-response.


----------



## Dogaroo (Mar 4, 2003)

Wildo, you're an excellent writer. Obviously you have a much better computer than I do. 

Seriously, though.... Do you write professionally, or at least as a serious hobbyist? You definitely have the gift.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Dogaroo said:


> Wildo, you're an excellent writer. Obviously you have a much better computer than I do.
> 
> Seriously, though.... Do you write professionally, or at least as a serious hobbyist? You definitely have the gift.


Wow- what a complement! Thank you! No, I am a computer programmer, and do not write professionally or as a hobby.


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

The way I see this is: Photography is art. If I am going to take a picture for a contest, I am going to try my best to get something one of a kind and use my creativity, and capture a moment that fits the description of the contest. 

Editing a photo is also a form of art- taking the image and re-creating it into something else, or fixing a flaw. Since taking a picture (as long as it is thought out even to a slight degree) and editing a picture are both forms of art, I see nothing wrong with it. I got my photo-editing software off of Amazon.com for $20. *It would be nice, and alot of fun, if we were allowed to express our creativity with our dogs a little bit more! *Or at least offer a contest that allows us to do so.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

One thought comes to mind - if you PS (or use another program) you no longer has a photo actually. You now have a edited creation.

Maybe we need two divisions - "pure" photos and edited creations?

Or just one and let the best editor win?

Just a thought!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I have always liked this article: PHOTO TIPS : Dennis Glennon's Professional Photographer's Tips, Hints and Tricks for Natural Light Photography

It is nice to hear a lot of people making the distinction between digital art and photography, though I believe it is becoming more difficult to offer photography to people because they are so used to the vivid and graphic photos seen through digital work.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

AbbyK9 said:


> I think most people who enjoy photography and would enter a photo contest, would probably like to be able to crop images, and adjust color and brightness where the shot maybe didn't come out so well.


Those are already allowed under the current rules. At one time, the rules stated NO alterations, but they were modified some time ago to include these minor improvements. What the contest rules are designed to prevent are what Lucia mentions in her post:



> ...extensively photoshopped pictures with the backgrounds taken out, distracting details cloned out, or Frankenstein works, where elements of different pictures are cut and pasted to create a new one - so that the final product is a far cry from the original shot.


These days, you can get really nice pictures even with an inexpensive point and shoot. Not everyone is a Photoshop genius, nor should they have to be to have a chance to win the contest, or to feel good enough about their pictures to enter one. But as someone pointed out, if you shoot in raw, all of your photos get some post-processing, which is why it's only fair to allow others to make the same kind of corrective edits to clean up lighting, etc. A professional photographer knows how to use the settings on their camera to get the perfect shot no matter what kind of shooting conditions, but most of the rest of us don't, and rely on some minor editing after the fact.

I crop many of my pictures before I save them to my computer or upload them to photobucket, and I also correct lighting issues. Pictures that aren't that great without those kinds of minor edits aren't worth saving, so I either fix them or I delete them. Why keep crappy pictures? With thousands of pictures taken over many years, I have no idea which ones were and which were not cropped or corrected way back when, so I don't worry about it when I choose a picture to enter in the contest. But that is a far cry from adding elements to a picture, or removing them, which are not and should not be allowed.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Castlemaid said:


> This really shouldn't be about the photo techniques nor the quality of one's camera. This is a GSD board, the picture contests are just for fun, and should remain that way.


I really like this. 

If I went on a photo forum and insisted that all pictures be of GSDs they would :wild: at me. 

So I think that if we keep that in mind, more people will continue to enjoy participating. I think counter said a lot of things that made sense too - I like that people on this board will vote for a picture that hits them in the heart more than sometimes their eye. 

Back to that article I posted - I have the original - taken as a snapshot on a dreary day - not looking at settings, slightly tweaked to lighten it up, and then full on photoshopped as much as I know photoshop (not a lot). So from a picture to digital creation. Quite a difference to me. (and I like the lightened only even though the digital one may be more appealing - it's not the picture I took) Shot in jpeg format - I didn't know P/S had raw?


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

novarobin said:


> I misunderstood the intention of the photo contest. Like I said, I thought it was all in fun. It was kinda fun trying to get pics that fit the theme. I thought it was more about that then photography skills.


For me it's a little of both. I personally will not enter or vote for a picture that is out of focus or has "flash eyes". I will also not enter or vote for a picture where no attention was paid to the backround, where there's a lot of distracting stuff that I think detracts from the subject. 

But none of these are details that require any particular skill or knowledge to overcome. Shooting in a well lit room or outdoors in daylight and turning off the flash eliminates the eye problem. If you have a sport setting (and even the most inexpensive P&S cameras now do), you can get action shots in focus. Maybe not every picture will turn out perfectly, but if you take a lot of pictures you have a good chance of getting some worth saving. And anyone can pay attention to what's behind or next to the dog(s) and either zoom in, shoot around distracting elements by moving to change the angle of the shot, picking up things that are in the way, or cropping them out after you take the picture. No special photography skills and no fancy software or advanced editing skills required.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Novarobin - that's what I thought too - more for fun - and if people aren't super nitpicky with their pics that's fine - anyone should feel like they can enter and enjoy the contest.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

Cassidy's Mom - I think the rules need to be expanded to explain what kind of editing is allowed, beyond what they currently say. The current rule is -



> No alterations of pictures by any image software allowed except for resizing pictures if they are too big or lighting them up.


So if you adjust the contrast as well as the brightness, or you adjust any of your color tones, or even if you added a copyright notice to the image, you're already violating the rule because you're not just lighting them up or resizing them. Even cropping is not allowed under the current rule - cropping and resizing are not the same thing.

So I can see why this is confusing for people regarding what is and is not allowed.

There is also a very big difference in what people in this thread are perceiving as "digital editing". I think making adjustments to the colors or brightness of an image, or even cropping an image, is not exactly on the same level as removing leashes in Photoshop, cropping out backgrounds, editing a set of "good" eyes from one picture into a picture where maybe the photographer got red eye.

Also, another thought - a lot of basic editing (brightness, colors, etc.) can be done right in the camera before even downloading and posting the picture. A lot of cameras have an edit mode for cropping, color adjustments, etc.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

AbbyK9 said:


> So if you adjust the contrast as well as the brightness, or you adjust any of your color tones, or even if you added a copyright notice to the image, you're already violating the rule because you're not just lighting them up or resizing them. Even cropping is not allowed under the current rule - cropping and resizing are not the same thing.
> 
> So I can see why this is confusing for people regarding what is and is not allowed.
> 
> ...


THIS!

I AT LEAST edit the levels and contrast/brightness on 100% of my pictures, which is why I don't enter the contest. Frequently I add a filter or crop a picture, and because of these minute things that just bring the picture together, I can't enter. Maybe just expanding the rules a BIT would be in order.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Well- more people have voted in this poll (by two) than have voted in the Dec photo contest. I wonder if we have gathered all the votes that can be expected to get. Obviously not the result I was hoping to see, but I'm glad that some good conversations came up in the process. I was hoping we could get enough folks to do away with this nonsense rule, but it appears there are enough people who don't find it to be nonsense at all, for whatever reason. I'm clearly bummed about the result- but I won't be bitter about it. I guess. :headbang:


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

I noticed that it seems like only pics taken from good quality cameras win. I think editing should be allowed. 

I think that when people vote, rather than looking just at the picture and how pretty it is, they should look at the composition and HOW WELL it goes with the theme. I think that a few of the photo contest winners only won because they were taken with good cameras. I think that editing should be allowed, but I also think that we, as voters, should look at the aesthetics and composition of the photo, rather than just the quality.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Haha... I'm laughing right now. And it's only moderately related to this thread.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Someone rated this thread as one star, or as the forum defines it- "terrible." Haha! Get over yourself person. Forty-seven other people had a nice, adult discussion about the topic. Pretty pathetic...


----------



## unloader (Feb 16, 2010)

I didn't read the whole thread, but here is how I think of it.

I vote yes. Digital processing is like having a darkroom. If these were the non-digital days, would this contest not allow someone to develop their own film? I shoot in the RAW format, if I were to only crop and lighten up my photos, they would look bad....I mean REALLY BAD. 

With that being said, I do think on this forum, only basic processing should be allowed.
I think the rules should read, 

"only basic processing is allowed. Crop, lighten/darken, saturation, hue, contrast, exposure, sharpen, vignetting etc."

I'm on the fence about things like HDR etc, at least for this forum (I love HDR by the way).


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

unloader said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but here is how I think of it.
> 
> I vote yes. Digital processing is like having a darkroom. If these were the non-digital days, would this contest not allow someone to develop their own film? I shoot in the RAW format, if I were to only crop and lighten up my photos, they would look bad....I mean REALLY BAD.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the comment! I also shoot RAW. I've decided to make a personal decision that shooting RAW and doing post processing is the _exact same_ as someone shooting jpg and letting the camera handle these settings. We both know that the reality is that it *is* the same. So whether one person sets saturation, exposure, sharpening, custom colors, etc on their camera (or lets the camera do it for them) and another person does it in post- it's really still the same thing. The one thing I haven't been able to confirm is if you can adjust levels via the camera. I am pretty positive that you can't- well, not without some really fancy equipment! You might be able to swap lens so that you can get your histogram totally filled left-to-right, but even then- I'm not sure how easy that would be. So levels are probably one of those things that could be questionable.

Funny thing is I set my white balance in camera, and only rarely need to adjust it in post. I also have my colors, saturation, etc set where I want them. So my RAW conversion is pretty straightforward. But levels... I always adjust levels!

Anyway- I say all that because when I first created the thread I considered using the RAW format as justification to allow post processing. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that what we (generally) do in post in our RAW conversions is the same thing that non-RAW shooters do in camera, whether knowingly or not.


----------



## unloader (Feb 16, 2010)

wildo said:


> Thanks for the comment! I also shoot RAW. I've decided to make a personal decision that shooting RAW and doing post processing is the _exact same_ as someone shooting jpg and letting the camera handle these settings. We both know that the reality is that it *is* the same. So whether one person sets saturation, exposure, sharpening, custom colors, etc on their camera (or lets the camera do it for them) and another person does it in post- it's really still the same thing. The one thing I haven't been able to confirm is if you can adjust levels via the camera. I am pretty positive that you can't- well, not without some really fancy equipment! You might be able to swap lens so that you can get your histogram totally filled left-to-right, but even then- I'm not sure how easy that would be. So levels are probably one of those things that could be questionable.
> 
> Funny thing is I set my white balance in camera, and only rarely need to adjust it in post. I also have my colors, saturation, etc set where I want them. So my RAW conversion is pretty straightforward. But levels... I always adjust levels!
> 
> Anyway- I say all that because when I first created the thread I considered using the RAW format as justification to allow post processing. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that what we (generally) do in post in our RAW conversions is the same thing that non-RAW shooters do in camera, whether knowingly or not.


This is why I have broken the rules, and no one ever knew...until now :smirk:. With my point and shoot, I have the option to adjust exposure values, hues and more, and I just let the camera do the processing when I use that cam, I like to be lazy sometimes.

I think the rules should be modified for the clarity of more advanced users. I still stand by restricting post-processing to the 'basics'.

This would allows someone like DJEtzel (I think she said she doesn't contribute because she post-processes) to contribute to the contest without feeling like she has broken any rules. 

Personally, I break the rules because, like you said, the camera is already doing it for most people, I just choose to do it manually to my taste.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

So, I guess I can't put my dog's head on your dog's body?


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

PaddyD said:


> So, I guess I can't put my dog's head on your dog's body?


If the rule was changed- you certainly could! Despite everyone's fear that massively "constructed" images would be entered in the photo contests, I can assure you- nobody would vote for my not-so-sexy body!! HAHA! So feel free...


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

unloader said:


> I think the rules should be modified for the clarity of more advanced users. I still stand by restricting post-processing to the 'basics'.


100% agree. Well- maybe 99%. I still very much want to be able to apply noise reduction... That allows my P&S to be competitive with other people's DSLRs.


----------



## unloader (Feb 16, 2010)

wildo said:


> 100% agree. Well- maybe 99%. I still very much want to be able to apply noise reduction... That allows my P&S to be competitive with other people's DSLRs.


I'd say noise reduction would be included in the basic post-processing, considering I have an option on my DSLR and P&S to reduce noise in camera. 

When I say basic, I mean...nothing that changes the actual photo captured. Like switching heads with your dog, or removing that unsightly object!


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Wow! I'll have to check my S90 to see if it has NR in camera. If so...


----------



## unloader (Feb 16, 2010)

Come to think of it, even HDR should be included, because film cameras could do it, and now...even the iphone can do it!



wildo said:


> Wow! I'll have to check my S90 to see if it has NR in camera. If so...


I don't think it's an option and I think it's applied to in camera jpg by default.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

+1 on that. The new Canon S95 has in-camera HDR.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

I think basic editing should be allowed. But I think that adding in stuff and changing colors and swapping body parts is excessive and should still be against the rules, haha.


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

I voted no.

I'm sorry that the OP feels anyone who disagrees with him/her is lazy with lame piss poor excuses. Everyone's "reason" is valid whether or not you agree with it.



> This really shouldn't be about the photo techniques nor the quality of one's camera. This is a GSD board, the picture contests are just for fun, and should remain that way.


I completely agree.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

sagelfn said:


> I'm sorry that the OP feels anyone who disagrees with him/her is lazy with lame piss poor excuses. Everyone's "reason" is valid whether or not you agree with it.


I typed up and posted a response to this. I was able to catch and delete my response prior to the 10min expiration. Your comment isn't worth a reply (omitting this one).


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

Must be nice to say something then go edit your post and take it back.


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

If my comment upset you it would be nice to know why.


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

I have a pretty fancy computer and a couple of cameras (that I leave on "auto" most of the time, he he) and time on my hands too! But I voted no because unlike the OP photography is not my hobby or career and I don't think it is for most forum members. I do, however, enjoy seeing pics of GSD's that show the owner's love and appreciation of their dogs beauty and/or goofiness! I think changing the rules would mean less people posting pics. Who wants that?


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

I voted no because to me, a photo contest on anything other than a photography forum should first be fun and easy enough so that all members feel as though their photos are "good enough" to submit. I think winners should be chosen based on how well their photo captures the spirit of the theme and the personality of the dog.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

I voted yes.... but I love my photoshop, and I usually never try to go overboard, I just correct my colors. <3 Oh and crop out the unnecessary!!


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

I voted yes. To me photo editing is an extention of photography. In the old days I often brought my prints back because they did not get the colours right. 

Very few pictures are perfect straight from the camera, and even then you can adjust your settings for higher contrast and sharper pictures. 

And point and shoot cameras have great jpeg pictures,many can shoot with a shallow depth of field, and given certain circumstances can be better than a SLR jpeg. 

To me entering an unaltered photo in a photo contest is like entering a dirty dog in a dog show. Basic structure is there but it needs some polish. 

Besides I've seen some very poor pictures, technically, win the contest because the subject matter was great.

As long as a photo is not processed to the extreme (then becomes a graphic arts contest) I don't have a problem with using post processing skills to enhance a picture.

By the way I do have an SLR but I really am poor at the proocessing techniques especially fixing white balance.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

I think the only photo alterations should be basic ones, like contrast, exposure, cropping, color balance, lighting, etc.

It's a photo contest, not a photoshop contest.


----------



## jhbowen (Oct 22, 2010)

So "good enough" is what we are striving for in today's world, in that case, don't bother editing. I edit everything I shoot because I strive for perfection but I know the end result will only be very good (never perfect). However, my results will be way above the "good enough" mentatality or otherwise I will not upload. Just limit contests to cell phone images, they're good enough.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Welcome to the German Shepherd board! 

There is an intro section - we would love to hear about you and your dogs!


----------



## ilivenanigloo (Jul 6, 2006)

Not everyone can afford the photshopping technology or nice cameras. I agree that IF it's allowed, say it was altered. I also don't think red eye correction should be banned. 

Maybe you could have 2 contests? One as it is now and the other essentially a photography contest with GSDs as the subject and anything goes. 

I think the best way to settle the issue would for people who can show the differences editing can make to post two different images (before/after) and see if members think it's a fair comparison.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

ilivenanigloo said:


> Not everyone can afford the photshopping technology or nice cameras.


This has been discussed in the thread. There are many free programs out there for photo manipulation/correction.




ilivenanigloo said:


> I think the best way to settle the issue would for people who can show the differences editing can make to post two different images (before/after) and see if members think it's a fair comparison.


There have been a couple examples of this throughout the thread.


-Thanks for posting your opinion, and hopefully voting (either way). As I stated earlier, complacency and apathy are such good inhibitors to progress. I appreciate every vote- even if it isn't in favor for my opinion.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> Not everyone can afford the photshopping technology or nice cameras.


Even though not everyone can afford nice cameras, the photo contest still allows people to enter, whether they are professional (or semi-professional) photographers with high-end cameras or whether they are Bob with a $80 point-and-shoot. Don't you think that the camera quality and the camera user's experience and background in photography puts them at an advantage already? 

I guess the question is, if we don't allow editing because it's "not fair" to those who don't know how to use editing software or don't own editing software, at which point do we start excluding people based on the quality of their camera and their experience in using it? Should someone who's sold photos be excluded from participating in the contest because they're "professional" photographers? Should people who use SLR's be excluded because they have "nice cameras" and are, therefore, at an advantage?

Just doesn't make any sense.

I also think that saying "not everyone can afford the software" is a cop-out. Unlike nice cameras, editing software _is _available as freeware and, therefore, doesn't cost you anything at all - just some time to learn how to use it. The program Gimp, which is available as freeware, does many of the same things Photoshop does. So anyone is able to download and use Gimp to edit their pictures, and people who have Photoshop or different types of editing software are not at any advantage over the users who have Gimp or other freeware. 

With everyone on a level playing field when it comes to software, the only advantage then is how well you know to use it - and anyone can learn that, there are thousands of free tutorials online. For most basic things - cropping, adjusting colors - you wouldn't even need a tutorial, you could go the trial-and-error route.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

If you don't like the contest rules - DON'T ENTER IT.

Ok, now that I have that off my chest ...

This is not a photography board. This contest is not about the best quality image.

It's about the picture that best captures the *contest theme*.

It has nothing to do with only being 'good enough'. It has to do with what is IN the picture - not how the picture technically looks.

I would pick a grainy, slightly blurry picture over a pixel-perfect, cropped perfect and saturated perfect picture if the first one spoke to me more about the theme.

The rule was set so that those people that didn't have fancy cameras or software could be on even footing with those that do.

So, I go back to my earlier statement.

If you don't like the contest rules - DON'T ENTER IT.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> If you don't like the contest rules - DON'T ENTER IT.
> 
> Ok, now that I have that off my chest ...
> 
> ...


Ugh... I really dislike seeing such narrow perspectives from moderators. First of all- there are already AT LEAST TWO photos in the current (Jan) contest that are obviously photoshopped. Cameras don't add text (with a pretty font) the to bottom of your picture, and I've not seen a digital camera yet that purposefully adds vignette. So right there we can see that some are blatantly breaking the rule anyway. Not to mention that some photos are over the 800x600 rule.

But the breaking of rules is besides the point. To say that this isn't a "photography" forum and therefore we shouldn't care about "good enough" photo quality is so limiting. I just don't get it. *If you say that people don't care about the photo quality- then why limit it to people with only very nice cameras?* I think there must be something else going on... (Actually, I think it's just a clear example of "mob mentality" and lack of information- even though information has been clearly presented in this thread by a few people. So perhaps it's just apathy.)


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Problem with allowing PS and letting people "alter" the pictures is the capabilities of a package like PS. You can easily (if you know how to use such a package) "create" a photo of something that never existed in reality.

If that is ok with the folks that run the contest, so be it! 
But if the aim of the contest is to capture something that actually happened with our dogs, then no PS is the only possible road.

BTW, I don't use PS although I do take a lot of pics with my P&S Canon camera. Never have entered the contest yet though.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

codmaster said:


> Problem with allowing PS and letting people "alter" the pictures is the capabilities of a package like PS. You can easily (if you know how to use such a package) "create" a photo of something that never existed in reality.
> 
> If that is ok with the folks that run the contest, so be it!
> But if the aim of the contest is to capture something that actually happened with our dogs, then no PS is the only possible road.
> ...


My issue is that everyone keeps claiming that the contest is "all about the content" yet won't budge on image quality. If everyone only cares about the content- then they should _not care_ about people ensuring decent image quality. The very fact that the majority has voted not to allow post processing seems to imply that image quality may have more of an impact than they are willing to admit. Thus enter DSLR vs P&S...

EDIT- further- I will admit that I can see your point about people constructing images. For me- that's a nonissue. The kind of images that would represent this "constructed" category would almost certainly never get voted on anyway. So why let such an extreme limit other (perhaps- "more valid") uses of photo manipulation software?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

It's evidently a photo contest not a photo editing contest.

If one wants better pic quality, then take a better picture. With small snapshots the camera itself is not as important as it would be in a bigger photo (or so my son (photagrapher) tells me.


----------



## Tammy GSD (Dec 26, 2010)

Regardless of my vote, I want to chime in that the two biggest things effecting quality of any photograph are composition and lighting. Neither of those is effected by camera quality or post processing.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I don't post in the photo contests because, frankly, I do *some* amount of processing to every single photo I upload. To me getting the photo right on the camera is only half the process. I don't care whether someone gets a perfect shot on the camera or processes a raw image into a perfect shot on the computer. It's an art, however THEY want it to look and whatever processes are used to get that result is really their own choice.

IMO it should not be about who is a better photographer or what is more real or fair but about what the person CREATING the image wanted to see. 

I don't like to get really abstract with my photos. I don't apply filters and layers and all that, I like to try to capture what I saw, the way I saw it, but I still use the computer. I don't share photos that are not a fairly accurate representation of what was happening and how it really looked, and sometimes the camera is the piece that is making it look different, not the computer.

My boss (who has been a semi-pro photog for like 30 years) and I talked about this once, how much processing of digital photography is "fair". He said, as much as you want. I've never done film photography, so I am not familiar with developing but he said developing film is like post processing on the computer. Photographers have always been able to manipulate images beyond what is shot raw in the camera even before digital.


----------



## Melina (Feb 20, 2010)

Liesje said:


> Photographers have always been able to manipulate images beyond what is shot raw in the camera even before digital.



'Tis true. When I was getting my BA I took a class on the "Zone System", something that Group F/64 (Adams, Weston, and many others) used quite often to achieve results they desired, done both in camera and in the darkroom. I hauled my 4x5 all over New Mexico shooting "Ghost Towns" and other various things. With that system you can choose the tonality of certain objects within the scene (You're shooting B&W, obviously), compensate your initial exposure to achieve that goal, then add or subtract development time for your film to get the desired contrast between the lights and darks.

If you really want to get "nit-picky", Ansel Adams wasn't really a Master of Photography, but a Master of the darkroom. His negatives are actually quite boring to look at, and certainly nothing to write home about. He was no better a Photographer than anyone else at the time, he was just better in the darkroom.

I guess if you think about it that way, it would be completely unfair to allow alterations in the Photo Contests. Some may be more proficient in Photo Editing Software (Whatever it may be that they use). I, myself, have been using Photoshop for some 8 years. Not to mention the fact that I have a freakin' Degree in Photography. Do you see me whining about wanting to manipulate my images? No. It should truly be about what you do with your camera, your surroundings, your light sources, your subjects, and your imagination.

Ultimately, however, what it comes down to (As others have said) is that this is a German Shepherd Forum....Not a Photography Forum. Is it really that important?


----------



## Tropism (Nov 30, 2010)

wildo said:


> I think I posted this elsewhere, but I wanted to poll the community and see what others thought. Rule #7 for the monthly photo contest states: No alterations of pictures by any image software allowed except for resizing pictures if they are too big or lighting them up.


I vote that it should be changed, with limitations. Now, I actually have been trained in photography and it is a major hobby of mine, and I'll give you what seems to be the prevailing opinion on things like this:

What you get when you snap a picture with a digital camera is basically equivalent to a film negative. Now, most people would view that as the ultimate in 'fixedness', that is, there's no option to manipulate the photo. What you might not know about film photography is that -everything- about developing and printing a picture is a stylistic choice. The decisions made during the printing process are equivalent to using levels and contrast manipulations in photoshop. (This is why the same negative developed by different people will often look very different; they'll make different stylistic choices as to contrast and levels.) Similarly, they may dodge or burn (lighten by reducing the exposure or darken by increasing the exposure) portions of the photo paper when printing. Unsharp masking is a great way to increase apparent sharpness of an image, and was developed originally in the darkroom. Same with softening techniques, masking techniques, and cropping. These darkroom techniques have merely been implemented in software, making them about thirty billion times easier for someone to do.

These kinds of manipulations, even with the use of masks for selective application, are generally viewed as 'fair,' even by the most reputable news and reportage agencies, and by magazines with high standards like National Geographic. You're not moving things around, or adding things, or taking away things. You're basically doing what any competent professional photo printer would do. 



> Some folks had raised the point that not everyone has access to expensive photo manipulation software.


There are a number of free, open source, highly capable software packages out there. That's a better reason why this isn't an excuse.  Besides, most cameras come with software that's capable of the kinds of manipulations I mentioned above.




> I don't find this to be a valid criticism though. Until everyone is using the _exact_ same camera, then the process used to obtain the finished photograph should be considered irrelevant. Allowing software alterations helps folks with "lesser" cameras compete with the quality of those with "greater" cameras by doing things such as removing noise, or correcting a hot spot or dead pixel.


That, and the best camera in the world won't help you win anything. I've seen people learn how to take wonderful pictures with cellphone cameras, and I've seen gigabytes of garbage from cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. Part of being a good photographer is learning and working within and bypassing the limitations of your gear.

Removing dead pixels is equivalent to removing dust marks from a negative -- utterly inconsequential. It shouldn't be regarded a a problem.


----------



## Tropism (Nov 30, 2010)

codmaster said:


> Problem with allowing PS and letting people "alter" the pictures is the capabilities of a package like PS. You can easily (if you know how to use such a package) "create" a photo of something that never existed in reality.


There's a significant difference between alteration and creating an image out of whole cloth.



> If that is ok with the folks that run the contest, so be it!
> But if the aim of the contest is to capture something that actually happened with our dogs, then no PS is the only possible road.


And therein lies the rub. No camera captures reality, only a reflection of it. Or, perhaps it would be better to say: no camera captures what you see, it captures reality. Cameras and your eye respond differently to light, in many ways -- your eye combined with the visual processing parts of your brain make a capture device that a camera can't hope to come close to, but through decisions made in the taking and processing of a photograph, we attempt to recapture or approximate that image that we had in our head. There're a billion alterations you can make to a photograph before you even shoot it -- you can use polarizing filters, you can use split filters to help with the exposure, close-up filters, softening filters, neutral density filters, star filters ... you choose how objects are going to be foreshortened or flattened through your choice of the focal length of the lens. You can choose to freeze time, capture a dog suspended in mid-air in a lunge, drops of drool frozen like diamonds. Or you can capture a fat slice of it, rendering your dogs legs and tail into a blur as it runs while panning to keep its steady torso and head clear. You can capture everything into the distance in crystal clarity by choosing a small f-stop, or you can have the dog's nose in perfect clarity but the rest of the animal blurred into a mere impression of a dog by using a large f-stop.

_Everything_ about taking a picture is artifice. You exclude things all the time -- either by moving things out of the shot or by altering the angle so that they cannot be seen. You choose whether or not to take the picture based on how it looks. You can alter the lighting, use flash, use reflectors, use diffusers, use colored gels, use multiple light sources, play with the angles, silhouettes, back-lighting, front-lighting, side-lighting. 

You manipulate your subject, getting their attention so they look at the camera, directing them into behaviors and positions you wish to photograph. 

The basic, 'darkroom-type' manipulations are not just kosher, they're less radical than all the things you can do to alter the image before you even snap the trigger.


----------



## Tropism (Nov 30, 2010)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> If you don't like the contest rules - DON'T ENTER IT.
> 
> Ok, now that I have that off my chest ...
> 
> ...


If that's truly the case, then, logically, you should allow manipulations that don't affect image content; the same argument applies. You're not changing what's in the image, so you should be allowed to make the manipulations.



> The rule was set so that those people that didn't have fancy cameras or software could be on even footing with those that do.
> 
> So, I go back to my earlier statement.
> 
> If you don't like the contest rules - DON'T ENTER IT.


Everything but the absolute cheapest P&S POS cameras have options to alter the image before it's saved, nowadays. You can capture it in greyscale, alter levels, do sepia tones, save in 8 or 16 bit, save in low or high quality JPG...and that's just the common stuff. Other cameras can apply custom response curve settings. Should these not be allowed? If that's the case, you shouldn't allow anything other than one type of film to be used for photography, because the choice of film for a traditional photographer is how they select their response curves. (For example, when shooting slide film, Fuji tends to accentuate greens and blues while Kodachrome -- RIP -- accentuates reds and yellows. Depending on the subject matter, a good photographer will make a deliberate choice to use one or the other.)

As to noise reduction -- again, I can choose to use a slow film with grain structure like butter or fast film developed quick-and-hot for chunky grain and a radically different look. I can use softening filters -- literally, tissue paper -- while working a print to eliminate grain while using other techniques to preserve sharp edges in the same print. 

The best thing that digital photography and photo editing programs did was to open up the darkroom to -everyone-. Now, you no longer need a room of your house, expensive equipment, and toxic chemicals to really develop a photo. An error won't cost you money or hours, days, weeks, or even years of time. 

Frankly, at resolutions around 800x600, what kind of camera you have matters very little as far as gross, resulting image quality. I don't think I can find -- outside of cellphones -- a camera being sold now in your average Best Buy type store with less than 5 megapixels. Many sins are hidden by the reduction of the size of the image.  All but the utter bottom of the barrel cameras can be competitive with high-end dSLRs costing thousands of dollars -- _if_ the user with the low-end camera is allowed to make use of basic 'digital darkroom' techniques to make up for the deficiencies in their cameras.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

A voice of reason in Tropism! Many thanks!


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

I guess the majority has spoken. Thanks for voting everyone.


----------

