Disqualified for alteration: Thoughts

[tbob]

I will put my two cents in; seems a bit far fetched that removing a foot is deemed grounds for disqualification when the image was submitted in black and white. Unless I am mistaken, there is still colour in eastern europe.

http://petapixel.com/2010/03/03/worl...lifies-winner/

[Shadowman]

Would have to see the rules of the contest but I believe even converting to B & W would disqualify under most rules; however it's possible that converting was allowed.

[Didace]

"The content of the image must not be altered."

Seems pretty clear cut.

[marlunn]

wow, and the original had a post growing out of his head - so much for professional framing of an image, I fele so much better about my attempts now

[Saorsa]

In general, the rules for Nature and Photojournalism do not permit the addition or removal of anything from an image. Conversion to monochrome, removing dust spots, noise reduction, burning and dodging are all considered normal processing but once you start cloning out parts of the image you are altering things that within those categories is forbidden.

The rules I am referring to are those for PSA and FIAP competitions.

PSA

Photojournalism images shall consist of pictures or sequences with informative content and emotional impact, including human interest, documentary and spot news. The journalistic value of the photograph shall be considered over pictorial quality. In the interest of credibility, photographs which misrepresent the truth, such as manipulation to alter the subject matter, or situations which are set up for the purpose of photography, are unacceptable in Photojournalism. Human Interest images depict a person or persons in an interactive, emotional, or unusual situation, excluding recreational or sports ACTION. See our Guidelines for Human Interest Images.

The nature division hits it harder

No techniques that add, relocate, replace, or remove pictorial elements except by cropping are permitted. Techniques that enhance the presentation of the photograph without changing the nature story or the pictorial content, or without altering the content of the original scene, are permitted including HDR, focus stacking and dodging/burning. Techniques that remove elements added by the camera, such as dust spots, digital noise, and film scratches, are allowed. Stitched images are not permitted. All allowed adjustments must appear natural. Color images can be converted to grey-scale monochrome. Infrared images, either direct-captures or derivations, are not allowed.

[Manfred M]

Thank you once again for reminding me why I don't enter competitions, I'm too busy making images to want to worry about the things I can and cannot do to an image if I want to enter my image in a contest.

While I fully understand the journalistic issues regarding not misrepresenting a scene through editing. To a great extent these rules are bogus when applied at these purely mechanical levels. Removing a dust bunny or sensor spot is legal, but cleaning something immaterial up in the shot to improve it is not?

[Saorsa]

Thank you once again for reminding me why I don't enter competitions, I'm too busy making images to want to worry about the things I can and cannot do to an image if I want to enter my image in a contest.

While I fully understand the journalistic issues regarding not misrepresenting a scene through editing, to a great extent these rules are bogus when applied at these purely mechanical levels. Removing a dust bunny or sensor spot is legal, but cleaning something immaterial up in the shot to improve it is not?

I actually find the ND and PJ division rules liberating. I don't have to worry about having the latest filters or follow the latest trends in HDR or steampunk stuff. I still manage to pick up acceptances and the odd honor or medal in Color, Mono and Travel as well as Nature and PJ.

[NorthernFocus]

I guess the line has to be drawn somewhere. But it would be nice if it (the line) was visible to everyone and stayed in one place

Like Manfred, I don't enter contests. For various reasons...

[Manfred M]

I guess the line has to be drawn somewhere. But it would be nice if it (the line) was visible to everyone and stayed in one place

And the rationale for the line being there should be logical and make sense, rather than being the simplest thing to do administratively. I'm willing to bet a lot of great images get screened out because the rules are so overly broad. This means the subset of best SOOC image (or darn close to SOOC) doesn't have to compete against the "best image".

[rpcrowe]

The rules are there for a reason. Photographs that have been manipulated to change the general attitude of the image are not wanted. Unfortunately, the easiest way to enforce this rule is to do so in an all-encompassing and arbitrary way: Absolutely no changes at all

[Saorsa]

The rules are there for a reason. Photographs that have been manipulated to change the general attitude of the image are not wanted. Unfortunately, the easiest way to enforce this rule is to do so in an all-encompassing and arbitrary way: Absolutely no changes at all

You don't need to enter your images in PJ or Nature divisions. There are very few that are exclusive to one division. Some of course are like the National Insect Salon, Raptors at Risk or other dedicated nature salons. Those are a true challenge to nature photographers and photojournalists.

If I have a nature image I think needs unacceptable work I just enter it in the general color or monochrome division. In those divisions there has been a trend to so much manipulation that a creative division has been created.

[tclune]

And the rationale for the line being there should be logical and make sense, rather than being the simplest thing to do administratively.

The simplest thing to do administratively makes a lot of sense, People who enter artistic contests are often a very thin-skinned lot. Not having to spend your time in pissing contests with self-aggrandizing louts strikes me as a worthwhile objective for any set of rules. As always, YMMV.

[ionian]

The simplest thing to do administratively makes a lot of sense, People who enter artistic contests are often a very thin-skinned lot. Not having to spend your time in pissing contests with self-aggrandizing louts strikes me as a worthwhile objective for any set of rules. As always, YMMV.

As a self-aggrandising lout I'd have phrased this differently, but I totally agree I much prefer to manipulate images if they need it, but that just means I wouldn't enter in that category. My approach to photography is about crafting an image, whereas others concentrate on capturing a moment in time as seen. Of course, the best pictures are when the two combine seamlessly.

[Dave Humphries]

I also don't enter competitions for various reasons (chiefly I don't do so well )

Let's face it, that shot was nothing more than a casual snap (that any of us could have taken at an event) and he tried to extract/rescue it by a significant crop, framing rotation, monochrome treatment, post vignette or excessive burning, not to mention the cloning.

Therefore, IMHO it really didn't deserve* to win anything.

* That said, I haven't seen how bad the 'competition' was

Additionally; I'd say cloning does break the spirit of rule; "The content of the image must not be altered."

YMMV, Dave

[John 2]

....................................... My approach to photography is about crafting an image, whereas others concentrate on capturing a moment in time as seen. Of course, the best pictures are when the two combine seamlessly.

I agree and I would go further and say that increasingly, my enjoyment of photography is based on that precept. However, although I no longer compete, I have taken part in UK national, PSA and FIAP competitions over many years and for two reasons, I am slightly dismayed at some of the comments I have read in this post.

The first reason has already been alluded to - namely context. This rule is only applied to Photo Journalism, Travel and to a lesser extent these days, Nature. Accuracy is (or should be) important to these genres. I would wager that any one subject to a news report on themselves, based on a manipulated image or arriving at a holiday destination that doesn't match up to the pre-viewed images, is going to be somewhat hacked off. It's in this spirit that this rule is applied and although not as serious, the principle is no different than that which forbids the manipulation say, of published research results.

There then remains however, the question of the degree to which the rule is applied. This has little to do with self-aggrandising loutishness and much to do with practicality. As soon as you allow some deviation from the rule, you immediately open up an opportunity for debate over where the line should be drawn. As soon as you do that and since an exact definition is all but impossible, you create the potential for it being interpreted differently and in turn, undermining the level playing field that is the basis of all competition, photographic, sporting or whatever. That then raises the second reason.

This rule hasn't been revealed arbitrarily in retrospect. It was part of a rule set that was presented prior to the the photographer entering the competition. In my experience this particular rule would have been pointedly singled out and emphasised on the entry form and would not have been hidden away in the small print - not that this matters since the rules are there to be read. As in any competitive endeavor, the rules are the basis on which the competition is held and given prior knowledge of them, for the reasons given above, you break them at your peril.

Not every photographer wants to compete although I will say it's a good way to provide incentive for you to improve your skill. If you do, you abide by the rules. If you don't, you have the choice not to and it is no reason to look down on those that do.

[Manfred M]

I would wager that any one subject to a news report on themselves, based on a manipulated image or arriving at a holiday destination that doesn't match up to the pre-viewed images, is going to be somewhat hacked off.

John - having had this happen (more than once) and all without the help of PP (other than perhaps image cropping).

I have been to places where carefully chosen camera angles and focal lengths have hidden a garbage dump beside the property. In another case a small creek, that was little more than an open sewer, running into the ocean at the boundary of the property was conveniently omitted from the brochure. The conveniently hidden busy road along side the hotel, I guess that was legitimate too?

This does not even begin cover the oft used super-wide angle shot to make tiny, closet-sized hotel rooms look palatial or to show images of the facilities when they were newly opened and bore little resemblance to the one I visited 10 years later.

No one seems to have any issues shooting a model with lenses and poses that flatter, shooting the "good side" or hiding defects or enhancing features with makeup. That is all considered to be legitimate, but touch just a few pixels in Photoshop, this is suddenly inherently wrong and borders on evil as the Photoshopper is trying to deceive the viewer.

I have no issues at all with the rules regarding retouching or manipulating the image, as these are the rules and as long as they are clear and are presented in the manner that you describe. What does bother me is the apparent hypocrisy of the process where one form of manipulation is acceptable and is in fact rewarded, whereas others forms are are not.

[Mike Buckley]

I completely agree with John. I completely disagree with Manfred that the stated rules are hypocritical though I understand why some might feel they're hypocritical; that point is all a matter of philosophy and it's a good thing that different philosophies can co-exist.

As for the issue about submitting a monochrome image, the rules clearly state that "Only retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed." Surely we all agree that monochrome images conform to currently accepted standards.

[John 2]

Manfred, I honestly don't think there is any hypocrisy at work here. I absolutely agree with you that manipulation is used daily to mislead the unwary but it doesn't make it right although I believe that it is leading to a culture in which individuals are constantly trying to push the boundaries (note to self: must close my offshore accounts ). However, I don't believe that's the point. The point is that for the sake of maintaining a level playing field, a framework has been agreed in order to provide a clear and unambiguous basis of competition. It could be different and be equally valid but it's not. It is what it is and given prior knowledge of it, competitors should accept that and should work within it.

[Manfred M]

Mike / John - I have no issue at all with what you are saying. The rules are the rules and breaking them means disqualification.

My issue is really digging below these arguments and suggesting that any rules are in fact biased and when people write about "a level playing field", they mean the exact opposite and are in fact proposing an advantage to one specific group over another.

I live in a city where Uber is trying to enter the market and of course the local taxi industry is up in arms. The current rules favour the incumbants and of course no one likes having their income or investments threatened. The "level playing field" argument is a favourite of the taxi industry, who clearly have short memories to the monopoly situation / high cost of entry to the business that was the reality until quite recently.

You of course are right, there are categories that allow these "manipulated" images into the competition, but they really seem to have a second rate billing versus the more traditional "pure photography" categories. I might be wrong, but whenever I have a peak at these contests that people are badgering me to enter, the rules seem to favour the incumbents who have drafted the rules primarily to give themselves an advantage, using the "level playing field" argument. The people who are good photographers and good Photoshoppers seem to be second class citizens when it comes to many photo contests.

[Mike Buckley]

when people write about "a level playing field", they mean the exact opposite and are in fact proposing an advantage to one specific group over another.

If that's the hypocritical aspect you're referring to, I agree. If those people instead simply explained that they picked a set of rules that would result in the photographic outcomes and restrictions they wanted their contest to showcase, that would be fine and not hypocritical in and of itself.

the rules seem to favour the incumbents who have drafted the rules primarily to give themselves an advantage

I know a photographer in Charleston who decided to enter a contest that was held annually. Her method was to review the previous winning photos, note the similarities and produce her own photo having those similarities. She won the contest the first time she entered. She won the contest the next year. She decided not to enter the contest after that because it had become for her more about how to play the game than how to make a great photo.