# 20% photo 80% photo-shop



## thingsIsee (Feb 9, 2011)

Has anyone noticed that most on-line photography contests are about 20% photograph and 80% photo-shop.

I have been doing on-line searches for photo contests although I have found a large amount of them, they all have one issue Im a little bothered by.
Let me explain, when I started in (taking pictures) photography over 30 years ago, it was just something to do.  Once I got better at it and found out what I could show others how I see things in life I was hooked.  I started taking shots of almost everything I could, both using color and B&W film.  I didnt have or do my own processing, but I did have them done by professionals (not the 1 hr photo-mart) any way, after I had gained even more experience and creativity  I started entering my best shots in local contests (no internet) and although I didnt win all the time I did win my share.  As I got older married, kids, job you know life I still tried to continue to shot when I could, but things happen and I went the way of the point & shoot snap shot shooter.  You know the kind of shot that are used to keep memories locked away in a shoe box or old dusty photo album.  Well several years later the kids are grown or almost the job has moved to A typical (8 hrs a day / regular vacations)  and I have once again refreshed my love for shooting.  I got my first entry level DSLR a few years ago, it wasnt long till I had out grown that and purchased a 7D, several lenses, flashes and other items.  Basic outfit + a little like I had years ago with my long lost SLR.  I believe I have regained most of my photographic knowledge and working on creativity I have learned the difference between digital and film.  I love being able to go form camera to computer to print in no time and at home.  I however have an issue with photography contests these days.  I understand the modern era and using computers to edit your own work, I do it myself.  

The one problem I am having after looking on-line at the contest winning shots from various artists all seem to have more photo-shop then photography.        

Has anyone noticed that most on-line photography contests are about 20% photograph and 80% photo-shop.


----------



## bigboi3 (Feb 9, 2011)

Welcome to the 21st century.  Unfortunately that's how it's done today.


----------



## Tbini87 (Feb 9, 2011)

I think this idea applies to more than just photo contests. As I learn more about photography and look into techniques and ways to get certain looks I keep finding that all this cool "photography" happens to mostly be really cool post processing. I feel like I need to work less on my photography skills and more on my processing skills which kinda makes me sad.


----------



## stev (Feb 9, 2011)

I'd say is more 60% photo 40% edit.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 9, 2011)

Ah, I see that you have not developed and printed your own film (and you probably do not realize how much adjustments your Pro Lab did with your prints).

Photoshop is just a darkroom on steroids.

I, like you, am from the days of film ... I try not to PS, but in this day and age it is common even to scan film to distribute the images, so some processing gets dome.

I consider Digital Post Process a tool to manipulate the image ... though some like to be very artistic with it.


----------



## thingsIsee (Feb 9, 2011)

I&#8217;m in tune with what happened in the lab to develop my prints, but the simple enhancements (WB, sharpening, color sat) making a nice shot even better even an artistic border and such, but it seems that a lot of the big winners (not so much with wild life shots) have not enhanced the shot so much as manipulated the image to the point it is almost graphic art rather then something you did with a camera.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 9, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> Im in tune with what happened in the lab to develop my prints, but the simple enhancements (WB, sharpening, color sat) making a nice shot even better even an artistic border and such, but it seems that a lot of the big winners (not so much with wild life shots) have not enhanced the shot so much as manipulated the image to the point it is almost graphic art rather then something you did with a camera.


How do you know this?


----------



## D-B-J (Feb 9, 2011)

And all those beautiful shots im sure have some sort of editing hidden within--levels, contrast, hue and saturation, etc.

For example, this is an image i took.  What kind of post processing (if any at all) do you think went into it?







Regards,
Jake


----------



## thingsIsee (Feb 9, 2011)

Buckster said:


> thingsIsee said:
> 
> 
> > Im in tune with what happened in the lab to develop my prints, but the simple enhancements (WB, sharpening, color sat) making a nice shot even better even an artistic border and such, but it seems that a lot of the big winners (not so much with wild life shots) have not enhanced the shot so much as manipulated the image to the point it is almost graphic art rather then something you did with a camera.
> ...


 
High school photo lab ,Books and research are wonderful things. 

But again I guess Im not clear.  If you take a shot of a lake, technically correct in lighting, F stop, shutter speed and focus.  add a little crop, darken this, lighten that maybe even remove small imperfections (sensor dust what not)  clean up the models skin texture blemishes you know the relatively minor adjustments.

Now take the same shot and add all the above to include, a boat on the lake, castle in the distance maybe a dragon flying around.  This is what I have a problem with and still calling it a camera created photograph.  

I use LR3 and Photoshop to enhance my photographs as stated in the first post, but I do not add or remove what is or isnt there and still call it a photograph


----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2011)

I'd say you've been looking at the wrong photography competitions to enter rather than a change in the market if adding dragons is what you're looking at. I'd even suggest that you were looking at regular art or collage competitions rather than straight photographic ones (unless we are talking komodo dragons here)

As for schools - many a lazy/ignorant art teacher lets the lesser students get away with all the cool photoshop actions just to get over having to actually teach them (arts at school tend to be totally reliant on naturally talented students being fawned over by the teachers with the rest left to sink or flounder )


----------



## Buckster (Feb 9, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > thingsIsee said:
> ...


 And you see that most winning photos in contests today have castles, boats and flying dragons added to them, do you?

I ask again, other than the flying dragons, how do you KNOW the rest was added?  Allow me to clarify: If it's obvious, it's not going to be a winning photo.  If it's not obvious, how do you KNOW they were added?

And again, you've determined this is the case with most winning photos in contests?

Do tell your secret to ferreting out this information when it's so good it wins contests.


----------



## thingsIsee (Feb 9, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> And all those beautiful shots im sure have some sort of editing hidden within--levels, contrast, hue and saturation, etc.
> 
> For example, this is an image i took. What kind of post processing (if any at all) do you think went into it?
> 
> ...


 
Couldnt really say as I have not seen the original image even then probably couldnt say what all was done to it, but it doesnt look like more than the usual enhancements with the exception of changing color to B&W unless you shot in or with B&W film.

Didnt mean this to be a test, just not sure why people call graphic art photography simply because the original starting point came from a photograph.
If you shot a car, then removed the back ground and replaced it with another, changed the color of the car, added a driver, blurred the wheels and back end to look like it was moving and added some tire smoke would you still call this a great photograph or simply very good photoshoping?


----------



## D-B-J (Feb 9, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > And all those beautiful shots im sure have some sort of editing hidden within--levels, contrast, hue and saturation, etc.
> ...


 

Turns out this is actually five raw images merged in photomatix, then edited to b&w in lr3, then levels contrast etc was all edited from there.  What i am getting at is if someone is proficient at photoshop and editing, its nigh impossible to truly tell the extent of their post processing.  Are you sure it was added? How can you prove it?  And what does it matter?  If it were good enough to win a contest, i can imagine its not "shoddy" editing.  Can we see an example of your graphic art winners that arent really photographs?

Regards,
Jake


----------



## thingsIsee (Feb 9, 2011)

http://pfmagazine.com/wp-content/plugins/p-gallery/index.php?level=picture&id=5309#
http://pfmagazine.com/wp-content/plugins/p-gallery/index.php?level=picture&id=5315#

not good exsamples, but can't get to the site I was looking at at home.


----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2011)

Personally once you start making big edits with photoshop I call it a collage rather than pure photography. And heck that is not a bad thing, if I spent hour upon hour crafting changes to a photo to a high standard I'd darn well want people to (if at least) respect the artistic effort that went into creating it and not just the photo that started it all out.

I've seen some great work done with collages where photos were the main base or just a small starting point for the final work.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 9, 2011)

Photography is Art ?

doubleyouwhy! » Photographer, Andrea Galvani


----------



## flea77 (Feb 9, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> For example, this is an image i took. What kind of post processing (if any at all) do you think went into it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, going to have to call you on this one.

1) Look at the knots on the rafters, see how they just jump out and almost look like bruises? Classic HDR.
2) Look at the light coming in the window for direction and the difference between the light below the window and the light on the bright objects, classic HDR.
3) Look at the screen pattern, dead give away for digital.
4) Look at the conduit on the right top rafter as it goes towards the center of the image, bad digital artifacts.
5) Zoom in to any point in the image, no grain structure.

Now don't get me wrong, I have indeed seem images that I could not tell, and some that fooled me. Typically those artists spend litterally days on each frame, and they were dang good. 

Also don't take this as an insult. I rather like your image, but it never even gave me a second's pause in declaring it a photoshop job.

Allan


----------



## Buckster (Feb 10, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> not good exsamples, but can't get to the site I was looking at at home.


I would agree - They're not good examples.  I can easily see how to create either of them in the camera without a need to shop them.

For the first, place a glass pane between the model and the camera, then spatter and finger paint to taste, then shoot the image.

For the second, apply makeup, adjust lighting appropriately, then shoot.

None of this is new.  Photographers have been using creative methods like that for more than half a century - long before Photoshop came along.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Feb 10, 2011)

Sounds like we're discussing two different versions of what it means to 'photoshop'.  I attended a show-and-tell recently where one of the presenters displayed one of those garish, over-the-top Photomatix HDR painterly effect things and got rave reviews.  That's the sort of post-processing that I think the OP was objecting to, and I agree that it's taking over.

The photo by Jake (above) is something quite different, however.  Here he's just using technology to render a difficult-to-render subject.  It's difficult to render those kind of shadow values with standard digital technique because of the noise problem.  Although to a trained eye the image is clearly HDR, I think it's firmly in the tradition established by Ansel Adams and others of just trying to capture the dynamic range of the scene.  In fact, Jake's image is less manipulated than some of Adams work.  If you've ever seen a straight print of "Moonrise over Hernandez" you know what I mean.


----------



## myshkin (Feb 10, 2011)

I do a lot of HDR and still think the photo is the biggest factor. I see people who are great at processing and take their photos through 5-6 programs. They know all the tricks yet their photos are no good because they never learned composition and how to take a good photo in the first place


----------



## Buckster (Feb 10, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> Sounds like we're discussing two different versions of what it means to 'photoshop'. I attended a show-and-tell recently where one of the presenters displayed one of those garish, over-the-top Photomatix HDR painterly effect things and got rave reviews. That's the sort of post-processing that I think the OP was objecting to, and I agree that it's taking over.


That's not what her text or sample images implied.



SlickSalmon said:


> The photo by Jake (above) is something quite different, however. Here he's just using technology to render a difficult-to-render subject. It's difficult to render those kind of shadow values with standard digital technique because of the noise problem. Although to a trained eye the image is clearly HDR, I think it's firmly in the tradition established by Ansel Adams and others of just trying to capture the dynamic range of the scene. In fact, Jake's image is less manipulated than some of Adams work. If you've ever seen a straight print of "Moonrise over Hernandez" you know what I mean.


Indeed. This type of work on photos has been going on for far longer than personal computers have even been around. It was all invented by the photo pioneers in darkrooms, including HDR, over the past century or so. While computers and Photoshop makes it something nearly anyone can do now, there's very little that can be done with Photoshop that talented photographers couldn't do and haven't done for going on a hundred years now.

And I'm still not buying the claim that photo contest winning shots are 80% Photoshopped. That claim seems based on some vague idea that they seem too good to be true, or perhaps the persons who make such claims can't figure out how to do it themselves without resorting to 80% Photoshopping.

Maybe my problem is that I've studied too much of the "old school" ways that great photographers of the past pulled off incredible, unbelievable shots in the camera, just by using their brains to set up compositions before clicking the shutter. Of course, my studies in that regard began long before the invention of the home computer or Photoshop, and that's what they had to work with.

In combination with wet darkroom work they did to take it even further, they were still photographs made by photographers. Anyone who thinks "Moonrise over Hernandez" isn't a photo because Adam's manipulated it like crazy in the darkroom hasn't got a grasp of what photography actually is or what all's involved. (not saying you don't consider it a photo SlickSalmon - just making a generalized comment)

If someone produced the same photo today, they might well be accused of Photoshopping it. Some naysayers would accuse the photographer of shopping in the moon itself, among other things. They might claim it's no longer even a photo - because it's been so manipulated.

I say pish-posh to all that talk.

Home computers and Photoshop are simply the digital version of the wet darkroom, as modern DSLRs are the digital version of the analog cameras that preceded them. They've opened photo processing to the masses, but photo processing was already an important part of photography from the very first image made - the didn't invent it. They've streamlined the processes used by photographers over the past century or so - they didn't invent them.

They're nothing more than tools. Photographers have always used tools to make images during each step of the making of a photo; See Adams' "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print". Now we use modern tools to do the same stuff they did with the tools they had at the time, and that's really the only difference at all.

Some folks just need to catch up and get over it.


----------



## kasperjd4 (Feb 10, 2011)

I think the difference you're looking for is the difference between photoshopping and Pixel-pushing. 

A lot of the photo's I have seen recently in magazine contests, as Buckster said, could have been done with a artistic touch and no PP other than lighting changes. 

There was one on the cover of Photographers Foum :






This seems like simple photoshop with the red on her face and paint splatter on the background. I don't see how they could have gotten that color on her face and blended it into her hair that perfectly without photoshop. Or I just don't know how to apply makeup very well. 

It is really hard to tell what people do. I just did a little zombie shoot all done with liquid latex and stage makeup, a lot of my friends thought it was photoshop. 

I say it's whatever the person/client wants. If my client wants some insanely edited cool looking photograph, thats what I'll give them. If I want to turn in a photograph to a contest I'll do it however I feel is the best way to portray what I want to express.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 10, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> http://pfmagazine.com/wp-content/plugins/p-gallery/index.php?level=picture&id=5309#
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That could be done without any advanced photoshop techniques.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 10, 2011)

Post good shops and info here:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...r-creative-edits-techniques-instructions.html


----------



## MichiganFarts (Feb 10, 2011)

I wonder if the cavemen who drew on cave walls had drawing contests, and then got pissed when paper was invented 'cause their #$%* didn't look good anymore.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 10, 2011)

kasperjd4 said:


> I think the difference you're looking for is the difference between photoshopping and Pixel-pushing.
> 
> A lot of the photo's I have seen recently in magazine contests, as Buckster said, could have been done with a artistic touch and no PP other than lighting changes.
> 
> ...


 
That top of the face and hair can be done with makeup.


----------



## kasperjd4 (Feb 10, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> That top of the face and hair can be done with makeup.


 
Good to know!! I guess I'm not as talented with makeup as I thought. I'll have to give this a try soon.


----------



## thingsIsee (Feb 10, 2011)

http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/inspiration/65-very-creative-and-funny-photoshopped-images/

http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/inspiration/65-very-creative-and-funny-photoshopped-images/

Although these were properly identified and graphic art this is the type of things I am talking about as being called photography


----------



## D-B-J (Feb 10, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> not good exsamples, but can't get to the site I was looking at at home.


 
I'm sorry but i think that first one is amazing.  Sure, not straight up photography, but still awesome.


----------



## D-B-J (Feb 10, 2011)

flea77 said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > For example, this is an image i took. What kind of post processing (if any at all) do you think went into it?
> ...


 
But it is not as obvious as some hdr's.  All im trying to say is that its nigh impossible to know the extent of editing.  

Regards,
Jake


----------



## Buckster (Feb 11, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> Although these were properly identified and graphic art this is the type of things I am talking about as being called photography


Except that you just said they were properly identified as graphic art. Nobody tried to pass them off as straight up shots from the camera in a contest.

Speaking of, what PHOTO contest(s) did they win?

And, is this the kind of thing you see winning in ALL PHOTO contests? That was, after all, your claim:



> I have been doing on-line searches for photo contests although I have found a large amount of them, *they all have one issue Im a little bothered by*.


----------



## mortovismo (Feb 11, 2011)

If, as an artist, someone likes what they are producing and as an added bonus other people like what they are producing...does it really matter how much photoshop is or isn't used?


----------



## flea77 (Feb 11, 2011)

mortovismo said:


> If, as an artist, someone likes what they are producing and as an added bonus other people like what they are producing...does it really matter how much photoshop is or isn't used?


 
It very well may to certain people. For example, here is my opinion:

Any image that is not significantly different from the original (meaning that alterations such as exposure, contrast, removing minor blemishes, etc) are photographs. 

Any image that is significantly different from the original (those above, objects removed or added, most HDR, etc) are not photographs, they are graphic art.

That does not mean one is any more legitimate than the other, or one is better than the other. But just like oil painting and watercolor are different, so are these. And yes, I do both.

Other people's opinions may be different, and that is fine. If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place.

Allan


----------



## skyy38 (Feb 12, 2011)

Tbini87 said:


> I think this idea applies to more than just photo contests. As I learn more about photography and look into techniques and ways to get certain looks I keep finding that all this cool "photography" happens to mostly be really cool post processing. I feel like I need to work less on my photography skills and more on my processing skills which kinda makes me sad.


 
No-get back to being a world-class sniper with your camera.
If photoshop was gone tomorrow, a lot of people would be up that far-famed tributary without so much as a tongue depresser.


Original or edit?

88th Sunset | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2011)

flea77 said:


> But just like oil painting and watercolor are different...


...they are both still called painting. :lmao:

By gosh, how can two forms of art using totally different pigment compositions used on very different grounds, be called the same thing?!?!


Wait! Wait! Isn't it all considered graphic art? Photography, painting, illustration, printmaking, drawing...It's ALL Graphic Art.

/thread.


----------



## flea77 (Feb 12, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> ...they are both still called painting. :lmao:
> 
> By gosh, how can two forms of art using totally different pigment compositions used on very different grounds, be called the same thing?!?!
> 
> ...


 
Yes, and aerospace engineering and ditch digging are both occupations, so if you get general enough everything can be lumped together under one word or phrase. That doesn't mean they are the same.

Of course differing opinions are what makes the world great, you have yours and I have mine. More power to you!

Allan


----------



## AdrianS (Feb 14, 2011)

I would have to agree with steve


----------



## Tbini87 (Feb 14, 2011)

skyy38 said:


> Tbini87 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this idea applies to more than just photo contests. As I learn more about photography and look into techniques and ways to get certain looks I keep finding that all this cool "photography" happens to mostly be really cool post processing. I feel like I need to work less on my photography skills and more on my processing skills which kinda makes me sad.
> ...


 
Not exactly sure what your point is. I want to be as good with a camera is possible. A technically good shot will be better than a crappy shot with the same amount of editing. Getting a great shot in camera reduces the amount of editing needed. However, photoshop isn't going anywhere so the reality is that some people don't need very good photography skills when they have very good photoshop skills. As others have mentioned it is a fine line between being a photo and being graphic art with the amount of editing done to some "photos".

As far as that sunset photo goes it doesn't look heavily edited to me. I have no idea what it would prove if it was or wasn't edited.


----------



## Joseph Westrupp (Feb 25, 2011)

I think processing is an imperative part of photography, and I love the look of processed photos--even if the final product barely resembles the original exposure. Actually, I rarely find photos without significant processing compelling.


----------



## Brenda Lee (Feb 25, 2011)

I get the point of the OP. "No editing" and "pure photography" contests are harder to find. If you just want to do it for fun, you can find some on Facebook that state "no editing". Like this one:

Photography Contest * New and Improved* | Facebook


----------



## Bynx (Feb 25, 2011)

Im not sure what the point of this thread is. First off Im not sure the percentage claims of contest winners are anywhere near accurate. Where do they come from besides the OPs imagination? A winning photograph is just that -- a photograph. To win, it must have been good with no tell tale obvious signs of being put through Photoshop. Its up to each person with a camera to decide what they want to learn to produce that final image. Its admirable if you can use only the camera. But not all can afford the best glass. Not all can have an incredible subject in front of them. Photoshop can clear up a fuzzy image from poor quality glass, and can make a subject more interesting with layers. Its a way of leveling the playing field. Having different options to create a prize winning image is good for everyone and gives them the choice how they want to proceed. Its not good to have a division between pure camera and camera with Photoshop. Its the final image that counts and how one gets there is no one's business but the artist. I think there is room for everyone with a camera and Photoshop.

On a side note to the critic who analyzed Jakes photo. Its always easy to do that when you know what was involved. I would have been more impressed if you made your comments before you were told it was an HDR.


----------



## JG_Coleman (Feb 25, 2011)

Personally, "people" photography isn't something I have much more than a glancing interest in... landscape/outdoors/scenic photography is what I'm really into.  I can say that, by and large, it's still practically heresy to enter a landscape/nature/wildlife shot into a contest if elements within were literally added to the frame and didn't exist there at the time of the shot (many such contests specify this in the rules).  And I can also attest that I can't remember a single time that I've browsed the winning photos from a nature/landscape contest and seen elements that appeared to be Photoshopped into the scene.  So, on that level, I'm not really sure what contests you are looking at.  Admittedly, I have seen amazing shots that came together so remarkably well that I was almost instantly made jealous of such a spectacular photograph... but I had no reason to believe that it wasn't simply a matter of being in the right place at the right time and having the skill to capture the photograph properly and creatively.

To clarify, though, I've done my share of complaining about blatant HDR jobs.  I, personally, am sort of turned off by the whole "cartoonish" trend... but that's just me.  The fact of the matter is that many people really enjoy the style and, as it's always been with so many crafts and arts, the masses are the judge and jury of what is termed "good" or "bad"... even if we are all entitled to our own opinion.  I use HDR all the time, but if I can't look at the resulting image and feel that it looks natural, it gets a one-way trip to the Recycle Bin.  Then again, everyone's concept of "natural" is going to be slightly different.

I would agree that more and more landscape photographs are enhanced by brilliant Photoshop plug-ins and the like.  Every once in a while I look at photo and honestly feel that there's almost no way that the scene looked quite so amazing when the photographer was standing there taking the shot... the colors are just too amazing, the lighting is almost unrealistically perfect, etc, etc.  In short, it's been made to look almost more perfect than it possibly could have been in real life (if that makes sense).  But if I can't perceive that some area is totally faked, then that pretty much qualifies as a great photo with great processing.  Some trust is involved here, too... if you look at superb photos thinking that amazing elements MUST be fake, then that's what you'll see.  Even if some landscape photographs are getting polished up to near mythical quality with PS plug-ins, that's still a far cry from adding entire elements to a photograph.

I don't think that great photos these days are 20% photo and 80% Photoshop.  Along the same line of reasoning, a guy without the funds to travel around the world going to remarkable landscapes could argue that "in contests these days, it's 20% photography and 80% wealth to go to amazing places." (EDIT: I meant to add here that I think that, too, would be something of a cop-out)  Photography is what it is... a constantly changing field where you have to keep up with the current or get left behind and fall into the "rutted, old-timers" category.  Even if you prefer the "old-timer" category, that's okay.  Every craft and art has that sub-culture of "doing it the old-fashioned way" folks.  Maybe it's a good thing, after all, that there are always some people left over asking that we re-evaluate where we are going... even if that questioning doesn't change the direction of advancement.


----------



## Forkie (Feb 26, 2011)

I don't think Photoshop is a bad thing.  In the film days, people manipulated their photos in the darkroom by fixing or altering the exposure by over or under-developing, created composite photos by developing one photo over another, etc.  I just see Photoshop as the modern equivilent and as just as valid a way to manipulate photos.  Some people take it over-the-top, of course, but I'm sure loads of people did the same in the darkroom, you just didn't know it because they couldn't share their work so easily without the internet.


----------



## ericANDamanda (Mar 1, 2011)

I am also amazed at how much photoshop beyond the typical color correction, blemish removing, contrast, etc is allowed into photo contests.  I tend to think if the image is 80% not real, it's not really a photograph but more of a graphic concept. Lame sauce indeed!  

Blessings

Eric & Amanda Photography - International Destination Wedding Photography Team - International Destination Wedding Photographers


----------



## Buckster (Mar 1, 2011)

ericANDamanda said:


> I am also amazed at how much photoshop beyond the typical color correction, blemish removing, contrast, etc is allowed into photo contests. I tend to think if the image is 80% not real, it's not really a photograph but more of a graphic concept.


Please point me to these many, many "PHOTO" contests where 80% 'shopping is allowed and used on the winning PHOTOS.


----------



## Overread (Mar 1, 2011)

Buckster said:


> ericANDamanda said:
> 
> 
> > I am also amazed at how much photoshop beyond the typical color correction, blemish removing, contrast, etc is allowed into photo contests. I tend to think if the image is 80% not real, it's not really a photograph but more of a graphic concept.
> ...


 
Me to - any serious photography competition is often terribly restrictive with the use of editing. RAW processing, cropping, sharpening and noise are about all you can get away with. Everything else is mostly right out of the question (esp any selective editing like local contrast/curves etc...).


----------



## D-B-J (Mar 1, 2011)

Seventy percent of statistics are made up on the spot!

Regards,
Jake


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 1, 2011)

Buckster said:


> ericANDamanda said:
> 
> 
> > I am also amazed at how much photoshop beyond the typical color correction, blemish removing, contrast, etc is allowed into photo contests. I tend to think if the image is 80% not real, it's not really a photograph but more of a graphic concept.
> ...


 
Hmm, I agree with Buck ... we should look at some Winning Photos ... then guess if how much processing has been done.

Interesting game, except we will not be sure who is right.


----------

