# Photography Discussions



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

This link from Don's SAP post caught my eye today. 



> David Byrne was disqualified from the Landscape Photographer of the Year award for employing excessive digital manipulation in his winning entry, a striking black-and-white image of beached wooden fishing boats with Lindisfarne Castle in the distance.
> 
> He has been removed of his title as overall winner of the competition, which comes with a £10,000 prize.
> 
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-disqualified-for-too-much-Photoshopping.html

I had already been thinking about digital manipulation. Back in the days when I ran a custom photo lab. A simple dodge or burn was often a routine part of a custom print. One thing we had very little control over was colour contrast. We had to work with what the papers and films could deliver. Overly contrasty images could have shadows burned and sometimes highlights could be dodged, but the contrast within those parts of the image remained constant.

Now in a few seconds I can perk up a flat image with just a tweak of the levels. I can work on the entire image or just parts of it. 

While I try not to go overboard it is rare for me to leave an image completely untouched. Density colour balance adjustment at the very minimum. For me the goal is trying to recreate the mood or feeling that caused me to want to take the image in the first place.

OTOH I have seen a lot of published images where the image has been tweaked way off into fantasy land. You know the lighting and colours in the image come nowhere near the original scene. Sometimes effective, sometimes the reaction is more along the lines of; "You have got to be kidding" 

As you can tell I am not in the least a complete traditionalist but at the same time I am curious as to how much manipulation should be allowed in a photo contest. Is it no holds barred? Everything but blending of multiple images? Overall density and contrast adjustments only? or Straight from the camera no alterations?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

This reminds me of a documentary of Annie Leibovitz. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/movie/annie-leibovitz-life-through/id333285546

Are her pictures now any less of a photo than what she did back in her days with Rolling Stone magazine?

Vent: Annie Leibovitz: Life Through a Lens 

I guess the question becomes what is a photograph? 

If Annie submitted this photo would she be banned? I just don't see a difference.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Completely absurd that he was disqualified... ridiculous in the extreme.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Extreme digitalism is running rampant in the world today,
Hard to decide where to draw the line.

As a founding member of PhotoSIG,
I've seen a lot of this kind of digital retouching.

Perhaps when it get's into almost repainting the whole scene,
You sort of wonder if it's really digital "Dodge and Burn" or just digital perfectionalism.


When is photography not photography?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Absurd is right. Even in the days of film and paper photographers manipulated images...right down to multiple images from multiple negatives in a single unique print. 

A photographer's vision is their own.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> Absurd is right. Even in the days of film and paper photographers manipulated images...right down to multiple images from multiple negatives in a single unique print.
> 
> A photographer's vision is their own.


You can question whether the dark mood turns your crank, but I could as easily have accomplished the same thing in the dark room, so I would hardly call it overly manipulated.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

An exact replication of a scene is impossible, even for the original viewer. No two people looking at the same vista have the same visual experience. Pre-digital photographs were also variants of the original scene. Camera, lens, exposure, film, paper, and printing technique (_e.g_., burning, dodging) all lent their qualities to the final image, which again was seen differently by each person. Pre-colour photography was a complete distortion of the the original experience.

So, disqualifying a picture on the basis of “manipulation” is bogus. A picture can only be judged by its qualities by a person, or a group of people. 

We have all seen ‘junk’ that is prized by the photographer, and have seen beauty in images that were discarded.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

They way they judge now Ansel Adams would not win. If Ansel had todays tools he would be the biggest photohopper of them all.



> There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.





> You don't take a photograph, you make it.





> Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.





> The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> They way they judge now Ansel Adams would not win.* If Ansel had todays tools he would be the biggest photohopper of them all*.


Indeed... Once again the ruling for him to be disqualified is absurd.


----------



## natali449 (Jul 13, 2013)

Congratulations! This is the best thing, Thank you so much for taking the time to share such a nice information.. 

*nybmedia.com*


----------

