No PP for a contest

[phishphorphun]

I find it interesting that after all of the education with articles and demonstrations that I have gotten from this site, that the postprocessing of my work cannot be acceptable in a photo contest. I'm not talking about major touchup work (I wouldn't consider entering a photo where the subject matter has been touched up), but basic, almost neccessary, procedures to get to the finished product.

A new photography site is introducing a photo contest and the guidlines are very simple. Photos will be accepted that are only cropped to frame and are reduced to a max of 640 pixels wide. No other edititing permitted.

So, I can't enter anything that has been shot in Raw for the obvious reasons. Only JPEG, I guess. I can't clone out any dirt or other minor distractions, can't adjust exposure, can't use color leveling or curves. Can't even use unsharp mask after reducing a 3000 pixel to 640.

So my first question is this:

How many of you feel you can produce a photo that is "contest quality" without doing absolutely anything in photoshop?

I'm looking for candid and objective answers. Remember...nothing edited at all except crop, resize and submit.

I have found a few that could be considered long shots from older work when I wasn't shooting in Raw. But I wouldn't enter them in a "photography site". Maybe a fish site contest. In fact one of them just won a monthly contest on a fish site. But it looks like a good "snapshot" imo.

And my second question is:

Should a "photography site (aquatic)" only consider photos that require no post prossessing for a contest?

Again, I'm not trying to stir up any antagonism, just honest oppinions. Only because I'm miffed about why I am learning so much about the "photoshop darkroom".

 

[t_chelle16]

Actually, I normally don't do anything to most of my photos (other than some cropping and sharpening if I resize them). My fish photos are the ones that get touched up most often because they are in a situation where there tends to be a lot of distractions and they're constantly moving so you really can't take the time to set up a shot as much as you can with photos of other things like scenery, flowers, buildings, etc.

And I have seen photo contests before where you couln't even resize them. They had some way of telling if it was an image straight from the digital camera or if it had been run through an image editor.

And honestly, I think if I were running a photo contest (general, not fish), I'd probably allow only the equivalent editing to what can be done in a darkroom with film.

-Chelle

 

[Schnauzer]

Bobby ,
I think 90% or more of the people who take pictures of their fish think people like us here at this site cheat with photography . I don't mean all , but I think the majority think we walk up to an aquarium with dirty glass , algae on the inside and crap floating in the water snap a picture then run over to some magical processing program and make a beautiful picture out of it . They are definately not all this way though . I saw a picture last night on a different site that could have been a beauty if he knew how to stop the blur from movement .
So with all that said , I think they are trying to get it so the average aquarist with his / her point and shoot can take a picture and be on even ground with people like us with a lot of money tied up in equipment .

I saw the same contest and thought it might be fun to take what we have learned and apply it to this sort of thing . Who knows it might make us better . The photo may not be CONTEST quality but it would be for THAT contest if "SOMEONE" doesn't cheat .

 

[hir0]

hrm. well, sucks you can't shoot raw. just set a custom whitebalance before you shoot in jpeg and you should be good to go.

 

[Bjarne]

Shooting in JPEG the camera already edits the images when taken. Also autosharpening, autowhitebalance, preset saturation etc. are done in the camera. Do the site know digital photography at all?

 

[alanhill]

I think there might be a place for a processing contest, with 'before' and 'after' images being submitted.

Apart from daguerrotypes, most Polaroids and colour transparencies, all photographic processes give the possibility of image manipulation: and even the first three can be cropped or masked. Some photographers prefer not to use some techniques, for example Cartier-Bresson always printed from whole negatives without any cropping - but who else had the instant compositonal sense and the hand/eye/brain co-ordination to produce great art that way?
Other photographers have specialised in certain effects, for example Man Ray used the Sabbatier effect on negatives or prints or both - and he also produced unique art. Both approaches are valid.

In the end the final image is more important than the method by which it was made.

Alan

 

[Schnauzer]

Wow Alan !! I wish I knew what you know about this stuff . After reading some of your posts I realize I know absolutely nothing about it .
When my daughter gets home I will ask her what you said .
I do understand the beginning and end .

 

[phishphorphun]

Shooting in JPEG the camera already edits the images when taken. Also autosharpening, autowhitebalance, preset saturation etc. are done in the camera. Do the site know digital photography at all?

They actually suggested that I shoot in JPEG and play on a level playing field.

I think the bottom line is that they are going to go through some "growing pains" until they figure out what direction they should take. Their primary interest is to get more photographers involved...I guess?

 

[phishphorphun]

I saw the same contest and thought it might be fun to take what we have learned and apply it to this sort of thing . Who knows it might make us better . The photo may not be CONTEST quality but it would be for THAT contest if "SOMEONE" doesn't cheat

I think I would rather wait until they have a better understanding of digital photography. They already have formed an oppinion. My photots, no matter what kind of pp they receiveved, will never make the cut now.

 

[Ibn]

I agree with what the others have already said. Even when you shoot in JPEG, it's already been processed (sharpening, saturation, etc.). Shooting in RAW allows you to go that extra step, but nowadays one can also alter JPEG via editing, so I don't really understand what the big deal is.

I also think that it can be done if you wish. Heck most of us shot in JPEG before we got into shooting RAWs. If they have their minds set on it already, I wouldn't really bother (I've heard similar things recently although in other areas, like someone comparing Quantaray glasses versus Canon/Nikon equivalent...).

Here's one of my earlier pictures shot in JPEG. Image was cropped from the original, but otherwise, no manipulation was done to it.