I'm posting this here since this is where I mainly hang out and the forum seems to get lots of views (not necessarily resulting in critiques). Hopefully some will offer responses.
Anyway, there will be a local photography contest this summer open to professionals as well as amateurs. A portion of the rules reads
All photos must be submitted in digital format as JPEG or jpg files. The photos need not be taken with a digital camera; properly formatted scans of prints, slides or negatives are acceptable. Digitally manipulated images are not eligible. An image that combines the elements of more than one photograph or has elements removed is not eligible. Minor burning, dodging and/or color correction or cropping is acceptable.
My question: What is generally considered "minor" re the last sentence? The competition is juried and should I enter I would neither want to violate the rules nor be disadvantaged by an overly strict understanding on my part. The judges are known, regionally at least, professional artists and professional photographers - not to imply they are mutually exclusive professions
Given my usual observations, one might conclude C&C stands for clone & crop. I'm especially interested since several months ago I had a conversation with a photographer for one of the contest sponsors about the ethics of altering images (in a journalistic context) regarding the photographer from Toledo who was summarily dismissed for altering his images, to include what, to me seemed to be innocuous cloning. The gentleman's guidance: "If the change alters the information content of the image in any way, don't do it."
Minor is a very relative term, compared to what? BUT, as skilled craftsman, the viewer should not be able to tell if any dodging/burning/cc was done to the image. I'm pretty sure that traditional darkroom techniques won't get you any demerits as long is it's not heavy-handed.
I agree with you, but the conditions (ie rules) as described to me by the photo journalist specifically touch upon "..or has elements removed is not eligible."
For example - your post "in between" - from what I was told, should you decide to "heal" the scraped knees, you have changed the informational content of the image and, IMO, it would be ineligible for entry regardless of the fact that a viewer would have no way of knowing the changes were made.
One of the images the photographer lost his job over involved cloning out the legs (from knees down) of someone otherwise hidden behind a banner hung from a chain link fence - outfield fence at a ball field I think. And, I can understand how this changes the informational content of the image.
So, is cloning out litter from a street scene a violation? I would guess it is.
I realize this is a moot point for most viewers but I am curious about others' experiences.
I think it is a great idea to only have photos entered which are "true" photos. With todays technology it is very easy to snap a shot and not really pay attention to the fine details, because we're just gonna sit in front of the monitor and fix what we need to. IMO this contest will bring the skill needed in photography back to where it should be...at the camera! Don't get me wrong, I edit my photos too, but it's funny how people get nervous when rules state you cannot remove or add things to your picture
Ken
Thanks for your comment Ken, I fully agree, and, I am guilty too.
Technology is wonderful, but I think essentially "cost-free" images (in terms of development, paper, time, etc.) have turned some, and I include myself, toward a less thoughtful approach. I need to go back and revisit how to properly take a photograph rather than shoot many images hoping to find several that are salvageable through technology.
I posted something similar on the Pro forum but after reading more of the threads pulled it as they were more about pricing etc.
Never having participated in such a contest, I just want to make sure I understand and play by the rules
Back in the days of film photography, a good photo typically included some lab work: for instance, to set the contrast with over or under developing in the print cycle, based on how the image was initially captured on film. The amounts of exposure and development processes were pre-established at the time of exposure - or at least an attempt was made.
IMO, this holds true with digital photography too. One needs to consider what the post processing will be when the exposure is made in order to gain the most detail at both the highlight and shadow areas.
I would have to believe that the rules allow normal adjustments in the digital lab in a similar fashion. As far as the "minor" is concerned, if it's not detectable, it should be acceptable, regardless of how much. One crosses the line when that adjustment creates a special effect - too much vignetting at the corners for instance.
Which does raise another question: For a level playing field, am I justified in using NR software for high ISO when those with Canon and Nikon mega-bucks gear can shoot at ISO 64,000 or whatever? Seems fair to me - sorta like playing tennis with a wooden Wilson "Jack Kramer" against an opponent at the same USTA rating - probably slightly less skilled works too - using the latest composite racquet. Over the long haul technology will win, I have no doubt.
Anyway, my meanderings for this morning,
Bob
BTW - I have requested help in understanding the rules from the "competition contact person" - I'll post the reply should I receive one.
