[normhead]

These people who complain about the post processing... who appointed them to be the taste police? Enjoy the images, or don't , that's your choice.. but based on the varieties of people and the different levels of comfort with how far one should go in post processing, don't expect a consensus. Just a pile of opinions, with the loudest opinions often being the most ignorant.

Or to steal an idea.

There will always be people who will be more or less comfortable with post processing than yourself. It's not your place to convince them that you're right, and they are wrong. They will make those decisions for themselves.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-07-2014 at 04:01 AM.

[Winder]

We typically have 2 categories for print competitions.

1. Photography: Exposure, Adjust highlights/shadows/whites/blacks, White balance, Cropping, Noise Reduction, Sharpening, Contrast, Clarity, Saturation/vibrancy, Lens correction and basic brushes (dodge & burn), hand coloring B&W prints.
2. Digital Art: HDR, any form of stacking, Add/delete elements

We only accept prints, so its a little different than an online competition, but winners have to provide the original RAW file. All I look for is composition, perspective, originality, & subject matter. Originality and subject matter are probably the most important. If someone chooses to enter an image of an over saturated cotton candy waterfall, junkyard HDR, or use roads/railroad tracks/fences as leading lines, then the image had better be frick'n amazing to have a shot. If they went to the Grand Canyon and stood in the exact same spot as 100 million other people (Horseshoe Bend) and took the exact same picture, then I don't care how pretty the sky was that day or how much they played with colors to make it pretty. Its probably not going to get my vote.

One of the things I don't like about the online competitions is that you can't score an image on individual strengths and weaknesses. I can't give it a separate score for originality, use of color or patterns, composition, subject matter....... Hard to give people real feedback with a simple "LIKE" button. Very weak system.

[wildman]

It seems to me that most PP is done to just make a pic technically better without much creative intent...

...my librarian took this with her PS to include with a little pamphlet she was making up for the library.
I fixed it up a bit just to make it more presentable to the public - no harm done and no moral issues involved in my opinion just made it better for it's intended purpose.

[MRRiley]

In any contest involving humans, you are going to have some people who have advantages and other people who have disadvantages. What if the contest was about underwater imagery? Obviously, people who know how to scuba dive and have the proper equipment have an advantage over folks who normally get no closer to the ocean than their bathtub. In contests such as the K3 one, the contest will be won by the photo the audience and final judges feel is the best "overall" image.

The funny thing is, no one complained much in the film days about how an image was processed. Film was pushed or pulled. Prints were cropped and burned or dodged. Often multiple methods were used in different parts of a single image. There is indeed a lot to be said for "getting it right in the camera." but sometimes there are things the camera alone cannot communicate about the subject or what we envisioned when we hit the shutter button.

I've seen many of Ansel Adams' original negatives. They are all very nice.... however, the prints are all heavily processed to impart the message Ansel wanted to communicate. The negative was only half of the equation.

[Winder]

In any contest involving humans, you are going to have some people who have advantages and other people who have disadvantages. What if the contest was about underwater imagery? Obviously, people who know how to scuba dive and have the proper equipment have an advantage over folks who normally get no closer to the ocean than their bathtub. In contests such as the K3 one, the contest will be won by the photo the audience and final judges feel is the best "overall" image.

The funny thing is, no one complained much in the film days about how an image was processed. Film was pushed or pulled. Prints were cropped and burned or dodged. Often multiple methods were used in different parts of a single image. There is indeed a lot to be said for "getting it right in the camera." but sometimes there are things the camera alone cannot communicate about the subject or what we envisioned when we hit the shutter button.

I've seen many of Ansel Adams' original negatives. They are all very nice.... however, the prints are all heavily processed to impart the message Ansel wanted to communicate. The negative was only half of the equation.

I don't know how it is taught in the digital age, but my instructor complained quite a bit about how we processed, and for some of the assignments you turned your film in to be processed by others so you couldn't manipulate the results. We did combine images in the darkroom when that was the assignment, but most of the time we were graded on the quality of the original capture. Darkroom skills like dodge & burn were taught so you could fix your screw ups. If we screwed up then you had to fall back on these skills to recover the work. I have always viewed photography "contests" in the same light.

I think there is a difference between an Art contest and a Photography contest. I have a lot of respect for the skills of graphics designers and Photoshop masters. I think is great that people can take 3 or 4 images and see how they can strip them down and combine them into one image to make a work of art. That take a lot of vision, skill, and work, but I don't view that as photography. That is digital art, and it is definitely an art that requires a lot of talent. Photography literally means to draw with light and it is all about the capture of light. The processing was about revealing what was captured.

I agree that some people will always have an advantage in competitions. A player who uses steroids will have an advantage over a player who doesn't. Its a world where the end result is all that matters.

[wildman]

There is a line where a photograph crosses into graphics art. Cross this line and photo contest judges will throw your submission out. Different judges have different tolerance for it. And It varys according to which technique used. But it boils down to a perception that the end result is no longer photography.

For me there is no such "line". Whether it's a Vermeer or an Arbus they are both just two creative artists trying to have a visual dialogue with me - are they talking to me or not?
In an ideal world I'd like to go into a museum and see on the wall a classic 16th century Chinese landscape right next to Ansel Adam's "Tetons". Why not?
The line is created in our minds not reality and is ultimately arbitrary.

[Imageman]

I don't know how it is taught in the digital age, but my instructor complained quite a bit about how we processed, and for some of the assignments you turned your film in to be processed by others so you couldn't manipulate the results.

I have a problem with this, you always manipulate the result when you process whatever you do. Nothing is finished in camera that's just the start of the process.


When you handed a film over to a lab to process they manipulated it their way it was never un-manipulated it was always manipulated by whoever processed and printed the results.
If you successfully created low key images in camera, the processer or lab would lighten them up until the low key was lost and they printed them normally exposed or as close as they could get to that, destroying the image and then claimed it was underexposed in error. They then in an indulgent manner gave simple tips on how to be a good photographer so you wouldn't "ruin" the photograph next time


The same was true with high key they destroyed the very image successfully created in camera. And when a more artistic focus approach was used they would refuse to print it claiming the image was ruined because it was out of focus and then they try to teach a competent photographer how to expose and focus a picture "correctly".


We quickly learned to give detailed instructions on how to print the images to try to get the lab to stop manipulating and destroying the images. That usually didn't work so we learned not to use labs at all and process and enlarge everything at home because unless you take "normal" holiday snaps whoever processed the film and printed it would ruin the photographs destroying any good in camera work.


Thats why so many experienced colour photographers quickly moved on to transparencies, the lab could not mess those up, other than by wrong processing or damaging or losing them.


The problem with transparencies was the general lack of dynamic range so print film was preferred for difficult lighting conditions.


Monochrome of course was unavailable as transparency film so printing was the only option.

[Winder]

I have a problem with this, you always manipulate the result when you process whatever you do. Nothing is finished in camera that's just the start of the process.


When you handed a film over to a lab to process they manipulated it their way it was never un-manipulated it was always manipulated by whoever processed and printed the results.
If you successfully created low key images in camera, the processer or lab would lighten them up until the low key was lost and they printed them normally exposed or as close as they could get to that, destroying the image and then claimed it was underexposed in error. They then in an indulgent manner gave simple tips on how to be a good photographer so you wouldn't "ruin" the photograph next time

No. We wrote instructions on development slips that we submitted with the film for processing. You had to understand development and how it was going to effect your image. In the case of 4x5, we were only allowed to turn in 1 shot for a grade. The people doing the processing and printing were advanced students who also got graded on the finished product. Since the 4x5 film was typically developed in a large tank with other students, if there was an error in the development it would show up on everyone's film and it would be obvious. The goal was for you to learn to communicate your intent in writing just as you would with a professional lab. Today all this information is embedded in digital file, but back then you had to write it all out. We didn't have a color lab at school, so all color work was done off campus.

We had full access to the darkroom to do printing, and you could print as much as you wanted so that you understood the process and develop the skill. I would shoot my assignment twice. I would take the first set into the darkroom and develop it and print it so I knew exactly what I wanted done and how I wanted it to look. The 2nd set I turned in with the instructions to match what I did. The picture came back looking different that my 1 set then either the processor made a mistake or I wrote down the wrong instructions. The instructions you provided were also part of your grade and turned in with the film.

I only had one problem that I can remember. I had one 4x5 that the processor crewed up and didn't put the film in the holder correctly. My negative was pushed up against another negative during development and they were both ruined. We both had to re-shoot the project. The student doing the processing didn't get to do it over. They got a failing grade for that assignment.

Yes, all digital files are manipulated. When we do print contests winners still have to provide RAW files. We have a separate category for digital art. Anything that is stacked (including multiple exposures) goes into digital art. Any image that has elements added or deleted goes into digital art. The pictures are submitted without names so there is no bias by the voters. They are graded on different categories instead of a simple "LIKE" button. There are several categories that the work is graded on and the final score is a composite. You would think that with the power of modern computers and technology there would be halfway decent scoring systems for online contests.

---------- Post added 06-10-14 at 10:41 AM ----------

For me there is no such "line". Whether it's a Vermeer or an Arbus they are both just two creative artists trying to have a visual dialogue with me - are they talking to me or not?
In an ideal world I'd like to go into a museum and see on the wall a classic 16th century Chinese landscape right next to Ansel Adam's "Tetons". Why not?
The line is in created in our minds not reality and is ultimately arbitrary.

Museums are not photography contests. When we do print contests the winners of the different classes are all hung together regardless of the work. Contests are not really the same thing as art displays.

[wildman]

it was always manipulated by whoever processed and printed the results.

A huge advantage for digital. Now it's practical for photographers, even amateurs, to have more or less total control of the entire process from shutter release to final print.

Contests are not really the same thing as art displays.

Needless to say.

[normhead]

This gets tiring...
Lets just look at the whole photographic process....
You have a subject....
Light is un-even, the texture of the skin reflects light differently depending on the small difference in angle created by the one point light source.
The lens may have certain distortion characteristic.
The sensor may not record the colour exactly as you see them because the white balance is perfect in nature... but not for your what your camera is preprogrammed to expect
Colours may not appear as saturated as they did at the time, particularly true i you shoot raw.
Items in the scene that were high contrast have been reduced in intensity because the camera reduces the wholeole scene to a particular setting say 13 EV, when looking at the scene there may have been a 13 EV difference in one subject in one part of the scene.

These are all things that must be corrected in post , because they are artifacts of the process of photography, as opposed to what was actually there. If you're saying there should be no or little post, then you''re saying photographic artifacts are in some way real, and reality is bogus.

Stop and consider that for a second, there is simply no way around it. it's an absolute. There is no room for argument, it's true now, it was always true.

To start off with, lets look at a Richard Avedon original. Many of Avedon's images were extremely accurate technical portrayals. You'd think he'd just place the lights and take a straight forward shot that needed little or no work.



Now look at the reality, one section of the picture the centre person's face with Avedon's processing notes. This is just one man's face, look how big the rest of the picture is.



So the basic issue here, is, it takes a great deal of post processing to achieve technical accuracy, just to make up for the defiencies of the medium, the lighting and and the artifacts you get from chemical or digital reproduction.

So technically "pristine" photography is impossible without post production.

But there is another type of capture in photography that is equally valid. Emotional photography. Where you see a scene and it has an emotional effect on you, and you try and recreate the emotional impact, that was a combination of that scene and your emotional state at the time, helping others to have an emotional response vaguely reminiscent of your own, or maybe even one unique to them personally. This is where post processing really takes off. IN fact the scene may not even play a part of the equation, it may be entirely the artist expressing an emotion.

Most images are a combination of the two but photographic images do exist at both extremes.

Both extremes rely heavily on post processing. So, to an extent, it doesn't matter. If the competition was run and one of the criteria was the absolute best technical representation of a scene, post processing would be absolutely essential.

If the contest wanted the best image eliciting and emotional response, post processing would be essential. In neither one of these extremes can post processing be even marginal. I'm not clear where in the photographic spectrum, no post processing is even a valid practice. Looking at "no post processing" blogs, I've yet to see even one compelling image, but a lot of really bad images, and that includes the work posted by proponents on the forum, although usually out of politeness, I don't comment.

So, I'm not clear on what the objective of a photograph would be if no post processing was applied? A study of the artifacts created by cameras and sensors? A study of the changing nature of light as it reflects differently at different angles when pointed at certain objects? Is that really what you want your contest to be about?

The thing that people seem to ignore, is a picture with no post processing is usually nothing more than a snapshot. It was there to capture a moment, the technical accuracy is not important, the correcting of artifacts is not important. It just has to be a rough representation of a scene where someone pointed a camera. The emotion comes entirely from within the person's memory. No interaction with the present or the artist is necessary, the picture itself evokes nothing to a person who wasn't there, or who was there, but wasn't feeling any particular emotion at the time.. That to me in no way suggests "contest winner." That to me suggests a complete lack of understanding of the whole photographic process, what an image is and how it is captured, and what it is possible to do with it. No one who understands the way these images are created could state there should be no post processing. The camera is always in error. It never gets it right, not if you're Joe Blow, not if you're Richard Avedon. It's your skill in post, that makes it a viable image, or a snapshot.

People who take snapshots really don't need post processing. They aren't hung up on technical accuracy and the emotion generated by the picture is generated by their memory of the event, no other person looking at that photo will have any reaction to it unless they can relate it to similar events in their own lives. People who's photography is about archived memories just need a few clues to jog the memory.

Photographers on the other hand, are motivated by the art of photography. The ability of the image itself to generate a response in whoever looks at it. Not every snapshot does that. Having sat through many of my mothers slide shows of her trips all over the world, many snapshots put people to sleep, they are so lacking in the ability to generate any kind of response. Those pictures shouldn't win contests. I suspect all this nonsense about "too much post" is a sneaky attempt by those who don't do much post, to alter the rules, so they have a chance to win every now and then.

Maybe we should give the person who takes the best snapshot a K-3. They'd be just as happy with a point and shoot, but hey, waste a K-3 on them. Some guy struggling to make great art with a limited camera, .. why give him a break? Why not just stamp on the back of the guy's head at the same time? Loser. Reward those who haven't bothered to learn , who don't care about either technical or emotional photography, who are still shooting jpg, who consider post processing cheating. Why waste a perfectly good camera on such a person?

I like the contest the way it is. Encourage people to learn the skills they need to make the most use of the camera, encourage someone who looks promising. And tell the ones who are making half assed effort to shove off. "I want it to be easy", is not an mindset that promotes excellence.

That's what i like to see in these contests, excellence, in this one, it's sad that there's so much here. A lot of excellence isn't going to get rewarded.

P.S. I should have just told my instructors at Ryerson I didn't need to do 6 hours of week in the darkroom. I should have just told them..."i'll just send my film to the photofinishers".... I wonder how that would have played out?

[Winder]

These are all things that must be corrected in post , because they are artifacts of the process of photography, as opposed to what was actually there. If you're saying there should be no or little post, then you''re saying photographic artifacts are in some way real, and reality is bogus.

That is not at all what I said.
What I said was that for the Photography competitions that we do we allow:

Exposure, Adjust highlights/shadows/whites/blacks, White balance, Cropping, Noise Reduction, Sharpening, Contrast, Clarity, Saturation/vibrancy, Lens correction and basic brushes (dodge & burn), hand coloring B&W prints.

That is a long list of typical post process work.

The thing that people seem to ignore, is a picture with no post processing is usually nothing more than a snapshot. It was there to capture a moment, the technical accuracy is not important, the correcting of artifacts is not important. It just has to be a rough representation of a scene where someone pointed a camera. The emotion comes entirely from within the person's memory. No interaction with the present or the artist is necessary, the picture itself evokes nothing to a person who wasn't there, or who was there, but wasn't feeling any particular emotion at the time

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken
30 Of The Most Powerful Images Ever - Eye Opening Info | Eye Opening Info
The 32 most powerful images ever taken | Just something (creative)
The 80 Most Powerful Photos of 2013 | The Roosevelts
The 60 Most Powerful Photos Ever Taken That Perfectly Capture The Human Experience

I don't see a lot of over processed digital crap in here. Just a bunch of cheap snap shots. A good image is good when it is captured. How many HDR images made the list? Do you see many multiple exposures or stacked images on that list? Any cheesy filters?

no other person looking at that photo will have any reaction to it unless they can relate it to similar events in their own lives.

This is a total load of crap. The above links are full of images that invoke an emotional response from people regardless of their own lives.

If someone captures images that aren't strong enough to stand on their own then they had better be good at Photoshop or have some good "filters" to apply.

[monochrome]

Putting aside the idea that Ansel Adams pre-processed his images (mixing his own chemicals and coating his glass using his proprietary techniques), "Moonrise. Hernadez, New Mexico" was most certainly post-processed in the lab, In fact since over 1300 prints were made it is a near certainty that over time Adams' printing of the exposure changed. Over time the sky was darkened, the crosses highlighted and the shadows enhanced - at least, so I have read.

How does analog post-processing differ philosophically from digital post-processing? The final image - the print on paper or screen - expresses the art.

[normhead]

That is not at all what I said.
What I said was that for the Photography competitions that we do we allow:


That is a long list of typical post process work.



http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken
30 Of The Most Powerful Images Ever - Eye Opening Info | Eye Opening Info
The 32 most powerful images ever taken | Just something (creative)
The 80 Most Powerful Photos of 2013 | The Roosevelts
The 60 Most Powerful Photos Ever Taken That Perfectly Capture The Human Experience

I don't see a lot of over processed digital crap in here. Just a bunch of cheap snap shots. A good image is good when it is captured. How many HDR images made the list? Do you see many multiple exposures or stacked images on that list? Any cheesy filters?

This is a total load of crap. The above links are full of images that invoke an emotional response from people regardless of their own lives.

If someone captures images that aren't strong enough to stand on their own then they had better be good at Photoshop or have some good "filters" to apply.

But tell us what you really think.

[RGlasel]

that invoke an emotional response from people regardless of their own lives

I've lost my Dialogues of Plato book, so I won't try to give quotes, but this argument goes back that far. A fundamental debating point in determining what is art, or what art is (there is a difference), is whether or not art can evoke an emotional response from everyone, regardless of their individual education and experience, and whether or not art can evoke an emotional response from anyone, even if it doesn't represent anything real. It's a very poor metaphor, but you could think of it as arguing over the existence of an art appreciation gene, and if there is one, is something that triggers the art gene truly artful, or is it just crafty?

My aim in making photographs is to create souvenirs for myself of the things I see, so I consider myself a crafty photographer. When my wife looks at this picture of the ornamental plum tree in our backyard, she knows what I took a picture of, but her emotional response to the picture is different than when she is in the backyard looking at the tree. Is it art? I'm not sure, but all art doesn't have to be good, to be art, does it?

[Homo_erectus]

I don't see a lot of over processed digital crap in here. Just a bunch of cheap snap shots. A good image is good when it is captured. How many HDR images made the list? Do you see many multiple exposures or stacked images on that list? Any cheesy filters?

This is a total load of crap. The above links are full of images that invoke an emotional response from people regardless of their own lives.

If someone captures images that aren't strong enough to stand on their own then they had better be good at Photoshop or have some good "filters" to apply.

Those are all powerful photographs, each in its own way, but they are all "journalistic" photographs. The subject matter of your examples is generally so powerful that no amount of artistry could make them better and only the worst amateurishness could diminish their power. But, almost none of us will ever have the "opportunity" to shoot in circumstances like these. There's no way to schedule a weekend war zone or genocide so you can get some powerful shots. And, there's no expression of imagination in your examples, just adequate to great captures of powerful once-in-a-life-time moments.

What are we supposed to shoot in the 99% of our lives that aren't exploding with exquisite drama? Isn't there more to art than recording moments of extreme irrepeatable emotion?