20% photo 80% photo-shop

[thingsIsee]

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]

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

 

[Tbini87]

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]

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

 

[dxqcanada]

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]

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.

 

[Buckster]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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

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]

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

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]

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

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?

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]

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]

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.