(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Exactly how much photoshopping are you allowed to do in a photography contest before the judges disqualify you for 'too much' photoshopping?

05 Nov 2012 02:49 AM   |   24092 clicks   |   Telegraph
Add Comment
Showing 1-50 of 162 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Krieghund     
Stop making sense, subby.

05 Nov 2012 12:10 AM
Reply
Triumph    [TotalFark]  
blogs.photopreneur.com

Can you win posthumously?

05 Nov 2012 12:14 AM
Reply
moothemagiccow     
The answer is none. None more photoshopping.

05 Nov 2012 02:53 AM
Reply
Monty845     
There is clearly an acceptable level, as even your digital camera is "photoshoping" what it saves to produce a better photo (Unless your using a raw format). Most people would say that adjusting levels/colors across the whole image is also acceptable manipulation. Once you begin using tools to alter specific portions of the image, it becomes totally a matter of opinion on how much is acceptable. Without seeing a before and after picture, you can't really judge whether what was done is acceptable, and the article didn't have one.

05 Nov 2012 02:59 AM
Reply
rockforever     
You can't do an "Iran" level of photoshopping.

05 Nov 2012 03:02 AM
Reply
wildcardjack     
I think that adjusting levels might be okay, but any movement of elements of the image would be well into PS territory. I've been told that a big part of the genius of Ansel Adams was the result of tweaks in the development process.

Although we do appreciate the works that show up here.

05 Nov 2012 03:06 AM
Reply
Mock26     
If what you did could be duplicated in a dark room then it should be allowed. Anything beyond that should not be allowed.

05 Nov 2012 03:07 AM
Reply
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

05 Nov 2012 03:07 AM
Reply
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich     
But it's okay if you use GIMP, right?

05 Nov 2012 03:08 AM
Reply
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich     

AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.


Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

05 Nov 2012 03:11 AM
Reply
smadge1     
I used MS Paint.

Should I not have done that?

05 Nov 2012 03:11 AM
Reply
Acharne     
And no letting colour blind people look at it! They can't appreciate art like we can!!

05 Nov 2012 03:12 AM
Reply
doglover    [TotalFark]  

05 Nov 2012 03:13 AM
Reply
HotWingAgenda    [TotalFark]  
I find it hilarious and sad that the winning photos from the competition were all about broken husks of formerly thriving civilization. Somebody needs a hug.

05 Nov 2012 03:13 AM
Reply
bobtheallmighty     

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.


Pretty much this. I used to add shadows to things in the dark room, and that was in highschool. I even used diffrent filters on the enlarger to adjust the image, dodged and burned specific areas, stitched negitives together, preformed double exposures to produce neat effects, tons of stuff. It was a bit harder then the computer is, But you could accomplish alot with a good enlarger and some time.

05 Nov 2012 03:18 AM
Reply
Bonanza Jellybean     
upload.wikimedia.org

05 Nov 2012 03:23 AM
Reply
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.


I'm against those things as well.

05 Nov 2012 03:24 AM
Reply
ras django     

bobtheallmighty: I even used diffrent filters on the enlarger to adjust the image, dodged and burned specific areas, stitched negitives together, preformed double exposures to produce neat effects, tons of stuff. It was a bit harder then the computer is, But you could accomplish alot with a good enlarger and some time.


ahhhhh. random ass double exposures. miss those. i also miss cross processing. ps cross processing isn't as random.

05 Nov 2012 03:29 AM
Reply
Rezurok     
Here's an explanation from somebody with too much time on their hands: Link

05 Nov 2012 03:31 AM
Reply
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

AverageAmericanGuy: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

I'm against those things as well.


To be fair, I'm only against these things in the milieu of photography contests.

Where one person spends a month of their lives staked out to capture the perfect shot with the sun in the right place in the sky and the weather just so, another will take a mediocre base image and dodge and burn until what he's looking for 'pops'. It's a disservice to those who work hard for their pure shots.

05 Nov 2012 03:35 AM
Reply
fusillade762    [TotalFark]  

Krieghund: Stop making sense, subby.


This is not my beautiful photograph.

05 Nov 2012 03:40 AM
Reply
Lord Summerisle     
Too bad. I love that photo and have been up to Lindisfarne to try and recreate my own version. I won a minor competition using a photo of the castle with a tremendously dramatic sky. I told no-one it was a sky replacement job and I feel slightly guilty, even though the rules say nothing to forbid this.

05 Nov 2012 03:40 AM
Reply
pnkgtr     

Krieghund: Stop making sense, subby.


What you did... I see it.

05 Nov 2012 03:43 AM
Reply
clyph     

wildcardjack: I think that adjusting levels might be okay, but any movement of elements of the image would be well into PS territory. I've been told that a big part of the genius of Ansel Adams was the result of tweaks in the development process.


Exactly. If it's a direct analog of a darkroom process, it's OK to do it in Photoshop. (IMHO)

05 Nov 2012 03:48 AM
Reply
libranoelrose    [TotalFark]  
Is this a trap?

i.imgur.com

05 Nov 2012 03:54 AM
Reply
clyph     

ras django: ahhhhh. random ass double exposures. miss those. i also miss cross processing. ps cross processing isn't as random.


You can pick up good used 35mm film gear for pennies on the dollar, especially if you're not worried about compatibility with your DSLR system. You can get a good used Medium Format film outfit for less than an entry level DSLR.

I got two Canon Elan 7's for $50 each on EBay. Next purchase is some developing tanks and chemistry.

05 Nov 2012 03:54 AM
Reply
ras django     

AverageAmericanGuy: Where one person spends a month of their lives staked out to capture the perfect shot with the sun in the right place in the sky and the weather just so, another will take a mediocre base image and dodge and burn until what he's looking for 'pops'. It's a disservice to those who work hard for their pure shots.


i'ld say give a good printer your hard wrought pure image and he/she would make it even better.

05 Nov 2012 03:57 AM
Reply
Christian Bale     
i.telegraph.co.uk

Too much photoshop? Nah, looks the same as it ever was.

05 Nov 2012 03:58 AM
Reply
moothemagiccow     

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.


Do you mean to say that Photoshop wasn't a totally original idea and name? I always wondered where Photoshop got the inspiration for tools like "Filter" "Lens Flare" and "Magic Wand."

05 Nov 2012 03:59 AM
Reply
clyph     

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm against those things as well.


You're also against bathing. What's your point and why should anyone care?

05 Nov 2012 03:59 AM
Reply
moothemagiccow     

clyph: wildcardjack: I think that adjusting levels might be okay, but any movement of elements of the image would be well into PS territory. I've been told that a big part of the genius of Ansel Adams was the result of tweaks in the development process.

Exactly. If it's a direct analog of a darkroom process, it's OK to do it in Photoshop. (IMHO)


So New Layer is out?

05 Nov 2012 04:00 AM
Reply
libranoelrose    [TotalFark]  

clyph: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm against those things as well.

You're also against bathing. What's your point and why should anyone care?


Can't you read his Fark handle?

He's here to represent the average american guy.

05 Nov 2012 04:00 AM
Reply
rocky_howard     

AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.


Uh...where do you think Photoshop got its name from? It's been done for decades.

05 Nov 2012 04:04 AM
Reply
rocky_howard     
Now, Photoshop or no Photoshop, how did the former winner beat the new one? It's a much better photo in every sense of the word.

Disqualified Photo:

i.telegraph.co.uk

New Winner:

i.telegraph.co.uk

05 Nov 2012 04:06 AM
Reply
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

clyph: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm against those things as well.

You're also against bathing. What's your point and why should anyone care?


Well, that was an unwarranted personal attack.

It's too bad. I thought there was a good conversation to be had here.

rocky_howard: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Uh...where do you think Photoshop got its name from? It's been done for decades.


Yes, and in a photography contest, I think the use of photograph manipulation is out of place.

In your living room or on a museum wall or in your photo albums, by all means, do your worst.

05 Nov 2012 04:07 AM
Reply
moothemagiccow     

rocky_howard: Now, Photoshop or no Photoshop, how did the former winner beat the new one? It's a much better photo in every sense of the word.

Disqualified Photo:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x283]

New Winner:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 450x620]


Two words: Onion Titties.

05 Nov 2012 04:08 AM
Reply
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

rocky_howard: Now, Photoshop or no Photoshop, how did the former winner beat the new one? It's a much better photo in every sense of the word.

Disqualified Photo:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x283]

New Winner:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 450x620]


People like moody pictures.

05 Nov 2012 04:08 AM
Reply
libranoelrose    [TotalFark]  

rocky_howard: Now, Photoshop or no Photoshop, how did the former winner beat the new one? It's a much better photo in every sense of the word.

Disqualified Photo:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x283]

New Winner:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 450x620]


I would tend to disagree.

I think the natural curves in the PSed photo makes me stare harder at it.

And that's what photography is all about, sir.

Staring at stuff until it's perfect.

05 Nov 2012 04:09 AM
Reply
rocky_howard     

Rezurok: Here's an explanation from somebody with too much time on their hands: Link


HOLY....FARK. I thought you were joking when you said too much time, but jesus, that guy is real life Photoshop CSI lol.

05 Nov 2012 04:09 AM
Reply
libranoelrose    [TotalFark]  

AverageAmericanGuy: rocky_howard: Now, Photoshop or no Photoshop, how did the former winner beat the new one? It's a much better photo in every sense of the word.

Disqualified Photo:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x283]

New Winner:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 450x620]

People like moody pictures.


You just keep your opinions to yourself.

You saw what happened a few posts ago when you started spouting truth.

05 Nov 2012 04:10 AM
Reply
moothemagiccow     

AverageAmericanGuy: Yes, and in a photography contest, I think the use of photograph manipulation is out of place.


What's the solution? Send them to Eckerd? The darkroom processes are manipulation. The whole damned art is manipulation.

05 Nov 2012 04:10 AM
Reply
rocky_howard     

libranoelrose: I would tend to disagree.

I think the natural curves in the PSed photo makes me stare harder at it.

And that's what photography is all about, sir.

Staring at stuff until it's perfect.


Ah, you're a curves guy. I'm a lines guy. Especially diagonals.

05 Nov 2012 04:12 AM
Reply
Haliburton Cummings     
hmmmm.

being that work could have also been done painstakingly in a darkroom before digital ....
this is sad...

i'm not a purist but everyone uses digital darkroom techniques now...

The Byrne photo is just better...

my opinion...

/worked in a darkroom
//smell the stop bath....
/// you want fries with that?

05 Nov 2012 04:12 AM
Reply
ras django     
got my old bronica and a nice eos but i hardly ever use them. and chemistry is so messy. and the smell? ewwww.

clyph: I got two Canon Elan 7's for $50 each on EBay. Next purchase is some developing tanks and chemistry.


05 Nov 2012 04:14 AM
Reply
Zombalupagus     

pnkgtr: Krieghund: Stop making sense, subby.

What you did... I see it.


Me, too, but I'll admit it took a little bit to sink in. Delayed effect. Very subtle. +1.

05 Nov 2012 04:14 AM
Reply
rocky_howard     

Zombalupagus: pnkgtr: Krieghund: Stop making sense, subby.

What you did... I see it.

Me, too, but I'll admit it took a little bit to sink in. Delayed effect. Very subtle. +1.


I think I don't get it. Fill me in to see if I do.

05 Nov 2012 04:15 AM
Reply
uttertosh    [TotalFark]  

rocky_howard: Now, Photoshop or no Photoshop, how did the former winner beat the new one? It's a much better photo in every sense of the word.



Because it's a portrait. (?)

05 Nov 2012 04:17 AM
Reply
eldritch2k4     

AverageAmericanGuy: AverageAmericanGuy: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

I'm against those things as well.

To be fair, I'm only against these things in the milieu of photography contests.

Where one person spends a month of their lives staked out to capture the perfect shot with the sun in the right place in the sky and the weather just so, another will take a mediocre base image and dodge and burn until what he's looking for 'pops'. It's a disservice to those who work hard for their pure shots.


I have to agree with the Dodge/Burn in a contest, but exposure adjustment, levels and such I think are just fine. Basically, anything done in Adobe CameraRAW is fine, since you are basically just digitally choosing your development mixture. Once you've imported the photo into Photoshop, however, add your watermark and you are done. No filters, no layers (other than a watermark).

05 Nov 2012 04:21 AM
Reply
orbister     

Mock26: If what you did could be duplicated in a dark room then it should be allowed. Anything beyond that should not be allowed.


For how long should photographic skills be limited by the possibilities of a chemical process which has already been obsolete for ten years or more? In fifty years time there will be hardly any photographers around who have ever used film or paper.

05 Nov 2012 04:22 AM
Reply
ras django     

rocky_howard: I think I don't get it. Fill me in to see if I do


David Byrne is the photographer of the disqualified photo. David Byrne wore ridiculously over-sized jackets with shoulder pads in the 80's and sang for the talking heads. .

05 Nov 2012 04:24 AM
Reply
Showing 1-50 of 162 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined