Photo contest rules discussion

[toonfool]

I fancy a go at this one. Subject > Photoshop.

[Jumble Jumble]

I'd try this but I'm a digital photographer through and through. Plus my camera's not that great. Is there always a photoshop rule on these?

[The Liberal Elite]

can I enter a picture of an insect on a flower?

[The Liberal Elite]

I'd try this but I'm a digital photographer through and through. Plus my camera's not that great. Is there always a photoshop rule on these?

How did they cope in the old days before image manipulation?

[toonfool]

There's loads of manipulation goes on in this contest. A lot of it goes on to win.

*puts claws away*

[scribble]

I'd try this but I'm a digital photographer through and through. Plus my camera's not that great. Is there always a photoshop rule on these?

Yeah. I think there's a rules discussion thread in this folder somewhere..

[larrydavidsanger]

No excessive digital manipulation (i.e. adding a more dramatic sky from another photo to your picture, or creating negative images etc.). Cropping and adjusting levels, contrast, saturation etc. is ok though

[Jumble Jumble]

I was asking if there's always a photoshop rule. I have read the first post.

[futureshock]

How did they cope in the old days before image manipulation?

There has always been manipulation - down to the lens, film and darkroom techniques.

[The Liberal Elite]

There has always been manipulation - down to the lens, film and darkroom techniques.

You know what I mean, unless you're actually comparing photoshop to those kinds of techniques.

[Sabreman]

can I enter a picture of an insect on a flower?

If it's a bumblebee that's been laid off, sure

[Jumble Jumble]

If there is always a rule like this, can I make a suggestion? How about two categories: one with the rules as shown above, one with a more "anything goes" attitude. Obviously, photos in the first category could be entered into the second, but not vice versa. And you'd have to have a rule that everythig must be your own work - no google images brought in. Any good?

[futureshock]

You know what I mean, unless you're actually comparing photoshop to those kinds of techniques.

I see no difference between using a red filter in a darkroom and using photoshop to convert an image to b&w with a red filter.

[futureshock]

There's loads of manipulation goes on in this contest. A lot of it goes on to win.

*puts claws away*

Maybe you can back that up with an example?

[Jumble Jumble]

How did they cope in the old days before image manipulation?

Well, for a start, they didn't carry around a cheap point-and-shoot in their pockets.

[Jumble Jumble]

Maybe you can back that up with an example?

I'm with you mate. PS is just another tool in the photographer's box. I can understand why it's restricted in this contest, but it's a key part of every photographer's workflow these days, and it enables photos that you just couldn't do any other way.

[scribble]

I think everything should be allowed.. its going to be down to the voter to decide if some of the more awful things photoshop is resposible for get to win (HDR, selective colouring, etc.. ).

I have nearly entered darkroom prints in the past which I've made in strange ways, but have decided not to because they look like they've been fucked with in photoshop.

[toonfool]

Maybe you can back that up with an example?

If you insist.

My entry, Zoo York Rivingtons:

And before people ask, yes the logo is part of the original shot, I used the shoebox (which was black) and shot the whole thing on a black background. Post processing is limited to a little darkening of unwanted spots, unsharp mask and a crop. A different shot can be provided if necessary to show the set up. Had I added the logo afterwards it would have been in a better location (and straight)!!

Props to Calum for getting me thinking with this line:

Not to say you couldn't creatively add a logo in shot...

Hope you like it

This particular shot pretty much turned me off from this competition. Well, that and the discussion afterwards when people voted to say that it was good and proper. It's not photography in my opinion. Manipulating pixels with an art package on a PC monitor, totally seperate from photography.

However, you lot voted and you've got the rules you want. Fair enough, I'm in the minority.

[Jumble Jumble]

I just want to clarify that I don't want to change the rules. I haven't got a good enough camera to compete there, though, so I'd like it if there was a category for those of us who achieve our results through the creative dragging of sliders.

[The Liberal Elite]

I just want to clarify that I don't want to change the rules. I haven't got a good enough camera to compete there, though, so I'd like it if there was a category for those of us who achieve our results through the creative dragging of sliders.

what's the camera got to do with it? I thought it was having a good eye for things. Unless you're using your phone, shouldn't you be able to get decent enough pictures, esp as most images are resized for this page anyway?

[toonfool]

Why not start your own monthly Photoshop Competition? It would need someone to run it, you'd be capable.

[Jumble Jumble]

Toonfool, are you of the opinion that you could do absolutely anything you wanted (filters, processing, lights, mirrors, gauze, felt) to get the result in-camera, just not in photoshop?

[scribble]

I haven't got a good enough camera to compete there, though,

Yeah you do.. a phone camera won the other month, I think.

I always vote for the stronger idea.

[Jumble Jumble]

It wouldn't be a Photoshop competition, it would be a photography competition that allowed use of Photoshop. I reckon overuse, or untasteful use, would result in fewer votes anyway.

EDIT: And I thought it would be nice if the themes were the same as the main compo.

[Jumble Jumble]

Yeah you do.. a phone camera won the other month, I think.

I always vote for the stronger idea.

That's admirable, but I'm not going to enter a picture I don't like the look of on the strength of the idea. Photos are an exclusively visual medium, and to me aesthetics is totally linked to that.

[The Liberal Elite]

That's admirable, but I'm not going to enter a picture I don't like the look of on the strength of the idea. Photos are an exclusively visual medium, and to me aesthetics is totally linked to that.

doesn't photoshop cost twice the price of an entry level dslr anyway?

[Jumble Jumble]

Don't be silly.

[scribble]

That's admirable, but I'm not going to enter a picture I don't like the look of on the strength of the idea. Photos are an exclusively visual medium, and to me aesthetics is totally linked to that.

More expensive cameras don't mean better looking photos.

I had 2 photos exhibited in the local art gallery in April. Both were shot on a £15 camera. Maybe they wouldn't have been exhibited if I'd told people how much my setup was, though..

[Jumble Jumble]

This is getting silly, really. Forget it. Part of "the idea" for me is getting the photo how I want it. Not allowed, apparently. Fine.

[The Liberal Elite]

And some people have gotten amazing pictures out of those 20 quid holga cameras as well.