AARGH or Insert Curse Word Here

Luiz, I think you've forgotten about that the human reaction to a challenge. Just like people who claim no harassment, non-captive etc when they submit pictures into comps that ban stuff like that! It's about trying to beat the system! Fame, fortune and that free t-shirt are incentives to do so. I remember Alex telling me that photo comp prizes can be turned into money earners. WPOY give £20k as a first prize. For some, that's worth trying their luck!

That said, I agree with you that rules tend to be imprecise and very open to interpretation as well. I say get Adobe locked in with promotion and ask for Photoshop files with steps and everything else!

The RPS Nature Group have IMHO a very good policy on images - they can be modified (cleaned, adjusted, etc.) but there must be no change to the "essential truth of the image". So, whilst back-scatter elimination might be acceptable, refitting a crab's claw would not - as with everything else surrounding images which are subjectively judged, there is a lot which could still be argued about though (and I'm sure that raw files will be re-creatable eventually - or may even already be).

I have not put images into competitions for years simply because I see no point in leaving even a few specs of back-scatter in an otherwise perfectly good image - you can't actually see back-scatter when you take a photograph and it is a result of the actual process of taking a photograph - a technical problem for which there is now a solution. I personally prefer to try to light a shot better knowing that some (removable) back-scatter might result. Until competition rule writers change their minds on post adjustments I won't bother entering anything (adjusted or unadjusted) because as far as I am concerned the digital process allows us to deal with frustrating problems over which we may have no control at the taking stage. Harking back to the days of film when a photographer was supposed to have total mastery over the photograph taking process is simply to ignore many of the possibilities of digital processing

As a compromise, perhaps it would be illuminating for a contest to be run which has two categories; one with no post adjustment and one which allows it (the same images could be even entered in both). It might be interesting to see the difference in image numbers entered in each as well as the difference in final image 'quality'?

The RPS Nature Group have IMHO a very good policy on images - they can be modified (cleaned, adjusted, etc.) but there must be no change to the "essential truth of the image". So, whilst back-scatter elimination might be acceptable, refitting a crab's claw would not - as with everything else surrounding images which are subjectively judged, there is a lot which could still be argued about though (and I'm sure that raw files will be re-creatable eventually - or may even already be).

 

I have not put images into competitions for years simply because I see no point in leaving even a few specs of back-scatter in an otherwise perfectly good image - you can't actually see back-scatter when you take a photograph and it is a result of the actual process of taking a photograph - a technical problem for which there is now a solution. I personally prefer to try to light a shot better knowing that some (removable) back-scatter might result. Until competition rule writers change their minds on post adjustments I won't bother entering anything (adjusted or unadjusted) because as far as I am concerned the digital process allows us to deal with frustrating problems over which we may have no control at the taking stage. Harking back to the days of film when a photographer was supposed to have total mastery over the photograph taking process is simply to ignore many of the possibilities of digital processing

 

As a compromise, perhaps it would be illuminating for a contest to be run which has two categories; one with no post adjustment and one which allows it (the same images could be even entered in both). It might be interesting to see the difference in image numbers entered in each as well as the difference in final image 'quality'?

The thing is that backscatter is in the water and I have seen many winning pics with backscatter (it even sometimes gives an "atmosphere" to the picutre...). I don´t care about backscatter very much (I used to though... ) as long as the picture is impressive... I think the best competitions judges are not too picky either with backscatter.

There are such competitions with those two different categories; search for OWUs results and you will not necessarily see a great quality difference...

I had not read LAUPS contest rules and I have to admit that they are not very clear in this aspect.

Seven years ago they had the same digital manipulation dilemma (it seems we have not advanced much in this matter):

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/wildlife-ph...r-doug-perrine/

And it also had backscatter!

Luiz, I think you've forgotten about that the human reaction to a challenge. Just like people who claim no harassment, non-captive etc when they submit pictures into comps that ban stuff like that! It's about trying to beat the system! Fame, fortune and that free t-shirt are incentives to do so. I remember Alex telling me that photo comp prizes can be turned into money earners. WPOY give £20k as a first prize. For some, that's worth trying their luck!

 

That said, I agree with you that rules tend to be imprecise and very open to interpretation as well. I say get Adobe locked in with promotion and ask for Photoshop files with steps and everything else!

The rules are imprecise because I haven't found any precise way of defining what our objective is and in the past cheating was far less rampant than it has become; we trusted the photographers.

In the slide/film/print competitions of years past almost no one actually developed their own slides/film and printed their own images. You could of course give the printer some instructions for dodging/burning/spot removal but most photographers didn't do that themselves. Now everyone has a computer and photoshop as well (or some other program). We are of course open to any suggestions on how to write our rules to allow us to showcase the "best in amateur underwater photography". We have thought of having two categories, traditional and open for each type of entry (one camera JPG conversion only) and one manipulate to your heart's content; the image is the only thing but that means having to get twice as many prizes and with the profusion of competitions many sponsors are getting overloaded with requests (or at least that's what we hear). So if you have a good set of rules please let me know.

Thanks

Bill

Here you have some:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/tem...-guidelines.jsp Now, "moderation" is a grey line...

More:

http://www.gdtfoto.de/downloads/enj_11_ausschreibung_eng.pdf

http://www.gdtfoto.de/downloads/ltfd_dig_bildb_11_eng.pdf

The rules are imprecise because I haven't found any precise way of defining what our objective is and in the past cheating was far less rampant than it has become; we trusted the photographers.

 

In the slide/film/print competitions of years past almost no one actually developed their own slides/film and printed their own images. You could of course give the printer some instructions for dodging/burning/spot removal but most photographers didn't do that themselves. Now everyone has a computer and photoshop as well (or some other program). We are of course open to any suggestions on how to write our rules to allow us to showcase the "best in amateur underwater photography". We have thought of having two categories, traditional and open for each type of entry (one camera JPG conversion only) and one manipulate to your heart's content; the image is the only thing but that means having to get twice as many prizes and with the profusion of competitions many sponsors are getting overloaded with requests (or at least that's what we hear). So if you have a good set of rules please let me know.

 

Thanks

Bill

You have your answer right there; if you are trying to keep to the spirit of the old slide concept. The closest you can get is untouched JPEG out of the camera with standard manufacturer published settings. No more rules required, nothing arbitrary or subject to interpretation. Then if you need to check, all thy have to provide is the RAW and the JPEG settings, normal, vivid etc.

In the slide/film/print competitions of years past almost no one actually developed their own slides/film and printed their own images. You could of course give the printer some instructions for dodging/burning/spot removal but most photographers didn't do that themselves.

I really question this - I know of a couple situations years ago where some very detailed contrast masks, far past disqualification under the current rules, were utilized during film darkroom processing for images entered into competitions.

Just because it's easier (or more widely known!) now doesn't mean people weren't cheating the system before, especially with the prize incentives.

It is too bad to hear that each year so many images have to be disqualified. As someone who goes back and re-edits each photo from the original RAW to try to make sure it fits the contest rules I can say two things: 1) it is a shame people appear to be blatantly breaking the rules (cloning a claw!?), and 2) it can be frustrating to determine what exactly you are allowed to do to an image when reading the rules.

I tend to agree with Alex (and others) that strong enforcement is needed. Otherwise it is likely that the winning images will have "bent" the rules, creating incentives for all other contestants to do the same. What is a shame is that because of how much this appears to be happening photographers no longer appears to deserve the benefit of the doubt when judges are comparing RAW to processed images.

I tend not to mind editing, and think a 'general impression test' is useful - the image should be substantially the same picture as originally taken: no cloning, very limited spotting, and very limited cropping. But contrast, WB, dodging/burning, exposure, etc. I see no issue with allowing.

Shrug, just my 2c

Interesting thread - Cheers,

Steve

Here you have some:

 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/tem...-guidelines.jsp Now, "moderation" is a grey line...

 

More:

 

http://www.gdtfoto.de/downloads/enj_11_ausschreibung_eng.pdf

http://www.gdtfoto.de/downloads/ltfd_dig_bildb_11_eng.pdf

Thanks for those, we will see what we can borrow from them.

Bill

I really question this - I know of a couple situations years ago where some very detailed contrast masks, far past disqualification under the current rules, were utilized during film darkroom processing for images entered into competitions.

 

Just because it's easier (or more widely known!) now doesn't mean people weren't cheating the system before, especially with the prize incentives.

Matt:

Good to hear from you, hope you can make a meeting sometime.

That's why I said most or almost no one, I know there were a few cases of folks cheating with slides but with digital in our competition it was like 30% of the good images were manipulated far more than we were comfortable with.

Bill

You have your answer right there; if you are trying to keep to the spirit of the old slide concept. The closest you can get is untouched JPEG out of the camera with standard manufacturer published settings. No more rules required, nothing arbitrary or subject to interpretation. Then if you need to check, all thy have to provide is the RAW and the JPEG settings, normal, vivid etc.

We have thought of that, and in some sense makes life a lot simpler but I wonder if there would be an appetite to enter such a competition and would sponsors be happy if the general quality of the submissions was somewhat less. Maybe it wouldn't be less but certainly some of the most stunning images we were sent were disqualified.

Bill

If I had to submit pictures to my magazine without the backscatter removed, I'd be out of business! However there is a difference to cleaning up an image and altering its content. (I don't enter competitions because I wouldn't win.)

We have thought of that, and in some sense makes life a lot simpler but I wonder if there would be an appetite to enter such a competition and would sponsors be happy if the general quality of the submissions was somewhat less.

I think that the image quality in the Our World Underwater competition* Traditional categories has been been superb over the years.

The "Traditional" divisions allow for the adjustment of brightness, contrast, color, and sharpness only. Cropping, cloning, and other digital manipulation is not allowed in this category. This restriction on digital manipulation will enable people who are not as savvy at Photoshop to compete on more-or-less even ground as those with more experience. It also highlights composition and lighting skills by not allowing cropping and cloning. Before selecting winning entries, we reserve the right to audit your original RAW or JPG files.

...but certainly some of the most stunning images we were sent were disqualified.

This sounds like a lament that insider traders have the best portfolio returns . Do you think that individuals submitting images have been indirectly encouraged by wins in previous years, where perhaps these compliance standards were not as thoroughly checked or enforced?

Rules should be applied uniformly or you are disadvantaging those who did follow the requirements.

(*disclaimer: co-organized by Wetpixel with DivePhotoGuide)

I think that the image quality in the Our World Underwater competition* Traditional categories has been been superb over the years.

 

 

 

 

This sounds like a lament that insider traders have the best portfolio returns . Do you think that individuals submitting images have been indirectly encouraged by wins in previous years, where perhaps these compliance standards were not as thoroughly checked or enforced?

 

Rules should be applied uniformly or you are disadvantaging those who did follow the requirements.

 

(*disclaimer: co-organized by Wetpixel with DivePhotoGuide)

Matt:

I think that there are two things at work. Certainly some folks who won previously with "enhanced" images keep upping the ante. Secondly I think that judges reward a type of style (black background, only the animal in the picture) that is relatively easy to manipulate. Just clone out the branch that the Nudi is sitting on and suddenly it looks a lot better. We could not agree more on uniformly enforcing the rules. We actually thought this year we might not award a first place in one particular category since all of the "good" pictures were too heavily manipulated but we came to our senses and realized that was only penalizing the folks that didn't cheat.

Bill

Bill,

Since I know you guys have had to deal with some obvious cheating issues in years past, I hope you know that your good intentions and hard work are appreciated by everyone. I wish your job was easier, but from my standpoint - it certainly makes it easier to get ones' butt kicked in a competition when one knows the winners were examined closely! Lots of competitions/categories ask for RAW files from finalists - and I think this is a good thing.

R.e. the question - is it possible for temperate water shots to compete with warm water shots?? YES, absolutely - especially when the judges are familiar with the degree of difficulty involved, but it's my opinion that temperate water shots may be more unique to the viewers sometimes. I have had more competition success with cold than warm water shots - although most of my diving is in local cold water, so volume plays a big part, as well. It is virtually impossible to remove all the backscatter from most California shots (and I lack the patience, anyways!), so on bad days, we simply practice for the days when there is less stuff in the water.

Finally - as someone who both models and shoots a model - don't forget that sometimes, the model is a guy holding a light

Allison

Bill,

 

Since I know you guys have had to deal with some obvious cheating issues in years past, I hope you know that your good intentions and hard work are appreciated by everyone. I wish your job was easier, but from my standpoint - it certainly makes it easier to get ones' butt kicked in a competition when one knows the winners were examined closely! Lots of competitions/categories ask for RAW files from finalists - and I think this is a good thing.

 

R.e. the question - is it possible for temperate water shots to compete with warm water shots?? YES, absolutely - especially when the judges are familiar with the degree of difficulty involved, but it's my opinion that temperate water shots may be more unique to the viewers sometimes. I have had more competition success with cold than warm water shots - although most of my diving is in local cold water, so volume plays a big part, as well. It is virtually impossible to remove all the backscatter from most California shots (and I lack the patience, anyways!), so on bad days, we simply practice for the days when there is less stuff in the water.

 

Finally - as someone who both models and shoots a model - don't forget that sometimes, the model is a guy holding a light

 

Allison

You got me, no offense to Andy. Hope you are well.

Bill

My ha'porth's worth (now a farthing, I guess):

... when a competition is created, what is its purpose? Is it to find and celebrate technical skill (the Ektachrome philosophy), to find the best naturalist and stalker (the hunter's philosophy) or the best artist? The rules will reflect this. It does seem to be necessary, sadly, to include an audit trail to prevent cheating. The slide shooter and the hunter cheat by manipulating their images, but for the artist, anything goes. I suggest that at least some of the controversy originates in the purpose of each competition being poorly defined: part of the problem is that all three elements are often conflated although they sit together in an uneasy truce.

Tim

You got me, no offense to Andy.

Heh heh, make it up to us by going diving soon

We discussed this thread at home last night over a beer, and our conclusion was - this is why we both enjoy shootout competitions!!!

... when a competition is created, what is its purpose? Is it to find and celebrate technical skill (the Ektachrome philosophy), to find the best naturalist and stalker (the hunter's philosophy) or the best artist? The rules will reflect this. It does seem to be necessary, sadly, to include an audit trail to prevent cheating. The slide shooter and the hunter cheat by manipulating their images, but for the artist, anything goes. I suggest that at least some of the controversy originates in the purpose of each competition being poorly defined: part of the problem is that all three elements are often conflated although they sit together in an uneasy truce.

I could not have said it better. Perfect.

Most contests for underwater are fundraisers, at least for Photo Societies. It is interesting that some are obviously commercial ventures, as most prizes are donated. That being stated, it is extremely important that everything is well defined to preserve the integrity of the competition.

Cheers,

Marli