Our recent experiences with SLF competitions where two different judges awarded significantly different marks to some of the pictures raises important points about club photography, and I think it's high time they were addressed. Marcus Scott Taggart marked down Brian's magnificent 'American Falls, Niagara/Gulls over American Falls Niagara' giving it a score of 7, apparently because he thought the gulls had been pasted in. I guess he considered this cheating. However, he gave a higher score for 'Midnight Encounter' by Dave S which was clearly a highly manipulated image and looks as if it included some graphic content.
Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to highly manipulated images. Digital editing is such a powerful tool for producing new and exciting creations, why not exploit it to the full.
However, I think it's a shame that photography may be losing its identity as a distinct art form. It is a unique way of capturing a moment in time, and the photos I enjoy most are those that demonstrate that. Manipulations often destroy that unique photographic quality and blur the distinction between a photograph and other ways of generating pictures. Of course, every photographer will set there own limitations on what they allow themselves to do. I for one, like to keep manipulation to a minimum except occasionally for a bit of fun.
A good example of failed attempts to define what image manipulations should and should not be allowed you'll have experienced if you have ever tried to understand the rules for 'Nature' competitions. In the PAGB, for example, these rules have been amended so often in recent years it has descended into farce. The latest version of a year ago relaxed the rules somewhat so that now 'cloning of image defects and minor distractions including overlapping elements' is permitted. Overlapping elements - what on earth does that mean?
To its credit, the SLF avoid the problem altogether, first by not having Nature as a separate category and secondly, by allowing any kind of manipulation. However, they do acknowledge that defining the difference between features that are photographic and those that are graphic is not easy.
In my view, there is a simple but radical solution to this problem. All competitions should have two categories: 'Manipulated' and 'Non-manipulated'. The Nature category should be scrapped. In 'Non-manipulated' images, normal editing adjustments like cropping, contrast, cleaning up of minor details etc. should be permitted but not significant removal of image features, pasting in bits from other photos or addition of graphic content. By having just these two categories, judges would know exactly what they were looking at and be able evaluate it accordingly.
A few years, I wrote to Rod Wheelan who produces e-News, a regular newsletter from the PAGB, hoping he would publish these suggestions. I received a fairly curt reply saying that he doesn't publish readers' letters in e-News, it would open a can of worms in the PAGB, and he didn't agree with me anyway.
What do you guys think about this?
Interesting views as ever from DD but I am left wondering at his interpretation of manipulated and graphic images. Whilst I didn't rise to the bait with his Episode 1, I feel I have to respond to this latest one to set the record straight on some of the comments made about my 'Midnight Encounter' image and to respond to some of his arguments.
He comments upon the judge's remarks on Brian's super image of the American Falls. saying the previous judge thought the gulls had been 'pasted in'. I wasn't present to hear this comment but Brian himself in his Blog entry says the judge thought he had 'added the gull'.. This should not have made any difference even if he had (which he hadn't) unless it caught the judges eye as looking suspicious to him.
In defence of the judge though, I have to admit that the largest gull in Brian's picture does look uncannily like an expertly drawn pen and ink stylised bird, so I can understand that he might think it had been drawn (added) in. In my view that gull and the way it looks is a key component and greatly adds to the picture.
DD then remarks that my 'Midnight Encounter' picture received a higher score on that earlier night (unlike in the Plate Competition), 'which was clearly a highly manipulated image and looks as if it included some graphic content.' Now I would describe both images as being quite graphic but it seems DD may have a different interpretation to me of a graphic picture.
Yes, 'Midnight Encounter' was manipulated but what does 'includes some graphic content' mean? It may look hand drawn if that is the suggestion but it wasn't, it was created from a photograph of my neighbours cat, so has DD judged my 'Midnight Encounter' in the same way as the first judge did Brian's American Falls, by thinking there was hand drawing involved?
On the issues around photographic art and manipulation, I would just comment that in the early days of photography, much effort was made to manipulate the image with their limited means, to make them look like old master paintings, including the use of multiple images to create the final photo. Photography as art is not new and like all art, its subjective and not always to everyone's taste!
Manipulated and Creative images are therefore just reflecting those early pioneers. Its a different genre as are Monochrome images (completely unnatural), Studio Portraits, Nature, Landscape, Macro's etc., so why propose treating them separately from the other entries in an 'Open' competition? Its not as if they are easier to create than other types, quite the opposite in fact!
As I understand it, the judge is only be concerned with the image presented. The means by which it has been achieved, like the photographic equipment used, should not come into the reckoning unless the photographic quality of the picture has suffered as a result. There are arguments that can be made on this but that's another subject for another day!
Thank you for your interesting comments Dave, but let me explain what this is about. The photographic image is a threatened species and the way things are going, on the Red List for extinction unless enough people are interested in conserving it.
You may be thinking - good riddance, it’s not flexible enough anyway for what I want to do. But I think it is worthy preserving. My suggestion of having two categories, one for ‘Manipulated’ and one for ‘Non-manipulated’ images is an attempt to promote its survival. It’s not perfect, I know. There will always be grey areas (and cheats!) but it’s the best I can come up with. And you needn’t worry as the kind of images you like to create are still fully catered for.
Anyone else out there sorry to watch photography slowly die?
When I said your cat looked as if it included graphic content I was referring to the eyes which look as if they had been drawn in. You tell me they weren't so I apologise. I clearly fell into the same trap as MST and assumed something had been added afterwards when it hadn't.
Perhaps its the definition of photography that will have to change, if its what people want, it will survive, if not, it will fade like the darkroom processes you speak so fondly of.
Perhaps the apps that offer replacement skies will be the next obstacle to be overcome at clubs if pictures are to continue to be required to be the photographer's own work. Already you can click on a Nik preset and apply a range of effects and adjustments that the photographer has not really done themselves, other than to choose which one they want!
Incidentally, the cats eyes came from a different cat and first made an appearance in my Art Nouveau tribute poster Le Chat Noir of some while back. How's that for recycling and no cats were harmed in its making!
I have only just seen this thread. Fascinating to read.
I got a bit of an insight into the possible reason for the judge's incorrect view of my Niagara Falls image in the first competition - he apparently works in photo editing. It may explain why he thought some gulls were added but I was very frustrated. By the way, he is the only person to have ever thought that about this image, hence my annoyance.
Many moons ago, the late Walter Menzie took over from Rosemary Wilman as the President of the RPS. He set out the idea of creating a genre called "Altered Reality". He had seen what was going on in clubs, etc. and wanted to give this sort of style (or manipulation if you will) a valid platform. Suffice to say, it never took off. But if you go and look at many of the Special Interests Groups of the RPS, you will find hundreds of images that are "created", not taken - my phrase. The Visual Arts and Digital Imaging Groups are there for these and if you don't want to do that, then there are many other groups to join.
It took me some time to accept the sort of work that is made up from other images - "created" as I call them. But they are all as important and relevant as anything else in photography. Everything we capture, we do manipulate in some way with the software that is available. Look at what Jane Lazenby showed us earlier this season with her work and use of textures.
I am very keen on ICM and now, thinking about that, one could make the valid point that it is "altered reality" as we do not see in the way the camera will when it is moved or shaken. If we see images such as those Dave S has had such success with, I say, "Well done for being so creative." They are way outside how I see things and show huge skill.
I do not see anything that suggests photography is slowly going away - look at social media! What is happening is that less attention is given to much of it because it is so easy to alter what has been taken - to the extent that a judge's first thought on seeing something he has never seen before is to think there are birds added!
I want to see us all being creative and enjoying photography for ourselves first and foremost. There is room for all styles and people.
Agree with much of what you say Brian, 'manipulation' is a general term for a wide range of photographic processes and applications, both in camera and afterwards'. Photo Stacking, HDR and ICM are examples of in camera manipulation, whilst most of these can also be done, along with a great many more, in post production, thanks to the wonders of digital. Dodging, burning and combining parts from other images are post production examples that date back to the early days of photography. Even adjusting colours etc. of RAW images could be said to be 'manipulating' what the camera took, not to mention the use of 'big stopper' and other filters!
'Altered reality' is just one of these many forms of image manipulation, albeit this now seems to be how 'creative' photography is usually interpreted. It's also been part of the photographic process since the early days of photography and to my mind is the creation of an image that depicts an unreal situation rather than an artistic interpretation of a photo (through manipulation), or creation of a more realistic picture through use of multiple images, much as a painter would by altering and adding to the view being painted in order to make a better composition. Photography is, after all, regarded as an 'art' and I doubt it would be considered as such if all you had to do was trip the shutter to get a 'masterpiece'.
Let's appreciate 'manipulation' in all its forms and interpretations as part of the wide ranging photographic skill set and get pleasure from whatever aspects of the hobby that we most enjoy, whilst hoping that the judges will see our images in the way we do - but accepting that many will not!
Mmmm.. I guess I’m probably flogging a dead horse here, but I have no intention of being photographed sitting on it. So I’ll present you with a hypothetical photo competition and ask you both if you think it’s a satisfactory situation.
Two pictures submitted to the competition were of water spray with flying birds. One was identical to yours Brian. The photographer had spent about four hours at Niagara Falls taking hundreds of pictures getting freezing cold and covered in spray but finally got one shot that captured the essence of the place that he felt at the time. The light was perfect, the spray was beautiful and the birds were pretty near perfectly placed in the picture. He did some editing when he got home - a bit of a crop maybe, some contrast adjustment and some dodging and burning, but the picture was essentially as it had been taken.
To his chagrin on the night, there was a similar looking image entered. But the photographer had taken some soap suds in the sink. Then he’d made a custom brush out of a patch of the suds and used it to paint spray patterns in black, white and tones of grey to look like tumbling water. Flying birds were pasted tastefully into the picture exactly where they needed to be for a perfect composition. Again the photographer had taken the birds himself but they weren’t actually gulls. They were sparrows with their beaks and wings made pointy and turned grey and white. The whole thing was so expertly put together that the judge was totally convinced that the photo had been taken like that. In reality, he had been duped but he gave it a 10. Again, the image took about four hours to create, but the photographer hadn’t got cold and wet in the process or spent the time and money on a trip to get it.
Unfortunately, the photo taken at the falls was given a six and a half because the judge thought that the birds had been added afterwards.
To my mind, one of these was a photograph and the other was a piece of graphic art. I know I’m on a loser here as I have failed to convince anybody that these two pictures should not be up against each other in the same competition.
An excellent dilemma to think about. I feel that this is where such feelings on what is allowed in competition get blurred and can become difficult to call.
DD, in the first part of your vivid description, you're so close to detailing what I did at the Falls. Not as long was spent getting wet but I spent time and effort (and money) in taking the image.
The key point I see here is the "who knows what" situation. If the only person who knows that the image given 10 is a composite that's been created is the person who did that, then what can be said? No-one knows so it becomes a moot point.
My original concerns were based on the fact that the judge voiced his views as a reason to give a lower score. I don't think any judge should take his own thoughts on what he thinks is manipulated as a reason to deduct points unless it's so obvious and everyone can see what is being referred to. The judge can't be sure so why penalise the image based on a guess?
If it's common knowledge that the person that scored the 10 with the composite image does that sort of work, then no-one should be surprised, etc. to see it being entered.
My original frustrations were all about the judge making an (incorrect) assumption and telling everyone that was a reason to give a low score. It's not. He had no idea so should not be permitted to take off points. To me that is a bigger issue in competition than the sort of work being entered.
To me both of DD's examples are equally valid, so his suggestion that the judge is being 'duped' is in my mind wrong, as its the final picture put before the judge that is being assessed, not how it was done, so the judge shouldn't mark one down unless, in their opinion, the other was a better final image.
How hard it was for a picture to be taken is irrelevant as even straight photos require information the judge will not know; not least the equipment used, whether taken on a smart phone or with the latest super camera/lens that does it all for you at umpteen images a second. I would dare to suggest that more skill and likely time (despite your suggestion that the hypothetical created image in question was done in a few hours) had gone into the created image described, than the 'straight' photograph taken in the uncomfortable conditions.
At the end of the day they are in competition with many other types of image, portraits that may or may not have been lit by the photographer, 'unreal' time exposures giving milky seas, monochromes with enhanced dramatic skies that show little resemblance to the original scene but probably all being regarded by the photographer as 'straight' images. In an open competition, each is a perfectly valid image in its own right and the judge has to decide which they think makes the best image on the night. To determine this, anything that looks like less than perfect post production work will count against an image - whether it was or not!
I have just seen Brian's response above and agree with his comments. I once had a picture which the judge said would have been the winner but for a tiny reflection which they deemed a 'fault' . The picture had been an obviously 'created' one, but the reflection was 'real'!
Yes, MST should not have said what he did, and for someone tasked with assessing and training SPA judges, it was unforgiveable. If he had given the image six and a half and not given a reason however, it would have non-plussed the room.
You'll remember the oft-quoted comment of the artist Paul DeLaroche who said, on seeing his first daguerrotype, 'From today, painting is dead'. Well, to paraphrase I have to declare that from today, photography is dead, and nobody seems to mourn its passing.
I have entered this conversation at a very late stage. Possibly because I recognise the certainty that the two sides of the argument are irreconcilable!
if it is any help to you all; I will simply state what I regard as the ‘true’ meaning of photography to me. With an emphasis, please remember, on the ‘to me’.
Over my 67 years of active interest and practice in using a camera to capture a photography of life as it is. l have endeavoured to record situations the human race finds itself in, in such a way that it has an impact on our inner senses as to the characters and situations that are portrayed. My heroes have been Sebastio Selgardo, for glimpses of the wide World and its people; Wilfred Thesiger for the brilliant mono images of his travels in the mountains and deserts of the Middle East and Martin Parr For his rendition of modern street photography to show contrasts and humour in the lives of real people in the present time.
looking back, I find the challenge to me has been to form a collection of images that will be looked on by others, as showing how I and the World, lived, loved, fought, existed together and eventually died. I know it sounds very grand! That, however, is my view of the meaning of ‘Photography’ In its truest sense. Images which people will be able to look at and say, “Look at that! Life was incredible in those days.”. I believe that this type of image will survive and be looked on as interesting and perhaps more importantly, of value. That, to me is Photography. Today we have a different situation, as you have all more eloquently discussed than I ever could.
Another of my heroes, Donald McCullin, the famous war photographer once said, “The Art World has discovered photography and they have hijacked it”.
This means we now have a situation where, as judges, we have to wrestle with not only differing genres of images; but also the almost impossible task of comparing substantially made up images with essentially straightforward photography. That is our quandary. How to amalgamate two vastly differing concepts into one competition.
Maybe my ramblings will help; but I have a sneaking suspicion they don’t !
And just when I thought we had said all we could/should on this subject too, but good to have your expert input David.
Let's not become too prescriptive about how and of what we take pictures of for our pleasure, or even of how they are achieved. I detect shades of the Film v Digital argument in not wanting to embrace all that the latter has to offer.
As to how club judges compare Apples & Pears, now with Bananas thrown in too, I don't know, other than to mark down where obvious faults are noted - not that our pictures have any of those of course!
Whether a simple snap shot or elaborately created image, easy to take or challenging, the author will likely derive equal pleasure from it and that's what our photography hobby is all about, deriving pleasure from it in whatever form pleases us.
And just when I thought we had said all we could/should on this subject too, but good to have your expert input David.
Let's not become too prescriptive about how and of what we take pictures of for our pleasure, or even of how they are achieved. I detect shades of the Film v Digital argument in not wanting to embrace all that the latter has to offer.
As to how club judges compare Apples & Pears, now with Bananas thrown in too, I don't know, other than to mark down where obvious faults are noted - not that our pictures have any of those of course!
Whether a simple snap shot or elaborately created image, easy to take or challenging, the author will likely derive equal pleasure from it and that's what our photography hobby is all about, deriving pleasure from it in whatever form pleases us.
Thank you for your interesting comments David, and I certainly empathise with them as you can imagine. I also sympathise with you and anyone else volunteering to judge and evaluate other peoples’ photos. For how do you decide whether a picture is fake or not? Given where you are coming from with your own photography, how do you live with having to take the view that it doesn’t matter?
As I’ve said above, a solution would be to try to ensure that manipulated (or ‘altered reality’) and non-manipulated images are not having to compete with each other. It’s an imperfect solution I know but I’m having to accept that the world of club photography is not ready for it, yet.
One more comment. I see many examples of highly manipulated images in the pages of the PAGB eNews. What strikes me is how often the concept behind the pictures is so weak, hardly worth the time, skill and effort that went into producing them.
On that last comment above DD, I totally agree. Whilst it is understandable to laud photographers that achieve the many distinctions now available, within these groups I frequently see images that leave me both confused and frustrated, precisely due to what you've said. An example is one called "Flirting with Lucifer" in the latest PAGB newsletter. For me, I am at a loss as to why someone chose to create it. When work such as this gets chosen for publication or awards, I would love to be a fly on the wall at the selection meeting, just to hear how those involved reach their decision. 😫