I have basically stopped entering the comps, for a number of reasons

firstly I dont have the time really to spend on getting some shots done, nor are any of the pics remotely near the quality of the ones you guys post, nor do I know the first thing about photoshop, USM, levels, etc etc etc and whatever else you guys do to your pictures

Originally the comp was allowed no editing of the pictures other than for image size, and resolution size

now you allow removing of artefacts, noise, blur's tweaking of colours, contrast, and all other manner of digital manipulation / editing etc all way way way above my head in the main

It has put me off in a big way of trying to find time to take pics and enter them in the comps

However that said, I do enjoy looking at the pics as there are some truly stunning pics that get posted

Would it be possible for those that do all the 'editing / manipulation' to have another thread showing the raw image from the camera unedited, and the one sumbmitted for the comp, so that we can see how much the image has changed, and what difference all the editing makes

Cheers

Steve

Shame you don't enter the comp anymore.

Digital manipulation of images IS a large part of photography these days and IMO should be allowed in the comp.

However your idea of posting the original and manipulated image is a good one. Its OK to say what has been done but would be good to see the difference it has made.

Photoshop can seem very daunting at first but is fairly easy to self learn the basics as I have done.
Tutorials are also widely available on the net and also photography magazines.

You could allways post on here aswell. Loads of photoshop wizards on here and Im sure all would be willing to help.

Andy

Whilst I do not edit my photos to remove items I understand why people do.

I firmly believe getting it right in the camera is correct. I do not enjoy sitting in front of a PC for hours 'tweaking' photos, if it's wrong, blown, distracting item (lamppost in the frame etc.), I'll delete it and take it again.

It really depends on your subject as well. I only take sports pictures at the moment and my subjects are generally isolated from the rest of the scene so there is little to 'photoshop'.

I run a very basic set of actions in Photoshop (Sharpen, fade, set DPI, resize, sharpen, fade, convert to SRGB and save to web).

Darren

I can understand Steve's point of view, but I don't think that it's a reason to stop entering the comps (unless of course you don't have the time :)).

It easy to look at some photographers work and think that because "i don't think my pics are as good, I won't bother", but that's defeating the whole object. Photography is a personal thing, as an amateur you're not in direct competition with anyone other than yourself (although it is a competition :D)- post pics that you like regardless of what you think others may think of them, you may be pleasantly surprised by other photographers view of them.

Manipulation has always been part of photography, whether it be dodging and burning a B/W print in the darkroom or using softfocus and grads in colour. They are only a means to an end, ie. producing an image, and all the "tarting" about doesn't necessarily make a poor image a good one - TBH, if you have to manipulate it that much, then it often means it wasn't that good to start with.

IMHO some of the strongest images are the simplest. The current 'shadows' comp is an classic example, but IMHO the vast majority of the images entered don't really illustrate what is being asked (flame suit on :D). If I had to say what the comp title was from the entries, then with most of the images I couldn't.

Competitions are all about taking photographs that represent a given subject (read assignment/brief), and TBH I could dismiss a large amount of entries into competitions because they don't answer the brief. A straightforward image that illustrates the brief, is far better as a competition entry than a fancy manipulation that doesn't, however nice a photograph it maybe.

BUT - I don't want to turn what I think is a fantasic way of getting people to take photographs (the comps, obviously) into a serious "camera club" type battle, but it defeats the object if photographers feel they can't enter because they are at a disadvantage if they aren't Photoshop wizards.

Photography is about the enjoyment of taking and sharing photographs with others, not about the number of points your photograph is worth in a comp. Steve, dont stop entering the comps - if I look at one of your pics and think "nice pic" it may well be worth more to me than the winning entry.

Only take it seriously when you're a pro, then the fun goes out of it (well nearly ;))

Gareth

PS - if you don't post in the next comp, I'll know that either I'm taking boll0*ks after 2 pints down the pub, or you're too busy :D :D

Steve, all your points are valid. The competition in its current form is a compromise, in that it allows the routine kinds of corrections but doesn't allow techniques which are creative in their own right. For example, a shot straight out of the camera is unlikely to be used without at least some adjustments to levels, and some minor cropping, these are to make it look like what was photographed. On the other hand a technique that is fun but creative in its own right (like the OOB techniques in another thread) is a different matter, since the original objective was to encourage 'photography' rather than digital darkroom techniques.

I was in two minds about removing a stray cigarette end from my 'Sphere' picture. I should have picked it up. I suppose I'm also not 100% sure about techniques like Gaussian blur, but then I'm using a modified camera so maybe that should be disallowed too...

I do like the idea of showing how a submitted shot came into being. What the approach was, any other attempts at the picture and why they weren't chosen, the out-of-camera version of the shot that was chosen, an explanation of what was done (and why), and the final submission.

Quite apart from the competitions we could have a 'clinic' where people simply post a picture to either illustrate something they wanted to share, or to ask for opinions about how to improve it (or both). Then we all learn.

As for the time to take pictures, sometimes it has to be a deliberate decision to make the time. Pictures that are not taken are gone.

Have you tried using Picasa for playing with colour balance etc? Much easier than photoshop

It's just another tool, same as developing effects were before digital. Plus try doing this with film:

http://www.petriepc.com/glassball.png

Firstly I would say that the competition has been evolving in all sorts of ways since it started and just lately an experimental rule was not to allow the title of the competition into the title of the images. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is changing the rules a good thing or bad thing? Is digital manipulation over and above standard workflow practices a good thing or a bad thing? I don't have any right or wrong answers to these questions as each of them is subjective in their own right. I know what my thoughts are on all of them but that's not to say my thoughts are the "right" thoughts. And so, democratically, we have a series of rules which are to be followed by all whether we agree with some of them or not.

Secondly I'm one of the guilty ones who has used guassian blur in one of my entries. This is the first time I can recall that I've done this but I did so bearing rule 7 in mind -- 7. If you feel the need to use other digital tools or effects then these must be fully documented so that people can learn how to use such tools/effects.. I think I've complied with this rule in describing how I used the effect. For those wishing to see the before and after images (which I think is a great idea) they are here:

Before (after basic processing):
http://www.alwyngreer.com/comp/lake2-straight.jpg


After:
http://www.alwyngreer.com/comp/lake2.jpg

I like the second one better as it adds a lot of mood to the image. How others will like it will be revealed in the voting results but as Gareth has said "Photography is a personal thing, as an amateur you're not in direct competition with anyone other than yourself (although it is a competition )- post pics that you like regardless of what you think others may think of them"

I would encourage you to continue to enter the competitions. Almost every round I learn a little bit more -- this time I'm intrigued by the image manipulation done by Chris (CharlieWhiskey) on his train shot and whilst I don't use Rawshooter it does provoke me into trying to achieve the same effect in Photoshop. Similarly last month's winner, Ricardo's IR image had me searching for Photoshop actions for infra-red to see what they would do to my own images and I actually considered doing an IR version of the above pic for the competition but it didn't turn out as I would have liked but I had fun working with the images.

Regarding how those of us manipulate images, I would be more than happy (and I'm sure others would too) to lend a helping hand in detailing what I do so that others can pick up on what I'm doing and if they like it, use the same techniques for themselves whether you use Nikon Capture, Photoshop, Elements, PaintShop Pro, Rawshooter or other editing software.

The current 'shadows' comp is an classic example, but IMHO the vast majority of the images entered don't really illustrate what is being asked (flame suit on :D). If I had to say what the comp title was from the entries, then with most of the images I couldn't.


I think Gareth has hit the nail on the head here. By far the biggest problem - call it a complaint if you will - with the competition as it stands is that most of the entries really don't fit the theme. Many are excellent pictures in their own right, but any link to the theme of the competition is tenuous at best.

I went out at the weekend and shot about 400 frames. A handful of those are pictures I really like, and if I look hard enough, there are shadows in them somewhere. But, there's absolutely no way that any of them feature a shadow as a major element, so I don't regard any of them as eligible.

I think this is what the recent rule change disallowing the competition theme to be used in the title of the photo is getting at. In some cases the only way that the observer could possibly be expected to guess the link between theme and photo, is when prompted by the title.

I feel that the purpose of a themed competition like this isn't so much to show off the best photos that we've taken this month - we can do this anyway - but to help us explore new areas that we might find challenging, inspiring or interesting and that we wouldn't otherwise have done. That means that keeping strictly on-topic is crucial, even if it means that the final images we produce aren't as spectacular. To me, a successful round is not one which is won by a single amazing photo, but one which is entered by a number of people all of whom have made the effort to shoot something that's strictly in keeping with the competition theme.

As to digital manipulation, the original purpose of the rule banning it was to help ensure that the competition encourages careful thought and skill behind the camera - to capture the best possible image at the instant the shutter releases. I don't deny that 'digital darkroom' work can enhance a photo enormously, but it's a whole different set of skills that are being used and tested. To me, allowing a lot of retouching and digital effects to be applied makes it more an 'image creation' competition rather than a 'photography' competition. If that's what people want then fair enough, but I can see this debate continuing for some time.

When I mentioned to my wife that I was thinking of 'Shadows' as the theme she thought it might put people off. I made it the theme anyway (I normally do whatever she says of course), since I was thinking about the way we decide what to photograph. It was supposed to encourage people to look at a scene differently, to look at the way the shadows work instead of mentally ignoring them. Plenty of long shadows this time of year.

For my entries I simply looked for shadows. Once I got into it there were plenty more that I might have entered, the Gatso one would have been an entry except for the manhole cover spoiling it. I'm still seeing them as part of a scene (shadows, not Gatsos), so I suppose I'm seeing differently now.

However, I don't think many people approached it that way, for whatever reasons. Maybe that style of photography simply isn't to everyone's taste. I normally hate photographing people, but forced myself to try it to get the 'Holding Hands' one, so that's progress for me at least !

STi-F has a valid point about documenting any digital manipulation used as in Rule 7, and I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to add photographic effects using digital methods. Whether or not they ultimatey improve the pic is again down individual taste (although in STi-F's entry I think it does add atmosphere)

Adding 'digital blur' is not significantly different to taking the original pic with a soft focus filter in the first place.

If however the effects contribute more to the image than the original photography, then any graphic designer could put together the image, and it then isn't a true representation (or relevent interpretation) of what the photographer originally saw and photographed - as in Lightning's post 7

Gareth

I would agree with Gareth's comments about lots of pics perhaps not quite fulfilling the brief. I've certainly been guilty of that myself and although I had pics I was thinking of entering this time they weren't quite on subject. Not allowing the competition theme in the entry titles is a very good step.

Manipulation to some extent has always been present in darkrooms and within reason you have to allow reasonable use of photoshop and similar. The basic raw or jpeg image out of the camera is generally not sharp or contrasty enough.

At the end of the day the comp is a bit of fun and a good way to experiment and learn stuff.

Thanks for all the comments

the main reason I dont enter is a time factor, I have been very busy of late with one thing or another :)

I do agree that this current shadows comp is a little off the subject, that said, there are some really great pictures

I knew when I was typing the post last night, that some of the comments back would be about the competion being more for yourself, and that its the caputered image that counts and not necessarily one that has 'manipulated' so to speak

I know manipulation goes on in the darkroom, as does airbrushing on models :D etc etc, I remember mentioning to my other half about the cigarette stump being 'edited' out of the picture at the time it was posted, and said, 'why couldnt it just have been moved' :)

Im not knocking any of the rules, the comp or the entries, to me personally I felt (and still do to a degree) left behind in the picture taking skills

To be honest, a lot of shots I take are with my old trusty Canon Powershot A60 mostly on Auto, I do have a Canon D30 with Sigma Lens, and Canon Zoom lens, with two external flash units, but again most of the pics I take with that are on auto settings, I know not the best, but again I just cant seem to find the time to learn the settings, and the impact they have on the pictures

I have played around with the settings, and at some point I intend reading the guides in this forum, and I even picked up a few SLR photography books cheap from charity shops (they are film based, but they cover the fundamentals which have never changed, lighting, framing, depth of field, etc etc), so I can read them and learn more, but again time hasnt been on my side :(

I do find it annoying not finding the time to learn a few settings, as when I want to take pics on holiday, I want them to be the best they can be, and keep saying that I will learn how to use the camera properly

As for future comps, I will try (time permitting) to get some entries in (the last one I did was the reflections one I think, and that happened by chance :D )

Trying to take pictures of my fish was the last time I took any pics, and posted a couple up on here, but since then I havent had time to revisit it

Glad im not the only one who thinks we should have side by side comparisons to any edited pictures and perhaps with some information as to why (STi-Frenchie's is a good example :) ) and yes I agree the 'edited' picture looks better, and almost like it could be a painting

Steve

When I added Rule 7 I did so to allow the techniques to be learnt. I am certainly no expert at Photoshop and only use it for the basics as I find it daunting, especially CS2! :eek:

I usually only do levels/contrast (although I do find the auto settings don't always work), clone out the odd dust speck and a quick UnSharpMask. The train one was my first attempt at anything more elaborate and the first time I've used layers. I'm going on a course at the end of November so I may learn it a bit more.

I use RawShooter and document the settings I have used, as I believe if you have spent a serious load of dosh on a DSLR you really shouldn't be wasting 1/3rd of the detail by shooting in JPEG (unless you have good reason, like deadlines). Now Pixmantec has been swallowed up by Adobe :rolleyes: I'm trying to learn Adobe Lightroom beta, but it's not as easy as RawShooter was to pick up.

I am guilty of not following the theme:o, especially this one, but we should always allow some interpretation of it ;) I have struggled to find any shadows worth shooting in what has been a very grey month :(

I have found that the comp's do force me to think about things differently, the 'Candid' one was pretty daunting to me as the idea of photographing strangers was scarey:eek: I ended up winning that one! :D

Don't be discouraged from entering, you don't even need sophisticated equipment to produce a decent shot and you certainly don't have to be a Photoshop wizard.

I also think the 'before & after' idea is excellent :thumb:

Original colour shot, camera jpeg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/CharlieWhiskey/Miscelleanous/_MG_6831fromoriginaljpeg.jpg

Tweaked version
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/CharlieWhiskey/Miscelleanous/_MG_6831-01pns.jpg
EOS 20D, 17-40 L @ 17mm f/6.3 1/15th sec (handheld) ISO 100
Almost totally de-saturated in RawShooter Premium, slight crop, full sharpening, boost shadow contrast & cut highlights
Auto contrast & levels in CS2, then add a 16ch posterised layer, 5% gaussian noise & 60% sepia filter to make it look a bit more gritty ;)
Reduced & then USM (30% rad 1.8 th 4) saved to JPEG.

Had I wanted to do the same thing with film I'd have shot it with a grainy B&W film, probably pushed a bit, printed on pearl paper and added a sepia tint in the darkroom. My enlarger and the rest of my darkroom kit is at the back of the cupboard under the stairs, still in the same box in which it arrived in this house when I moved in 15 years ago! :eek:

I might go back there next time it is sunny just to take that one again without the litter !

All mine are on aperture priority Automatic, using the built-in electronic viewfinder so I can see what the sensor sees. No histogram available on my camera, and generally just auto levels correction afterwards.

IMHO learning how to 'see' pictures before you take them is more important than learning how to drive the technology of taking pictures. Once you can see stuff that needs different lenses or apertures or whatever to work then fine, but learning what makes a picture work for you (or indeed anybody) doesn't need anything more than a point'n'shoot. As proved by flat4's unsettling dinosaur picture...

talking of the themes for the competitions, one that got me on another forum, was again the subject was 'reflections'

one picture that was submitted was that of a broken down car, and another of a high street, no reflections in either of the pictures (certainly not physical reflections)

Upon being asked about the pictures, the answer to the 1st pic (broken down car, classic car too) was the owner was reflecting on how he is going to get home

the 2nd picture of the high street, was the photographer reflecting on what had happened in that high street (a fatal traffic incident had happened there)

So I guess its the interpretation of the theme, and not necessarily to have to show it in the picture, but if it does look like it has strayed from the theme, then perhaps an explanation would be good (as in the case above :) )

Steve

Most "good" photography has little to do with what the natural eye normally sees and is a manipulation in one form or another whether that be studio lighting, exposures, apertures, filters,unusual angles, Unsharp Mask (in its original form) etc. It follows that in a digital age, it is legitimate to extend the skills of the photographer and the capability of the camera to include post processing skills.
It should be clear to most amateur critics what works and what doesn't and this usually is based on the original capture rather than digital manipulation.
Surely unmanipulated pictures are just snaps?

Surely unmanipulated pictures are just snaps? Unless the timing, viewpoint, composition, framing, background and so on don't really need any manipulation... :)

Edited to add: traditionally the choice of film (grain), lens, shutter speed and so on was part of the manipulation, so digital darkroom techniques are analagous to at least the film and the printing parts of the workflow. I still think that getting the elements I mentioned above right is a separate and more important part of the process, then the traditional or digital manipulation/correction has the right image to work with.

(I'm on a very boring conference call at work...)

Unless the timing, viewpoint, composition, framing, background and so on don't really need any manipulation... :)

just point and shoot in other words ;)

just point and shoot in other words ;)

Yep, as in Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Don McCullin etc ;)

Okay..I think you are missing my point. I have no problem at all with "simple" uncomplicated photography, but even applying the rule of thirds for example is manipulating an image through composition. Surely you are not suggesting that the photographic gods simply had a lot of time on their hands and even greater luck whilst using pin hole cameras? :)

What I am suggesting is that great photography isn't down to your ability in PS.

To my knowledge Cartier Bresson never added 120% USM or felt it necessary to put a tweaked gaussian blur layer into his photographs :D

Glad we are all in agreement then ;)...What I am suggesting is that in the 21st century PS et al are legitimate tools in creating a final image. Not in any way essential mind, just legitimate.

:Suspiciou agreement ? where ? :D

Legitimate tools, yes, but if you find digital effects essential, then it means you're a graphic designer/ digital artist/ computer geek rather than a photographer. :D :D ;)

Gareth ;)

Not wanting to have the final word and all that....but Cartier Bresson certainly did not point and shoot this one by chance ;)

http://leblogdegab.canalblog.com/images/Henri_Cartier_Bresson.Ille_de_la_Cite_Paris.1952.j pg

Quite true with that one - but I think its fair to say that most of Capa's and McCullins' most famous work was done in a bit of a rush :D

Not sure where the point and shoot thing came from (meaning I've lost the thread of this discussion...!)

How about these: (have a look at all 28)
HENRI_CARTIER-BRESSON_01 (http://www.faheykleingallery.com/featured_artists/bresson/bresson_01.htm)

Planning, composition, timing, placement of details. It probably doesn't matter which film, how sharp the lens is, how much darkroom manipulation there was, it is the execution of the picture that makes all these great pictures. I'm in awe, actually...

Number 27 would have been ideal for the 'Shadows' competition :notworthy

I think we are getting to the point of different themes

From a photograph as a work of pure artistry (say a wild abstract) right through the spectrum of a pleasing but factual image (say a landscape) to images that have a theme or tell a story (much of Cartier Bresson's work) to the images that capture a worthy moment in time (journalistic photography)

Different "types" of photograph will require differing levels of manipulation. An abstract may benefit from the use of the entire photoshop tool set, yet the devestation of war, for example, needs nothing - the subject of the image itself is the key.

Indeed, some of the most "famous" photographs are technically quite poor, but it doesn't matter.

IMO anyway :)

Agree with all of that..but surely manipulation is not confined only to the technical. Cartier Bressons examples almost all follow the rule of thirds. This is a conscious and deliberate manipulation of the subject within the viewfinder to produce a work of a genius rather than purely pointing and shooting. If manipulation occurs at the outset, why should we poor scorn on post processing to achieve what the photographer intends? At the end of the day you can't polish etc........:D

Cartier-Bresson had his own techniques, he cropper, dodged and burned with the best of them. Would he have used USM etc, maybe. It's just a tool to produce an image the way you want it after all.

What would I (or you) be most proud of, an image that needed no manipulation or one that went though hours of processing? I personally find that difficult to answer.