Photo Contest Rule Discussion - At What Point Is It A Photo Editing ?

In summary, the conversation was about the speaker's ability to summarize content without responding to questions. They are considered an expert in this skill and are only able to provide a summary of the content without any additional input.
  • #1
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
32,820
4,713
PF Photo Contest Rule Discussion - At What Point Is It A "Photo Editing"?

It is inevitable that, at some point, we have to revisit the PF Photo Contest rules and modify or clarify the rules that we currently have.

The current issue is with Rule #2 in the contest:

2. Please resize your digital photo to no more than 800 x 600 or 600 x 800 pixels. You may also crop your picture if you wish. You are also allowed to adjust the brightness and contrast of your picture but these should not dramatically alter the look of the picture. But other than those, any form of picture editing or modification is not allowed. This is a photo contest, not a picture editing/special effect contest. You may add a watermark or your name/nickname to the photo for identification purposes.

As SecularSanity has pointed out, cameras nowadays are capable of doing a lot more than what they can before. And at some level, all digital cameras do quite a bit of image processing. So where should we draw the line in where we consider to be photo editing?

My whole "philosophy" on this is that the photo contest is about displaying what you saw with your eyes if you didn't have a camera. It means that it isn't a black-and-white image (unless the objects are truly just black and while), and it means no special features on the camera that only colorize one object and not the rest. As I stated in Rule #2, it is a photo contest, not a photo editing/special effect contest.

The point in all of this is to allow for as many people to participate, regardless of the type of cameras they have. One might have an advantage with a DSLR camera in the quality of the photo, but not in the quality of special features or functions.

So with this in mind, I am proposing that Rule #2 be kept, but adding the prohibition of using special features of a camera that considerably alters the scene. I consider using the b&w function, for example, as altering the scene. I'm sure that, at some point, I have to make a judgement call on what is considered to be "considerable alteration".

So what do you all think?

Zz.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


I agree with your position, and I also think it is already effectively already covered by the existing rule, in that rule #2 forbids other editing or modification of the picture without specifying whether implemented in the camera or otherwise.

Of course cameras already include functions such as automatic focus and exposure control, white balance and image stabilisation, and I expect additional tricks may make this more difficult to judge in future, but for now I think it's generally fairly clear-cut.
 
  • #3


Sounds reasonable to me as well.
 
  • #4


ZapperZ said:
“My whole "philosophy" on this is that the photo contest is about displaying what you saw with your eyes if you didn't have a camera.”

Maybe I’m colorblind. Did you ever think of that?

Deuteranopia
http://www.colblindor.com/coblis/uploaded_images/marcin_dirty_mess_deuteranopia.jpg [Broken]http://www.colblindor.com/coblis/uploaded_images/marcin_dirty_mess.jpg [Broken]
ZapperZ said:
So with this in mind, I am proposing that Rule #2 be kept, but adding the prohibition of using special features of a camera that considerablyalters the scene. I consider using the b&w function, for example, as altering the scene. I'm sure that, at some point, I have to make a judgement call on what is considered to be "considerable alteration".

Fine! Feel free to delete my original.
Men...:rolleyes:

6905391050_942fdd86c0_z.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6


Jesus Christ, lighten up! Okay, okay I get the hint. Don’t let the door hit me on the way out.
 
  • #7


ZapperZ said:
My whole "philosophy" on this is that the photo contest is about displaying what you saw with your eyes if you didn't have a camera.
This is not possible. The act of recording a scene with a camera automatically changes the scene. As soon as you lift a camera to take a shot, you are editing. The obvious change is to render it static. The next obvious change is to render it "two dimensional". Less obvious are changes in the angles subtended made by the particular focal length of the lens. Then there are the issues of depth of field, which will arise from the aperture you or the camera selects, and blur, fine or gross, of more rapidly moving things in the scene which will arise from shutter speed.

It is not possible for a photograph to be a record of what is seen with the eyes. A photo is a visual experience unto itself, suis generis, and an effective photograph requires that choices be made, choices that amount to editing in an artistic sense. As soon as you select one perspective on a subject over another, move to get better light, pan a little to the left to create a frame with a tree, you are editing. You crop: you are editing. Photographs as Art are judged by all the same criteria as paintings. (It's true, photographs are sometimes taken with the intention of serving as visual records only, for insurance and law enforcement purposes, for example, but there is no point in having a photo contest at all for that kind of thing.)

You are never not editing. A prohibition against "special effects" is another matter entirely.

You don't want someone photoshopping complete fiction, like an albino ladybug, or a VW beetle painted like a ladybug if they never actually encountered such a thing while out with their camera. And what would the point be of posting a picture with all the colors inverted?It's a cheap, one click, special effect. But, to what extent should you be allowed to enhance the colors in a colorful sunset, or the green of a meadow, or the yellow in a flower? Hard call. No camera records color faithfully, it's fiction from the get go. Maybe Andre and others who work seriously in color may have some guidelines to offer about when color correcting is acceptable editing and when it becomes "special effects."

I think a prohibition against black and white photos would be downright anti-photography. Photography was born with the black and white photo and reached maturity there before color was ever possible. The decision to make a photograph from the interplay of value alone, without color, is an eminently respectable artistic decision, just as Kodachrome vs Ecktachrome used to be a perfectly respectable artistic decision if you were taking color shots, despite the fact both give you fiction compared to what you actually see with the naked eye. If Black and White is not respectable, then you're rendering all the great 20th century photographers as "special effects artists."

Does the effectiveness of this portrait boil down to "special effects"? :

http://www.siegelproductions.ca/ottawarocks/images/einstein.jpg

Karsh tightly controlled everything here, lighting, exposure, everything you can think of. That made him a great photographer, not a "special effects" photographer.

By the same reasoning, this shot of Einstein:

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28200000/Albert-Einstein-Albert-einstein-28258227-800-990.jpg

is not saved from being a poor photo by the alleged "special effect" of being in Black and White.
 
  • #8


zoobyshoe said:
This is not possible. The act of recording a scene with a camera automatically changes the scene. As soon as you lift a camera to take a shot, you are editing. The obvious change is to render it static. The next obvious change is to render it "two dimensional". Less obvious are changes in the angles subtended made by the particular focal length of the lens. Then there are the issues of depth of field, which will arise from the aperture you or the camera selects, and blur, fine or gross, of more rapidly moving things in the scene which will arise from shutter speed.
Another factor is that most digital cameras allow the saturation to be boosted. Those of us who lived through the Kodachrome/Ektachrome years know this well. Use Kodachrome and pay for the extra processing and shipping, and you'd get really saturated colors vs Ektachrome. If you view all your images on LCD monitors instead of CRTs you can be disappointed by the lack of saturation, and it's pretty normal to want to boost the in-camera saturation to compensate for that. So there are a few fuzzy details regarding in-camera processing.
 
Last edited:
  • #9


I think that black and white photos should definitely be allowed. We could potentially use the limitations of film cameras as guidelines for the limitations for this contest. But, I am not sure if some of the modern digital effects were possible in the days of mainstream film photography, if they were it would render my idea moot.
 
  • #10


I suspect trying to nail this in "rules" will reach the same point as Judge Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), trying to define pornography:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ... and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...
 
  • #11


B&W should be allowed. Other than that, I generally adhere to guidelines for figures submitted to peer-reviewed journals, for example:

http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/micro/digimage_ethics.php [Broken]

Speaking generally, global alterations to brightness, contrast, etc. are ok, while localized changes are nearly always *not* ok.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12


Andy Resnick said:
B&W should be allowed. Other than that, I generally adhere to guidelines for figures submitted to peer-reviewed journals, for example:

http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/micro/digimage_ethics.php [Broken]

Speaking generally, global alterations to brightness, contrast, etc. are ok, while localized changes are nearly always *not* ok.
Those guidelines pertain specifically to scientific images. Those are not art, but data, records. Things like dodging and burning have been part and parcel of art photographs for decades.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13


zoobyshoe said:
This is not possible. The act of recording a scene with a camera automatically changes the scene. As soon as you lift a camera to take a shot, you are editing. The obvious change is to render it static. The next obvious change is to render it "two dimensional". Less obvious are changes in the angles subtended made by the particular focal length of the lens. Then there are the issues of depth of field, which will arise from the aperture you or the camera selects, and blur, fine or gross, of more rapidly moving things in the scene which will arise from shutter speed.

It is not possible for a photograph to be a record of what is seen with the eyes.

I think you are being pedantic. Zz nicely covered your points by being explicit that it is, indeed a photography contest. Photographs render an image static and 2D. Photographs require a focal length, a depth of field, aperture, shutter speed, etc.

However, it highlights the point that there is no clear distinction where photographing ends and post-editing begins.
 
Last edited:
  • #14


Andy Resnick said:
Speaking generally, global alterations to brightness, contrast, etc. are ok, while localized changes are nearly always *not* ok.

I like this idea, global changes are allowed but local changes are not.
 
  • #15


KrisOhn said:
I like this idea, global changes are allowed but local changes are not.

Won't work, unless you are ready to spend a lot of time learning about details of each tool used. In Photoshop there is a tool called "Shadow/Highlight" - slider to make details in burned out or too dark areas visible. Great tool - but is it local, or global? It is applied globally, you don't have to point the program to the areas you want to change, but the way it is implemented - it finds dark/bright areas of diameter at least x points and applies changes only there - means it works locally. You can even define diameter of the area. Should it be allowed, or not?

Don't get me wrong - I am on Zz's side when it comes to keeping it the photography contest, I just don't believe we can write rules in such a way they will be unambiguous. With one exception, mentioned in the very first post - "in the end it is Zz's call".
 
  • #16


Borek said:
"in the end it is Zz's call".
Yep.
 
  • #17


This is why I asked this. Note that in my very first post, I acknowledged the fact that digital cameras, in some sense, inherently processed the images. That's why I brought up this question on to what extent digital manipulation is allowed, and when it isn't. The rules clearly stated that cropping, brightness adjustments, etc. are all allowed. To me, that doesn't SIGNIFICANTLY change the "view" of what we see. However, what I see SecularSanity is doing with his camera does not, to me, fall within the INTENTION of the contest.

As some point, you need to ask if you get the whole intention of this contest. It is one thing to say that, no, you don't or you are not quite clear. It is another to say "well, I think I know what it wants, but it doesn't say it clearly in writing and so, I'm going to go test its boundary". (I appreciate that some of you have contacted me in advanced to clarify if a photo qualifies or not.) However, I don't think I want to make the rules so long, so complicated, so specific, so verbose. If it gets to that point, it is no longer fun, not just for you, but also for me, and we might as well call the whole thing off. It is just not worth the aggravation.

So my request now is to get your feedback on whether we keep Rule #2 as it is, or we add clarification on Rule #2 to make it even clearer (assuming that many of you think that the INTENTION of the contest is still vague), or we scrapped Rule #2 completely (upon which I'd rather someone else runs the contest). If you wish to make Rule #2 clearer, please suggest exact phrasing that would convey the intention.

Zz.
 
  • #18


ZapperZ said:
This is why I asked this. Note that in my very first post, I acknowledged the fact that digital cameras, in some sense, inherently processed the images. That's why I brought up this question on to what extent digital manipulation is allowed, and when it isn't. The rules clearly stated that cropping, brightness adjustments, etc. are all allowed. To me, that doesn't SIGNIFICANTLY change the "view" of what we see. However, what I see SecularSanity is doing with his camera does not, to me, fall within the INTENTION of the contest.
I agree his entry is outside the bounds of the contest, and I think it's clearly ruled out by the statement it's not a special effects contest. I wasn't defending him.

The trouble is that your definition of what should be allowed as conforming to what the eye would see is not tenable. The eye does not see things you're tacitly allowing, such as depth of field effects or motion blur. The act of taking a photograph, of clipping a static two dimensional rectangle out of your visual field and recording it, is automatically an act of editing. You can't escape that. I pointed that out because you extended your logic about "significant alteration" to include Black and White photos, which have been, traditionally, the meat and potatoes of photography, and never regarded as a special effect. The eye easily accommodates to Black and White as "real" just as it accommodates depth of field effects, motion blurs, moderate wide angle shots, macro shots, etc. People don't look at a B+W photo and have the reaction "This is significantly different than the way my eye sees!", despite the fact it is, whereas they would with the color truck against a B+W background, or any similar "special effect".

I don't know if you, personally, don't like B+W photos or if you feel logic dictates that you have to exclude them based on your argument that there should be no significant alteration from what the eye sees. If it's the former, it's not a universally held taste; others would like the option of submitting B+W pictures, and if it's the latter, I think rewriting rule #2 simply to exclude "special effects" without defining them as something the eye wouldn't see, would be sufficient.
 
  • #19


I'll go along with Zz on this. We can't turn this into a "Who has the most widgets in their camera" contest.

Perhaps we could start an "I did it with a widget" thread. It might even help those who get a new camera learn how to play correctly with their widgets.
 
  • #20


zoobyshoe said:
The trouble is that your definition of what should be allowed as conforming to what the eye would see is not tenable. The eye does not see things you're tacitly allowing, such as depth of field effects or motion blur.

I still insist you're being pedantic. The desire is to aim for what the eye sees, even knowing this is unachievable, (So is true happiness, but we can live our lives in pursuit of it) but it is not a hard and fast requirement.

Indeed, human perception does have depth of field and does have motion blur. What it does not have is the ability to make an image black and white with a single object popped in colour.

Even if you counter these arguments, it seems like you're pursuing it for the sake of argument. We know the intent; we know a special effect when we see it; it is simply the fuzzy grey area between legit and falsified editing at question here.

This isn't a matter of academic principle, it's a decision needed to be made for a practical end-goal - the contest.

Are you suggesting by your arguments that it is futile to draw a line? If we can't draw a hard-edged line, that we should not draw a line at all?

Or what are you suggesting as an alternate?
 
  • #21


DaveC426913 said:
What it does not have is the ability to make an image black and white with a single object popped in colour.
Before I address anything else you said, you do understand I am not defending the special effects photo SecularSanity entered, right? I explicitly stated I think what he posted was out of bounds.
 
  • #22
  • #23


zoobyshoe said:
The trouble is that your definition of what should be allowed as conforming to what the eye would see is not tenable. The eye does not see things you're tacitly allowing, such as depth of field effects or motion blur. The act of taking a photograph, of clipping a static two dimensional rectangle out of your visual field and recording it, is automatically an act of editing. You can't escape that. I pointed that out because you extended your logic about "significant alteration" to include Black and White photos, which have been, traditionally, the meat and potatoes of photography, and never regarded as a special effect. The eye easily accommodates to Black and White as "real" just as it accommodates depth of field effects, motion blurs, moderate wide angle shots, macro shots, etc. People don't look at a B+W photo and have the reaction "This is significantly different than the way my eye sees!", despite the fact it is, whereas they would with the color truck against a B+W background, or any similar "special effect".

This doesn't answer my question on whether you understand clearly the INTENTION AND SPIRIT of the contest. Do you? Or are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing?

I can accept a B&W photo from a purely black-and-white camera, or if it was taken on a B&W film. However, I consider manipulating a digital camera so that it takes a B&W photo, or if a photo was later processed to be B&W, to be a SIGNIFICANT alteration.

If this is something you object, then I'm sorry. If this is something the rest of the participants would like to accept and include in the contest, then be my guest and someone can take over, because this is not what I had mind.

Zz.
 
  • #24


ZapperZ said:
I can accept a B&W photo from a purely black-and-white camera, or if it was taken on a B&W film. However, I consider manipulating a digital camera so that it takes a B&W photo, or if a photo was later processed to be B&W, to be a SIGNIFICANT alteration.
But again, I think this is trying to nail down the technology, not address the intent.

If there are any "B&W only" digital cameras commercially available, they will most likely be for specialized applications (e.g. very high speed photography). But if I select the "B&W" option on my point-and-shoot, I can't really see that as any different from selecting the options for the auto-focus algorithm, exposure, color balance, auto flash selection, etc. And clicking the "convert color to grayscale" button in Photoshop (without doing anything more complcated) is no different in intent, IMO.

On the other hand, "serious" B&W photographers would almost certainly use color filters to enhance the picture quality, e.g. yellow filters to increase the contrast between sky and clouds. But where do you draw the line between that, and using a dark red filter to take "night" shots in full daylight (a standard technique, especially in the days of B&W movies)?

But in the context of the PF competition, framing the rules to encompass entrants using B&W chemical filmstock is an irrelevance.

I think the existing rule's statement that "this is not a special effects competition" is a clear enough definition of the intent. Of course you can argue from a "philosophy of art" POV that every aspect of photographic technology is a special effect - but so what?
 
  • #25


zoobyshoe said:
Before I address anything else you said, you do understand I am not defending the special effects photo SecularSanity entered, right? I explicitly stated I think what he posted was out of bounds.
I do. Which is why it seems you're arguing for the sake of arguing. What do you propose as a next-best case?
 
  • #26


zoobyshoe said:
I hope you understand I am anti-widget myself. A black and white photo, however, is not a "widget" in my view:

http://www.geni.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/einstein.jpg

I have mixed feelings about the B/W issue. I would be OK with it I guess. There are some instances when a B/W photo best depicts the subject as you demonstrated above.:smile:
 
  • #27


Alright, I agree. Selective color is a cheap trick, rather gimmicky. National Geographic’s philosophy is similar to ZapperZ’s. Why don’t we follow their guidelines? I withdrew my original photo, in hopes that B&W would remain acceptable. We all want you to continue this thread because you do provide very inspiring themes. What do you say, ZapperZ?

Pretty please? :redface:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice/
 
Last edited:
  • #28
ZapperZ said:
This doesn't answer my question on whether you understand clearly the INTENTION AND SPIRIT of the contest. Do you?
I understand, and agree with, what you stated here:
ZapperZ said:
The point in all of this is to allow for as many people to participate, regardless of the type of cameras they have. One might have an advantage with a DSLR camera in the quality of the photo, but not in the quality of special features or functions.
Making sure no one is cut out because they can't afford a camera with excess bells and whistles is a good intention. But, is there any camera, no matter how inexpensive, that doesn't have a B+W mode? Has it ever really been an issue that someone wanted to submit a B+W photo but couldn't create one? I could be wrong but it's always been my impression more people don't enter Black and White photos, not because they can't, but because they think it would put them at the disadvantage of presenting a duller, less exiting image.

I took my first photography course in the 1960's in high school when Black and White photos were the traditional, default, democratic photographic choice. The same was true when I took my second photography course at a film school in the 1980's. It's surreal to read you arguing they are some kind of "special effect". Up to this point when I've run into people who don't like B+W it's always been because they consider it limited and bland compared to color.
Or are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing?
I do not appreciate people gratuitously suspecting I have bad motives. You know full well I primarily submit black and white photos. I am arguing to defend the kind of photos I have always submitted. I am arguing because you are claiming my preferred medium is some sort of "special effect" when it is actually a traditional, well respected medium. Did you not understand the point of my linking to the two separate Einstein photos?

Do you understand that what you're proposing is going to cut ME out of future contests? I think if you consider that you'll understand I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.

Never mind me, consider also that you would be cutting people like Josef Karsh and Ansel Adams out of the contest along with just about every other huge name in photography. That alone should stop you in your tracks to consider that you may not be analyzing this well. How can you stand by any train of logic that would render every great name in 20th century photography ineligible for this forum's photo contest?

If this is something the rest of the participants would like to accept and include in the contest, then be my guest and someone can take over, because this is not what I had mind.
OR, you could continue and just rethink what B+W photography is all about in light of all the incredible B+W photographs that exist, and the new ones that continue to be created.

The eye does not see in black and white, but neither does it see depth of field effects like this:

http://tipsforphotographers.com/image/depth_of_field_in_close_up_photography.jpg [Broken]

motion blur like this:

http://api.ning.com/files/UKR6RTdFcZk1rRqt6yb1yPZeWNSXpGTH4p6*s9QoaqRrqt2GW1Biqvdgwl6OTUCczgYG*deNuBRelcVoaJKOFx2WFjmw63Zx/motionblurphotos16.jpeg

and I have never seen colors like this with my eyes in nature, nor do i see things so small in such detail:

http://mallorcapanorama.com/images-sys/macro-photos-03.jpg

These three images are not what the naked eye sees. Like a well written novel or short story they are the visual equivalent of fiction: they resemble reality, but are actually highly edited. Regardless, they are great photos, and anyone of them would probably win a PF photo contest, because good photography isn't actually about recording reality the way the eye sees. A photo is a visual experience unto itself, whose success or failure is based on how interestingly it alters or edits reality.

The kind of special effect most would object to, that you want to exclude, simply requires some different definition than "it's not what the eye sees". Disallowing B+W for that reason is absurd since so many great color photos don't meet that criteria either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29


edward said:
I have mixed feelings about the B/W issue. I would be OK with it I guess. There are some instances when a B/W photo best depicts the subject as you demonstrated above.:smile:
I consider B+W the opposite of a gimmick. It's much more like a handicap, a challenge, that forces you to pay attention to value alone and see what you can accomplish with that. Color cameras are so spectacular now that I feel they are sometimes covering a multitude of sins, rendering almost anything you point your camera at an amazing color experience that actually exceeds the talents of the photographer. I was a bit stunned when I got my first digital point and shoot at how much my color photography seemed to have improved, if you see my point.
 
  • #30


I'd like to point this out, then I'll go back to the shadows of this contest watching all of the great photos posted here.

By the first rule would it be acceptable for me to shoot a roll of BW film (silver chemistry or C41 process) develop and print it, then scan it, would that be a legal entry? What about loading up some IR film? What about double exposers on film? All of these effects can be done with modern digital cameras. Granted the IR trick requires the removal of the IR low pass filter, and only some DSLRs that I can think of will do double exposers.

Could SecularSanity picture of been done in the day before photoshop and digital cameras, yeah. Take a BW photo, print it out on fiber paper, get out your dyes/paintbrush, start working like a watercolor paint by numbers, then have a nice big shot of something strong when done. Is that photo editing under rule 2, deffently yes, even with scanning it for rule 1.

I think that it should be allowed with a digital camera, if you could do it in a film camera.
So yes to BW, IR, Double exposers.
No to color selection, photoshop trickery.
 
  • #31


ZapperZ said:
This is why I asked this. Note that in my very first post, I acknowledged the fact that digital cameras, in some sense, inherently processed the images. That's why I brought up this question on to what extent digital manipulation is allowed, and when it isn't. The rules clearly stated that cropping, brightness adjustments, etc. are all allowed. To me, that doesn't SIGNIFICANTLY change the "view" of what we see. However, what I see SecularSanity is doing with his camera does not, to me, fall within the INTENTION of the contest.

<snip>

Clearly, making rule #2 'simple' may not maintain the *intention* of what is a significant alteration.

Personally I would be happy with a significant alteration being defined as post-processing that varies over the image- things like cloning, selective coloration, burning and dodging, warping, etc are not allowed but things like black and white level settings, B&W/color, white-balancing, gamma correction, image stacking, etc would be.

Again, a simple rule cannot cover every single possible in-camera processing routine. Certainly there's nothing wrong with requiring full disclosure about what in-camera processing was performed (sharpening? red-eye removal? noise reduction? HDR? etc).

In any event, you are the organizer so the decision is yours to make.

Edit: I forgot to mention, in the spirit of 'leveling the field- P&S vs. DSLR', P&S cameras and cell phones have many more image manipulation routines, and some of them are automatic in that they are *always* applied- making the 'no alterations' too restrictive will disproportionately affect entry-level cameras, not high-end ones.
 
Last edited:
  • #32


SecularSanity said:
Alright, I agree. Selective color is a cheap trick, rather gimmicky. National Geographic’s philosophy is similar to ZapperZ’s. Why don’t we follow their guidelines? I withdrew my original photo, in hopes that B&W would remain acceptable. We all want you to continue this thread because you do provide very inspiring themes. What do you say, ZapperZ?

Pretty please? :redface:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice/

I think National Geographic's guidelines are pretty good. Basically, they say: don't overdo it, keep it natural.

I suggest following these guidelines, with the photo contest moderator making the final call on what is too "overdone".
 
  • #33


zoobyshoe said:
I do not appreciate people gratuitously suspecting I have bad motives. You know full well I primarily submit black and white photos. I am arguing to defend the kind of photos I have always submitted. I am arguing because you are claiming my preferred medium is some sort of "special effect" when it is actually a traditional, well respected medium. Did you not understand the point of my linking to the two separate Einstein photos?

Do you understand that what you're proposing is going to cut ME out of future contests? I think if you consider that you'll understand I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.
I did not know that. No, it was not at all clear until now. Thank you for clarifying. Your stance makes perfect sense now.
 
  • #34


SecularSanity said:
We all want you to continue this thread because you do provide very inspiring themes.

Yes indeed. Thanks for your work ZapperZ.
 
  • #35


Just a quick question about the rule.

For the "True Blue" photo contest I had an idea for a image but I wasn't sure if it would be allow under this rule.

Basically I was thinking of taking the photo I had taken with my compact camera and then running it through Photoshop to simulate the effect of a colour filter on the image?

Or does that count as photo editing even though it is something you can do physically using lenses and stuff that I don't have?
 
<h2>1. What is considered photo editing in a photo contest?</h2><p>In a photo contest, photo editing can be defined as any manipulation or alteration of the original photograph, including but not limited to cropping, color adjustments, and adding or removing elements.</p><h2>2. Are filters and presets considered photo editing?</h2><p>Yes, filters and presets are considered photo editing as they alter the original photograph's appearance and can significantly change the overall aesthetic of the image.</p><h2>3. Can I use Photoshop or other editing software in a photo contest?</h2><p>Yes, you can use editing software in a photo contest, but you must disclose the use of such software in your submission and adhere to the contest's guidelines and rules regarding photo editing.</p><h2>4. Is there a limit to the amount of editing allowed in a photo contest?</h2><p>The amount of editing allowed in a photo contest varies depending on the contest's rules and guidelines. Some contests may allow minimal editing, while others may allow more extensive edits. It is essential to read the rules carefully before submitting your entry.</p><h2>5. Can I use stock images or elements in my photo contest entry?</h2><p>The use of stock images or elements in a photo contest entry is generally not allowed unless specified in the contest's rules. It is essential to use original content in your submission to ensure fairness and authenticity in the contest.</p>

1. What is considered photo editing in a photo contest?

In a photo contest, photo editing can be defined as any manipulation or alteration of the original photograph, including but not limited to cropping, color adjustments, and adding or removing elements.

2. Are filters and presets considered photo editing?

Yes, filters and presets are considered photo editing as they alter the original photograph's appearance and can significantly change the overall aesthetic of the image.

3. Can I use Photoshop or other editing software in a photo contest?

Yes, you can use editing software in a photo contest, but you must disclose the use of such software in your submission and adhere to the contest's guidelines and rules regarding photo editing.

4. Is there a limit to the amount of editing allowed in a photo contest?

The amount of editing allowed in a photo contest varies depending on the contest's rules and guidelines. Some contests may allow minimal editing, while others may allow more extensive edits. It is essential to read the rules carefully before submitting your entry.

5. Can I use stock images or elements in my photo contest entry?

The use of stock images or elements in a photo contest entry is generally not allowed unless specified in the contest's rules. It is essential to use original content in your submission to ensure fairness and authenticity in the contest.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Back
Top