Cheaters Getting Caught By The Photo Police!

[Larry S]

composition is editing
exposure is editing
timing the shot is editing
culling is editing
we can select tri-x or cibachrome
we can push or pull the developing
dodging and burning is editing
we can select 35mm or medium format
we can choose our lens

we don’t have to agree this is editing, but we are making choices all along the process that change the result

^^^^^^^^ yeah, What John said..

 

[Jerry Watson]

Dodging and burning can be done with color film although the technique is a bit different. Hand retouching was also very common with color film and transparencies at a professional level. Contrast is not exactly the same as dodging and burning or exposure adjustments. There was extensive use of masking for both creating the original exposure and for processing the film or material later. Some early photographers actually used a multiple exposure technique combined with a mask.

Color has it's own set of quirks - choice of film, temperature, age of film, etc. But color shifts were common and could be planned or created as desired.

Later processing of color transparencies involved many of the same objectives - just different methods.

I have done the multiple exposure and masking in my dark room years ago on B&W. But I did not think it could be done on color without skewing up, well, the color.

 

[Larry S]

.. Law of "diminishing returns" just kicked in for me....

 

[Feiertag]

I'm illustrating my one and only Photoshop Generative experiment, that I have tried out. I was blown away by what a good job it performed adding the left wing tip. My hat is off to the photo judges who can spot these doctored photographs.

 

[simonsi]

composition is editing
exposure is editing
timing the shot is editing
culling is editing
we can select tri-x or cibachrome
we can push or pull the developing
dodging and burning is editing
we can select 35mm or medium format
we can choose our lens

we don’t have to agree this is editing, but we are making choices all along the process that change the result

“Editing” means modifying, consequently has to refer to post-capture - which is why competitions have these rules, they want images where the pre-capture decisions made by the photographer are evident and not hidden by post-capture changes. Simply calling everything “editing” means you are misusing the word, plain and simple. Photographers are behind cameras, editors are behind desks.

 

[Howard5252]

Two points:
1- At our (my) level of photography we (I) may not pay enough attention to the entire frame like the pro's do and can wind up with a tree, that was two blocks away, growing out of our sujects left ear. Simply put, it becomes "What I saw" vs "What the camera saw". Gimm'e that Clone Stamp ... I only want to show WHAT I SAW.
2- There will be times when a really good opportunity arises for a potentially winning photograph EXCEPT for something undesireable in the background. See attached files for this example.
In both of these cases I guess the "Improved" photo will be ours to admire and serve as reminders that we need to improve our craft if we want to belong to a higher level within it.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Paul B]

Just waiting for the day when you have to prove your human to enter a photograph in a contest.

 

[JerryF]

The opposite can also happen. Many years back I posted a photo of a grey fox that I shot at night using remote fired speedlights that I had set up earlier in the day. I was accused of shooting a static fox that had been stuffed by a taxidermist. I had to post some of the 100 or so other non keeper shots in different poses to prove it but not sure they ever believed me. Go figure.

 

[Feiertag]

The opposite can also happen. Many years back I posted a photo of a grey fox that I shot at night using remote fired speedlights that I had set up earlier in the day. I was accused of shooting a static fox that had been stuffed by a taxidermist. I had to post some of the 100 or so other non keeper shots in different poses to prove it but not sure they ever believed me. Go figure.

You got caught up in this accusation because there are many dishonest people out there. These days, I guess everyone is suspect until you prove your innocence.

In the world of fishing contests/tournaments, two individuals were caught being unsportsmanlike by giving their fish a lead-weight diet. Thousands of dollars and the title/crown were at stake. They would have won if they weren't challenged.

So you can see what judges are up against in various fields.

 

[ARClark]

I agree.

If the rules are set out, and they say "no editing", then that's it.

I would agree, although in the 100s of contests I’ve entered, I’ve never seen contest rules that said “no editing”.

 

[Feiertag]

I would agree, although in the 100s of contests I’ve entered, I’ve never seen contest rules that said “no editing”.

In the hundreds of contests you submitted, did you pay an entry fee? Those contests can kiss my lens. What a scam in this lucrative money-making scheme.

BTW, did you win with your submissions?

 

[JacobGM]

The elephant was interesting. Flipping the ears and taking out a flaw wasn't necessary in my opinion for it to still be an outstanding shot. Sometimes we get in our own way trying to make something "better". I suspect had he not made those changes he would have still won.

Totally agree. The ragged ear in its original state (side/unflipped) IMO, adds so much more character to the image. People do the strangest things! I bet he had his reasons, and I’d be very curious to get his thought process.

 

[JacobGM]

If its a photo for your own enjoyment you can do whatever you want with it

Oh absolutely! It’s like driving… if you’re on an open salt-flat with no one in 5 miles, drive however you want, even if it kills you. Your choices, nature’s consequences. But if you’re on a road with rules, you jolly well follow them. A red light at an empty intersection may seem stupid, but it serves a larger purpose.

 

[ARClark]

This discussion outlines why I rarely enter photo contests. I see photography, even nature photography as a form of art. I have been known to clone out a beer can in the water, fishing line and bobbers hanging in trees and even a distracting human or two. In my mind these edits do not detract from the image, they allow me to present the image I saw. When looking at a beautiful scene, we usually do not focus on the little distractions and my images are an effort to reflect what I saw in my mind.

I understand contests have their rules and that is fine. I just don't enter many contests.

Secondly, it seems many of the larger contests' winning photos have to include whatever is the political talking points of the day. In nature, one must, either in the photo or in the description, mention global climate change. In people type photography, it seems the chances of winning are greatly enhanced when the subject(s) contain whatever social, ethnic, religious or gender group is getting the most media attention at the time of the contest.

I don't want to be cynical about it just an observation when seeing winning photos in the bigger contests.

I guess the closing is I don't think any of my photos are worthy of entering in the big contests. I guess someone has to come in last place but I'll allow someone else to occupy that spot.

In the hundreds of contests you submitted, did you pay an entry fee? Those contests can kiss my lens. What a scam in this lucrative money-making scheme.

BTW, did you win with your submissions?

Many were free online competitions at Digital Photography Review, which are still ongoing. They were a great opportunity for learning and experimenting with a wide variety of contest rules. I eventually won some of them. Other free ones have been photography club online and print competitions. There have also been annual statewide and regional nature photography contests that charged for entries, but with the fees going to nature and photography organizations of which I was a member or supported. I've also had works accepted into fine art juried shows with fees. Overall, I've won or placed enough in the various competitions to cover most of my entry fees. Printing, matting and framing costs for the fine art shows are another matter!

Having said all that, none of their competition rules ever said just "No editing". All of them, including the nature contest, allowed at least "conventional" editing like exposure, contrast, sharpening, noise reduction, etc. By and large, the nature photo competitions banned adding to or changing elements in images, and banned or restricted what could be removed. Fine art competitions are generally much more liberal with minimal, if any, editing limitations.

 

[Wes Peterson]

In the hundreds of contests you submitted, did you pay an entry fee? Those contests can kiss my lens. What a scam in this lucrative money-making scheme.

BTW, did you win with your submissions?

You have to pay to enter BPOTY and its essentially the biggest bird photo contest one can enter.

 

[John Navitsky]

I bet he had his reasons, and I’d be very curious to get his thought process.

now that would be an interesting article

 

[Gayle]

Here's an example that I was dealing with this weekend, just for discussion: I was out shooting the Bald Eagles as they gather in large numbers to feast on the salmon. However, the gulls were everywhere, pretty much photo-bombing every shot. Wherever there was an eagle munching on a part of a salmon, there was usually two or three gulls within a meter. The ducks were getting in on the act as well.

It's unlikely I'll ever enter them into a comp, but is it OK to remove a gull or two to put the focus more on the eagle, or do I leave them in as part of the "scene"?

Presumably, deleting a gull or two would prevent me entering the shots into certain comps, if I wanted to.

You can do whatever you want with your image. It's yours. What changes that is you can't enter it in certain contests, and if it is an editorial or documentary photograph you can't make changes. But if it's art, then it is up to the artist what to do with it. I've got some images that I've altered in post. But they do not get entered into contests except for fine art contests. And I wouldn't submit them to any publication. I enter several contests each year, and I read the rules carefully. Many of them state that you have to submit the raw image if you are a winner.

 

[cr_wildlife]

Interesting video regarding photographers who won a photo contest and then were stripped of the prize/title.

I have two comments: 1. If you are going to enter a photo contest, read the rules (even the fine print)! Make sure that your entry follows the rules. We don't get to complain about the rules, although I have written to the contest organizers to suggest changes that seem necessary, actually with some success.
2. The contests make stringent rules to control the 5% of the people who are bad actors. It may seem ridiculous to eliminate a photo for removing a small piece of garbage, but if you allow it, where do you draw the line? As we could see from the video, there are people out there who are more than willing to break the rules to win the contest.

 

[Larry S]

The perfect image of a wild critter in it’s natural habitat that you spent hours or days working with can get tossed in favor of a “socialized” animal that’s approachable. Game farms and related wildlife viewing venues exacerbate the “honest image” problem that is obvious by the proximity of the animal to the photographer. It’s something that doesn’t come up frequently but certainly affects the viewer and judge’s perceptions. Maybe this doesn’t matter in the long run, just the quality and impact of the picture….. as long as all the other editing rules were followed..
The conundrum of this situation is this: Why and where are the differences between the U.S. based game farms and viewing venues vs. African photo safaris and Costa Rica canned wildlife tours? Probably very little…
I’ve seen an African Lion and a Land Rover displaying Florida plates in the same picture.. Named animals like “Bart the Bear” find their way into contests too. Zoos have become conservation institutions and that’s a good thing. The habitats they create for the animals have become increasingly similar and realistic to what is natural for the species displayed. …..And pictures are taken. You can get that elusive cassowary pix and avoid travel to New Guinea or Australia. Not to mention being attacked by a bird with attitude.
In 2017 my wife and I went to Costa Rica for a wildlife tour. One place we stopped had a large aviary with many interesting species of birds and butterflies. Are pictures taken here okay for contests? By rules? …probably. Ethically? ….for me? no.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

I took these three images (and many more) in a large aviary that contained a variety of birds, lizards and butterflies. These captives (not mine) can find their way into contests or competitions. Who would know?….. For some, winning is all that matters. That’s where we are. NFL Owner Al Davis famously said “Just Win Baby!” I would rather lose a contest than win by deceit. I see this old tired guy in the mirror every morning..

 

[O]

Interesting video regarding photographers who won a photo contest and then were stripped of the prize/title.

From a serious competition perspective..............

You enter a competition under the rules, simple as that. No exceptions.

People work hard for years to enter the Olympics, not to then loose to some one on the edge of contempt breaking those rules, then pleads ignorance when caught.

If people cant play by the rules, don't enter.

Wild life photography competitions has its rules for serious competitions.

There are competitions that are more liberal with their rules and that is fine.

Given the amount of cheating and now Ai entering the field is all the more reason to make even more strict rules very clear, policing it is only going to get tougher and harder.

When we judge club competitions we make no exceptions to rules being broken so the few people don't try to cheat.

Only an opinion

 

[macwalter]

This discussion outlines why I rarely enter photo contests. I see photography, even nature photography as a form of art. I have been known to clone out a beer can in the water, fishing line and bobbers hanging in trees and even a distracting human or two. In my mind these edits do not detract from the image, they allow me to present the image I saw. When looking at a beautiful scene, we usually do not focus on the little distractions and my images are an effort to reflect what I saw in my mind.

I understand contests have their rules and that is fine. I just don't enter many contests.

Secondly, it seems many of the larger contests' winning photos have to include whatever is the political talking points of the day. In nature, one must, either in the photo or in the description, mention global climate change. In people type photography, it seems the chances of winning are greatly enhanced when the subject(s) contain whatever social, ethnic, religious or gender group is getting the most media attention at the time of the contest.

I don't want to be cynical about it just an observation when seeing winning photos in the bigger contests.

I guess the closing is I don't think any of my photos are worthy of entering in the big contests. I guess someone has to come in last place but I'll allow someone else to occupy that spot.

Jeff

I’m with you on this. To me a photo is something to enjoy and I have no compunctions about removing things that to me are distracting. Hence I do not enter photo contests realizing I will likely break some rules.

 

[Feiertag]

Totally agree. The ragged ear in its original state (side/unflipped) IMO, adds so much more character to the image. People do the strangest things! I bet he had his reasons, and I’d be very curious to ge

The perfect image of a wild critter in it’s natural habitat that you spent hours or days working with can get tossed in favor of a “socialized” animal that’s approachable. Game farms and related wildlife viewing venues exacerbate the “honest image” problem that is obvious by the proximity of the animal to the photographer. It’s something that doesn’t come up frequently but certainly affects the viewer and judge’s perceptions. Maybe this doesn’t matter in the long run, just the quality and impact of the picture….. as long as all the other editing rules were followed..
The conundrum of this situation is this: Why and where are the differences between the U.S. based game farms and viewing venues vs. African photo safaris and Costa Rica canned wildlife tours? Probably very little…
I’ve seen an African Lion and a Land Rover displaying Florida plates in the same picture.. Named animals like “Bart the Bear” find their way into contests too. Zoos have become conservation institutions and that’s a good thing. The habitats they create for the animals have become increasingly similar and realistic to what is natural for the species displayed. …..And pictures are taken. You can get that elusive cassowary pix and avoid travel to New Guinea or Australia. Not to mention being attacked by a bird with attitude.
In 2017 my wife and I went to Costa Rica for a wildlife tour. One place we stopped had a large aviary with many interesting species of birds and butterflies. Are pictures taken here okay for contests? By rules? …probably. Ethically? ….for me? no.
View attachment 75673

View attachment 75674

View attachment 75675


I took these three images (and many more) in a large aviary that contained a variety of birds, lizards and butterflies. These captives (not mine) can find their way into contests or competitions. Who would know?….. For some, winning is all that matters. That’s where we are. NFL Owner Al Davis famously said “Just Win Baby!” I would rather lose a contest than win by deceit. I see this old tired guy in the mirror every morning..

These photos are just okay and a big stretch to winning a photo contest.

 

[Larry S]

These photos are just okay and a big stretch to winning a photo contest.

That’s not my point. Of course they are sub-standard. They were travel snapshots to document what we saw at the aviary. There was never any thought they were worthy of anything more than a travel memory… thanks for the photo critique!

 

[Feiertag]

That’s not my point. Of course they are sub-standard. They were travel snapshots to document what we saw at the aviary. There was never any thought they were worthy of anything more than a travel memory… thanks for the photo critique!

Then why did you post the photos if you didn't want some negative or positive feedback? I thrive on negative critiques. It prevents me from repeating my lack of luster style. Cheers! Happy shooting.

 

[Feiertag]

In regards to photo contest entries, would it be cheating if someone took a video and then extracted a single frame, to convert it into a photograph?