[kNox]

At my workplace there's this photography contest being held every year around Christmas. The prize isn't huge - a couple of hundred Euros - but it's the spirit of the contest and the chance to show off your photos.

Last year there were a lot of wonderful photos which were entered into the contest. And I mean a lot! I gave up hoping that I would win when I saw the quality of my competitors. However, the photo that won was... amateurish to say the least. It was taken on an exotic beach - the decor was indeed superb - but the photo had nothing spectacular about it, especially considering what it was up against.

So I'm trying to understand how that happened. How do you judge a photography contest like this one (not for professionals), is it entirely subjective?

[EdMak]

At the whim of the judge/s, nothing more. Ed.

[Clicker2014]

At the whim of the judge/s, nothing more. Ed.

Absolutely! I, like many people, have seen contest winners that had me scratching my head! I guess we all see things differently and we all take pictures that we are interested in. A judge may see a stunning picture and "like" it, but see a cute little furry animal (which is not such a good shot)...but cute and furry and fall in love with it. And so we scratch our head and move on.... What I get from a competition is inspiration...my creative juices and desire to improve get flowing pretty quickly when looking at other people's photos. Sharon

[MrB]

At the whim of the judge/s, nothing more. Ed.

Absolutely! I, like many people, have seen contest winners that had me scratching my head! I guess we all see things differently and we all take pictures that we are interested in. A judge may see a stunning picture and "like" it, but see a cute little furry animal (which is not such a good shot)...but cute and furry and fall in love with it. And so we scratch our head and move on.... What I get from a competition is inspiration...my creative juices and desire to improve get flowing pretty quickly when looking at other people's photos. Sharon

Yes - some judges seem to be graduates of the Turner Prize School of Judging, at which they have been trained to see the Emperor's New Clothes. They are the ones who often choose the most way-out entry above others that most people would agree are outstanding images.

But for me, Sharon's last point is the most important aspect of a competition - seeing what other entrants regard as their best images, and listening to the comments of the more thoughtful judges, can be both inspirational and highly instructive.

Philip

[WesternGuy]

I am assuming that because it was a "work" contest, that those who judged it were also from "work". My question, then is, whether or not any of the judges knew what constitutes a "good image", if they did, then who knows what criteria they used and if they didn't, then this probably means that none of them knew very little about what constitutes a "good image". ( I am making that assumption and if unwarranted, please let me know.) In this case as has been said - they vote for the "furry" little critter because they fell in love with it. Whether it is subjective or not, really does not matter, even though it may have been - most times it is. I would suggest you chalk your experience up for what it was - experience - and carry on. Maybe try entering an image or two in a contest that is not part of "work", where the judges are qualified photographers and see how you fare. Alternatively, try posting your image(s) on a forum where critique is the theme and see how you do. We are often, not as good as we think we are, then again, we can also be better than we feel we are. Only time and other unbiased judging can really tell.

WesternGuy

[kNox]

I am assuming that because it was a "work" contest, that those who judged it were also from "work". My question, then is, whether or not any of the judges knew what constitutes a "good image", if they did, then who knows what criteria they used and if they didn't, then this probably means that none of them knew very little about what constitutes a "good image". ( I am making that assumption and if unwarranted, please let me know.) In this case as has been said - they vote for the "furry" little critter because they fell in love with it. Whether it is subjective or not, really does not matter, even though it may have been - most times it is. I would suggest you chalk your experience up for what it was - experience - and carry on. Maybe try entering an image or two in a contest that is not part of "work", where the judges are qualified photographers and see how you fare. Alternatively, try posting your image(s) on a forum where critique is the theme and see how you do. We are often, not as good as we think we are, then again, we can also be better than we feel we are. Only time and other unbiased judging can really tell.

WesternGuy

Nope, they hired an external company to organize the photography contest. That's what struck me as odd. Funny enough, this year it was judged by colleagues, and all the photos they chose were amazing!

[WesternGuy]

I am assuming that because it was a "work" contest, that those who judged it were also from "work". My question, then is, whether or not any of the judges knew what constitutes a "good image", if they did, then who knows what criteria they used and if they didn't, then this probably means that none of them knew very little about what constitutes a "good image". ( I am making that assumption and if unwarranted, please let me know.) In this case as has been said - they vote for the "furry" little critter because they fell in love with it. Whether it is subjective or not, really does not matter, even though it may have been - most times it is. I would suggest you chalk your experience up for what it was - experience - and carry on. Maybe try entering an image or two in a contest that is not part of "work", where the judges are qualified photographers and see how you fare. Alternatively, try posting your image(s) on a forum where critique is the theme and see how you do. We are often, not as good as we think we are, then again, we can also be better than we feel we are. Only time and other unbiased judging can really tell.

WesternGuy

Nope, they hired an external company to organize the photography contest. That's what struck me as odd. Funny enough, this year it was judged by colleagues, and all the photos they chose were amazing!

That strikes me as odd, as well. Interesting that this year, things were different. Did you enter? If so, how did you do?

WesternGuy

[Gil Cox]

I am assuming that because it was a "work" contest, that those who judged it were also from "work". My question, then is, whether or not any of the judges knew what constitutes a "good image", if they did, then who knows what criteria they used and if they didn't, then this probably means that none of them knew very little about what constitutes a "good image". ( I am making that assumption and if unwarranted, please let me know.) In this case as has been said - they vote for the "furry" little critter because they fell in love with it. Whether it is subjective or not, really does not matter, even though it may have been - most times it is. I would suggest you chalk your experience up for what it was - experience - and carry on. Maybe try entering an image or two in a contest that is not part of "work", where the judges are qualified photographers and see how you fare. Alternatively, try posting your image(s) on a forum where critique is the theme and see how you do. We are often, not as good as we think we are, then again, we can also be better than we feel we are. Only time and other unbiased judging can really tell.

WesternGuy

Nope, they hired an external company to organize the photography contest. That's what struck me as odd. Funny enough, this year it was judged by colleagues, and all the photos they chose were amazing!

That strikes me as odd, as well. Interesting that this year, things were different. Did you enter? If so, how did you do?

WesternGuy

Having been a member of various judging panels over the years, it has never failed to amaze me what is selected by some individual judges. Their choice(s) seem to be so way out by my and most of the other judges' standards that you just scratch your heads and move on. Rarely can they justify their choice except to say "I just like it". I guess we're all different and long may it be so even though it may turn up the occasional Tracey Emin. If you haven't heard of her then Google her name and see what comes - it could even be an "Unmade Bed"!

[kNox]

@WesternGuy: I entered both years and got nothing, both years. The first year I was - like everybody - really upset, but this year I felt that the others deserved it.

[WesternGuy]

@WesternGuy: I entered both years and got nothing, both years. The first year I was - like everybody - really upset, but this year I felt that the others deserved it.

Good thing that you didn't let your first experience dissuade you from entering the second time. I always see competitions as a bit of a learning experience, so, I guess, the obvious question then is - what did you learn about your photography, or your approach to your photography? Basically, was your entering the competitions a learning experience, and, if so, what do you think you learned?

WesternGuy

[Clicker2014]

@WesternGuy: I entered both years and got nothing, both years. The first year I was - like everybody - really upset, but this year I felt that the others deserved it.

Good thing that you didn't let your first experience dissuade you from entering the second time. I always see competitions as a bit of a learning experience, so, I guess, the obvious question then is - what did you learn about your photography, or your approach to your photography? Basically, was your entering the competitions a learning experience, and, if so, what do you think you learned?

WesternGuy

Good attitude!

[kNox]

@WesternGuy: I entered both years and got nothing, both years. The first year I was - like everybody - really upset, but this year I felt that the others deserved it.

Good thing that you didn't let your first experience dissuade you from entering the second time. I always see competitions as a bit of a learning experience, so, I guess, the obvious question then is - what did you learn about your photography, or your approach to your photography? Basically, was your entering the competitions a learning experience, and, if so, what do you think you learned?

WesternGuy

Honestly, I viewed the competition (in both years) as something for amateurs, and not much to learn from. But I learned a lot about photography in general - it's subjective, and beauty really is in the eye of the "beer holder" (hehe). It's not going to discourage me for future contests - I mainly take photos for me to enjoy, and no contest is going to take that away from me!

[Clicker2014]

@WesternGuy: I entered both years and got nothing, both years. The first year I was - like everybody - really upset, but this year I felt that the others deserved it.

Good thing that you didn't let your first experience dissuade you from entering the second time. I always see competitions as a bit of a learning experience, so, I guess, the obvious question then is - what did you learn about your photography, or your approach to your photography? Basically, was your entering the competitions a learning experience, and, if so, what do you think you learned?

WesternGuy

Honestly, I viewed the competition (in both years) as something for amateurs, and not much to learn from. But I learned a lot about photography in general - it's subjective, and beauty really is in the eye of the "beer holder" (hehe). It's not going to discourage me for future contests - I mainly take photos for me to enjoy, and no contest is going to take that away from me!

I,ll drink to that! ;-) Cheers!

[Conti]

At my workplace there's this photography contest being held every year around Christmas. The prize isn't huge - a couple of hundred Euros - but it's the spirit of the contest and the chance to show off your photos.

Last year there were a lot of wonderful photos which were entered into the contest. And I mean a lot! I gave up hoping that I would win when I saw the quality of my competitors. However, the photo that won was... amateurish to say the least. It was taken on an exotic beach - the decor was indeed superb - but the photo had nothing spectacular about it, especially considering what it was up against.

So I'm trying to understand how that happened. How do you judge a photography contest like this one (not for professionals), is it entirely subjective?

Judging is subjective. Each judge has his own take on an image and personal likes or dislikes come into the equation. If the photo is for an international exhibition say like the London Salon, the judges have 10 seconds to give a thumbs up or down signal. So initial impact is important or you do not even reach first base.

[john.mcintosh]

Hi All : reading all these comments leaves me bemused and wondering how my amature submittals will fare this year.
One thing I have noted is the amount of post editing , with what I call the black box, or photoshop & similar.
Im new here , and when I view some pictures , I think I can say with a great deal of certainty , they have been "Photoshoped", to my mind as an entry to a competition , this should not be allowed.
The whole essence of the picture is how you use your experience and skill to produce it with the equipment you have. Not how you doctor it later.
I say a post doctored picture it is crerating a false product and should not be permitted.
In fact why not have competition , for fully "doctored" pictures only , then we can see just what levels of competency this produces.

Perhaps my view of taking pictures is somewhat jaded by age, skill , and old fashioned presentation.
jon

At my workplace there's this photography contest being held every year around Christmas. The prize isn't huge - a couple of hundred Euros - but it's the spirit of the contest and the chance to show off your photos.

Last year there were a lot of wonderful photos which were entered into the contest. And I mean a lot! I gave up hoping that I would win when I saw the quality of my competitors. However, the photo that won was... amateurish to say the least. It was taken on an exotic beach - the decor was indeed superb - but the photo had nothing spectacular about it, especially considering what it was up against.

So I'm trying to understand how that happened. How do you judge a photography contest like this one (not for professionals), is it entirely subjective?

Judging is subjective. Each judge has his own take on an image and personal likes or dislikes come into the equation. If the photo is for an international exhibition say like the London Salon, the judges have 10 seconds to give a thumbs up or down signal. So initial impact is important or you do not even reach first base.

[EdMak]

John, I could probably give you a few years!. To me, Photoshop is akin to Darkroom Skills, albeit with a lot of "extras. Scantily, if the presented pic, could have been taken by anyone, no editing, then it still is a Pic, after that. it becomes a Digital Image. I assume all your pics are, as taken not cropped or sharpened. If so, to me, you are missing out. Cheers. Ed.

[Wall-E]

Hi All : reading all these comments leaves me bemused and wondering how my amature submittals will fare this year.
One thing I have noted is the amount of post editing , with what I call the black box, or photoshop & similar.
Im new here , and when I view some pictures , I think I can say with a great deal of certainty , they have been "Photoshoped", to my mind as an entry to a competition , this should not be allowed.
The whole essence of the picture is how you use your experience and skill to produce it with the equipment you have. Not how you doctor it later.
I say a post doctored picture it is crerating a false product and should not be permitted.
In fact why not have competition , for fully "doctored" pictures only , then we can see just what levels of competency this produces.

Perhaps my view of taking pictures is somewhat jaded by age, skill , and old fashioned presentation.
jon

jon;

What you don't seem to be aware of is that EVERY digital image has had 'some' processing done to it.
If you shoot jpg, then the recipe for contrast, vibrance, saturation, color/white balance, etc., PLUS a compression algorithm has been applied before you even see the image on the back of the camera.
And almost every digital camera has an 'anti-aliasing' (blurring) filter in front of the sensor that REQUIRES sharpening before it looks reasonable. (There are a few cameras where that's not true, like the Nikon D800E).
If you shoot RAW, then YOU have to apply a recipe in Post Processing.

When we shot film, unless you were using instantfilm of some sort (Polaroid, e.g.), then the lab was applying a recipe during the developing and printing. What chemicals, for how long, at what temperature. That's the recipe for film development. For printing, you add whether you dodged/burned some areas. Did you underexpose and over develop?

Ansel Adams spent countless hours in the lab working on a print before we got to see what we now consider masterpieces. Without the dodging, burning, printing up, printing down, etc., his photography was no better than a lot of others of the period.

So, it's impossible to have an image that hasn't been 'doctored up', especially digital images. And SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) is a lie.

[MrB]

Hi All : reading all these comments leaves me bemused and wondering how my amateur submittals will fare this year.
One thing I have noted is the amount of post editing, with what I call the black box, or PhotoShop & similar.
I'm new here, and when I view some pictures, I think I can say with a great deal of certainty, they have been "Photoshopped", to my mind as an entry to a competition, this should not be allowed.
The whole essence of the picture is how you use your experience and skill to produce it with the equipment you have. Not how you doctor it later.
I say a post doctored picture it is creating a false product and should not be permitted.
In fact why not have competition, for fully "doctored" pictures only, then we can see just what levels of competency this produces.

Perhaps my view of taking pictures is somewhat jaded by age, skill , and old fashioned presentation.
jon

This sort of comment always seems odd to me.

Digital photos can only exist if there is a "black box" - a computer - to create a viewable image from the electronic signals captured by the camera's light sensor. The camera itself contains a very sophisticated computer to convert the signals into digital data, possibly to store as a Raw data file, and usually to convert to a JPEG image file, which the camera's computer stores and uses to display an image on the camera's rear LCD screen.

Image data stored on the camera's memory card then has to be processed by another computer (usually in a desktop, laptop, or tablet) to generate the image of the photo that we can view on a VDU screen or TV. And/or the image data is processed by computer to direct a home printer to produce a photo print. And/or the image data files are sent to a commercial printing company's computer (controlled by a technician) for turning into photo prints.

There are two aspects to photography, and there always have been from the earliest days of its practice - image capture, and image reproduction for viewing. The majority of photographers, i.e. those who do more than just take snapshots, have always enjoyed taking some control of both of those two basic aspects, in order to realise their creative vision.

One of the acknowledged Greats of Photography was Ansel Adams, who is quoted as having said, "You don't take a photograph, you make it." He spent a good part of his lifetime patiently setting up his camera equipment, mainly to capture stunning landscapes. But he also probably spent as much, if not more, time meticulously editing/re-editing and processing/re-processing each image in his darkroom, to create the prints of his vision - "Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art."

There is a direct parallel in digital photography. The digital camera can be controlled when capturing images, e.g. by instructing the camera's computer to set the desired shooting parameters (white balance, ISO, etc), or apply electronic filters, film effects, or picture styles, etc. The image reproduction process, to make the visible image on a screen and/or in print, can then be controlled and enhanced by the photographer, using software (a digital darkroom) on a computer, to create the final photo to his/her satisfaction.

It doesn't bother me whether someone used an Auto or a Manual mode on their camera, whether they recorded Raw or JPEG data files, how little or how much "PhotoShopping" they did on the computer, when they have produced images that astound me. The only factor that matters to me, and should to everyone, is the honesty of photographers - they should not make any false claims about their photographs.

Philip

P.S. Apologies if I have repeated what others have written - I see other posts have appeared while I was typing!

[Wall-E]

Phillip;

That happens to me all the time.

I take my time crafting and editing my reply, to the point that (several) other replies show up before I hit 'Post'.

I'd rather read a well written, well reasoned reply over the instant response.

[Phil J]

Hi All : reading all these comments leaves me bemused and wondering how my amature submittals will fare this year.
One thing I have noted is the amount of post editing , with what I call the black box, or photoshop & similar.
Im new here , and when I view some pictures , I think I can say with a great deal of certainty , they have been "Photoshoped", to my mind as an entry to a competition , this should not be allowed.
The whole essence of the picture is how you use your experience and skill to produce it with the equipment you have. Not how you doctor it later.
I say a post doctored picture it is crerating a false product and should not be permitted.
In fact why not have competition , for fully "doctored" pictures only , then we can see just what levels of competency this produces.

Perhaps my view of taking pictures is somewhat jaded by age, skill , and old fashioned presentation.
jon

jon;

What you don't seem to be aware of is that EVERY digital image has had 'some' processing done to it.
If you shoot jpg, then the recipe for contrast, vibrance, saturation, color/white balance, etc., PLUS a compression algorithm has been applied before you even see the image on the back of the camera.
And almost every digital camera has an 'anti-aliasing' (blurring) filter in front of the sensor that REQUIRES sharpening before it looks reasonable. (There are a few cameras where that's not true, like the Nikon D800E).
If you shoot RAW, then YOU have to apply a recipe in Post Processing.

When we shot film, unless you were using instantfilm of some sort (Polaroid, e.g.), then the lab was applying a recipe during the developing and printing. What chemicals, for how long, at what temperature. That's the recipe for film development. For printing, you add whether you dodged/burned some areas. Did you underexpose and over develop?

Ansel Adams spent countless hours in the lab working on a print before we got to see what we now consider masterpieces. Without the dodging, burning, printing up, printing down, etc., his photography was no better than a lot of others of the period.

So, it's impossible to have an image that hasn't been 'doctored up', especially digital images. And SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) is a lie.

Wall-E,

Exceptionally well put mate. This really says it all.

Regards.

Phil.

[MrB]

Wall-E, I'm sure it won't surprise you that I agree with most of your post #17, but I can't think why you added this -

And SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) is a lie.

SOOC usually refers to a Jpeg file from the camera, displayed or printed without any further processing. I don't understand how that can be a lie, except in the sense that any type of image can never be the true scene. It is what it is.

The point being made to Jon, (re. post #15) is that restricting competition entries to SOOC images only, would severely limit the photographer's creative input into the image making part of photography, which might involve, e.g., editing areas, objects, colours, etc., in an image - adjustments that are just not possible to set up in-camera.

Philip

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, I'm sure it won't surprise you that I agree with most of your post #17, but I can't think why you added this -

And SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) is a lie.

SOOC usually refers to a Jpeg file from the camera, displayed or printed without any further processing. I don't understand how that can be a lie, except in the sense that any type of image can never be the true scene. It is what it is.

The point being made to Jon, (re. post #15) is that restricting competition entries to SOOC images only, would severely limit the photographer's creative input into the image making part of photography, which might involve, e.g., editing areas, objects, colours, etc., in an image - adjustments that are just not possible to set up in-camera.

Philip

The operative phrase is "without any FURTHER processing" (my emphasis).
A lot of processing has already occurred, under the direction of the photographer, before the image appears. Sharpening, color balance, saturation...... All these are applied IN-CAMERA on a jpeg. And can have different settings controlled by the camera menu selections and controls. And on some P&S and Bridge cameras, there are even in-camera 'effects' that can be applied. So...there is NO way to have an unprocessed jpeg image from a digital camera. What's the difference between the in-camera settings, and those applied post capture? THAT's why I say SOOC is a lie. If you want to restrict the entries to NO post processing, then those of us that shoot RAW won't be able to participate, since we MUST do post processing.

I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but this disdain of post processing is seriously misplaced and naive.

Let's just allow the first competition here on ShutterTalk to move along, and see what the judges think.

[MrB]

Wall-E, it is perplexing that you do now appear to be shouting at me. If you read through my posts again, you will see that we are in agreement - not only on the technical matters, but also in that neither of us want restrictions on competition entries to be based on how they were processed.

However, your assertion that "SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) is a lie," seems just as dogmatic and mistaken as does Jon's statement that "a post doctored picture is creating a false product," - I think that both comments are equally inappropriate and unhelpful here.

Regarding image processing, you ask the question, "What's the difference between the in-camera settings, and those applied post capture?", the answer in principle being, "Nothing". (In practice, of course, much more can be done post.) However, that does not make SOOC a lie, but rather it gives SOOC and Processed Raw comparable validity, thus supporting our position in this discussion.

To clarify my view on competitions - any photo made by a member, however it was produced, should be permitted entry, if it complies with the timing and subject of the competition.

Philip

[Ferenc]

If we exclude manipulated images from competitions, where do mono digital images stand in this great debate?

And what about composite images??

As Adams said, don't take the picture, make the picture. On reflection, the most important thing I learned from entering club competitions is that you can't make a good photograph from a rubbish digital image. The original image has to have merit to begin with. The magic lies in what we do to enhance it, whether this be with chemicals and exposure in the dark room or at our desks, with Lightroom, Photoshop etc.

I feel we should embrace the technology available to us, master it and use it to its full potential to explore new avenues in digital photography. After all, if you drill down into the purpose of Photoshop, is it not to digitally reproduce what we did in the dark room 50 years ago? Photography is evolving, lets evolve with it and create some truly amazing images.

I will be entering the contests and I will be manipulating my images to get the best from them.

(PS. A thought just occurred to me. When the great artists of antiquity painted their famous landscapes, did they they really paint it as it was, or did they they use creativity and personal passion to create an image of beauty that would capture the hearts of their audiences??? - just a thought)

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, it is perplexing that you do now appear to be shouting at me. If you read through my posts again, you will see that we are in agreement - not only on the technical matters, but also in that neither of us want restrictions on competition entries to be based on how they were processed.

However, your assertion that "SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) is a lie," seems just as dogmatic and mistaken as does Jon's statement that "a post doctored picture is creating a false product," - I think that both comments are equally inappropriate and unhelpful here.

Regarding image processing, you ask the question, "What's the difference between the in-camera settings, and those applied post capture?", the answer in principle being, "Nothing". (In practice, of course, much more can be done post.) However, that does not make SOOC a lie, but rather it gives SOOC and Processed Raw comparable validity, thus supporting our position in this discussion.

To clarify my view on competitions - any photo made by a member, however it was produced, should be permitted entry, if it complies with the timing and subject of the competition.

Philip

Yes, I was a little harsh, and for that I humbly ask forgiveness from you and the group.

Calling SOOC 'a lie' was probably too strong a phrase.
My point was that, in truth, SOOC in the digital realm has no meaning.
EVERYTHING is processed, whether it's in-camera or post capture.