once again... what is a photo? composites? (LPS debate #12,023,340)

James Broome

I didn't notice anything in the rules about compositing images together to create images to be considered for the competition. The rules stated the image must have EXIF data, but didn't say whether multi-image compositing was OK. Does anyone know?

Andy

James Broome wrote:

I didn't notice anything in the rules about compositing images together to create images to be considered for the competition. The rules stated the image must have EXIF data, but didn't say whether multi-image compositing was OK. Does anyone know?

I received your PM about the winning image - you can ask any questions in the open forum please

http://vandana.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=253970665&ImageKey=A6irz

James Broome

Andy wrote:

I received your PM about the winning image - you can ask any questions in the open forum please

http://vandana.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=253970665&ImageKey=A6irz

Cool. Thanks.

My initial take on the great image by Vandana was that it was an excellent composite image. Not a knock on the work at all. I love it. However, it was quite clearly a compisited image, as far as I was concerned. I didn't see it brought up in the congratulatory thread, and didn't notice anywhere in the rules where composited images weren't allowed.

As far as I can tell, the image of the sunset with the pond in the foreground may be a single image. However, the cowboy and horse is composited in. Also, the house and windmill to the right is composited in. Subsequently, the reflections of each are composited into the image as well. You can see this when you look at the different channels in Photoshop.

Again, if this type of submission for entry is within the rules of the contest, then great. Excellent work!

Andy

James Broome wrote:

Cool. Thanks.

My initial take on the great image by Vandana was that it was an excellent composite image. Not a knock on the work at all. I love it. However, it was quite clearly a compisited image, as far as I was concerned. I didn't see it brought up in the congratulatory thread, and didn't notice anywhere in the rules where composited images weren't allowed.

As far as I can tell, the image of the sunset with the pond in the foreground may be a single image. However, the cowboy and horse is composited in. Also, the house and windmill to the right is composited in. Subsequently, the reflections of each are composited into the image as well. You can see this when you look at the different channels in Photoshop.

Again, if this type of submission for entry is within the rules of the contest, then great. Excellent work!

Check the rules.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=54952
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=55280

James Broome

Andy wrote:

Check the rules.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=54952
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=55280

Perfect. It didn't say it was against the rules because it's not against the rules. No problem. Thanks for clarifying, Andy.

It's not in the rules because there really shouldn't be an artificial limit placed on what the photographer wants to do. If a photographer goes over the edge into mostly illustration or something, then they better make it really good to make it in a photography contest

You are the artist. You decide what to do!

James S

...

James Broome

rex wrote:

Well I thought the judges frowned on heavily edited images? Kinda changes perspective for me if it was a composite.

I'm kinda in the same boat, rex. I think it's a nice image, it's just not a true 'photograph' if you know what I mean.

James Broome

So why EXIF required?
Andy -

Why is EXIF required for the contest, then? If the shot can be composited, what difference does EXIF data make? It's pretty clear the EXIF data you linked to for the winning image didn't come from the image, so why ask for it?

pyroPrints.com

rex wrote:

Well I thought the judges frowned on heavily edited images? Kinda changes perspective for me if it was a composite.

That's up to the individual judge, some may, some may not. But the Final Contest was done purely on the basis of 2 round of popular votes (there was no judges).

James Broome wrote:

Andy -

Why is EXIF required for the contest, then? If the shot can be composited, what difference does EXIF data make? It's pretty clear the EXIF data you linked to for the winning image didn't come from the image, so why ask for it?

The EXIF is mostly to make sure the dates fall within the scope of the assignment (and I'm assuming there is an educational side-benefit here as well). Obviously not a fool proof system since an EXIF can be faked or altered, but we work on an honers system here.

pyroPrints.com

James Broome wrote:

I'm kinda in the same boat, rex. I think it's a nice image, it's just not a true 'photograph' if you know what I mean.

You will see a thread on this particular topic about once a month. You're entitled to think it's not a true 'photograph', but for the purposes of the contest it applies.

James Broome

pyroPrints.com wrote:

You will see a thread on this particular topic about once a month. You're entitled to think it's not a true 'photograph', but for the purposes of the contest it applies.

I understand completely. Within the rules of the contest, it deserves merit. I've given my congratulations on a well done image. My original question (and PM to Andy) was merely to ask for clarification on whether someone had to 'take' the photograph or were they allowed to 'make' an image. I've received that information.

Sorry to derail, folks.

pyroPrints.com

James Broome wrote:

I understand completely. Within the rules of the contest, it deserves merit. I've given my congratulations on a well done image. My original question (and PM to Andy) was merely to ask for clarification on whether someone had to 'take' the photograph or were they allowed to 'make' an image. I've received that information.

Sorry to derail, folks.

Don't be sorry, it's a legitimate question. And you were not the first or last person to ask it.

Andy

James Broome wrote:

I understand completely. Within the rules of the contest, it deserves merit. I've given my congratulations on a well done image. My original question (and PM to Andy) was merely to ask for clarification on whether someone had to 'take' the photograph or were they allowed to 'make' an image. I've received that information.

Sorry to derail, folks.

I got another PM from you (not needed, I'm subscribed to the thread)... what open question to you have? Thanks,

Andy

James S

...

Andy

rex wrote:

When it comes to contest of this nature (by this I mean substantanial amounts of money being won) I think all rules should be clearly stated. If that rule is not in there then fine so be it. However I feel a little let downof the fact that this was three or four images combined. Having said that I will know now not to comptete in the next one.

Is it? Do you know this?

James Broome

Andy wrote:

I got another PM from you (not needed, I'm subscribed to the thread)... what open question to you have? Thanks,

Andy

My question was regarding the requirement for EXIF data in the competition. If the images can be composited, why require EXIF data? What information or service does having it fill in the context of the competition? Vandana's EXIF data for the winning image could be from any number of the images (or none of the images) used in the winning composited submission. It's very clear that it did not come from the sunset picture as a 420mm lens on a 1.5x crop body would not produce the field of view shown.

If, as has now been suggested, the EXIF data is to prove the image in question was captured (created?) during the time period specified for the contest, shouldn't it at least be representative of the main image used in the composition?

Andy

James Broome wrote:

My question was regarding the requirement for EXIF data in the competition. If the images can be composited, why require EXIF data? What information or service does having it fill in the context of the competition? Vandana's EXIF data for the winning image could be from any number of the images (or none of the images) used in the winning composited submission. It's very clear that it did not come from the sunset picture as a 420mm lens on a 1.5x crop body would not produce the field of view shown.

If, as has now been suggested, the EXIF data is to prove the image in question was captured (created?) during the time period specified for the contest, shouldn't it at least be representative of the main image used in the composition?

OK, thanks for the question.

This has been hashed and re-hashed 1000x over the past year, and I've really grown tired of the discussion

Exif is required, to prove the photo was taken during the contest period.

Andy

rex wrote:

Having said that I will know now not to comptete in the next one.

It's this "take my marbles and run" response that really saddens me, sorry

James S

...

Andy

but if it takes a composite to win then there is no need for me to enter.

Silliest notion I've ever heard of.

James S

...

James Broome

Andy wrote:

Is it? Do you know this?

I do.

The main image of the sunset was NOT captured with a 630mm (effecive) lens. There is far too much field of view in the image. Anyone that has photographed a sunset with a very long lens will tell you that the sun would nearly fill the frame at this focal length. How far away would you say the camera is from the closest end of the pond? A few feet maybe? I'd guess that too. But at 630mm, this just doesn't make sense.

Also, as f/9, the depth of field would be less than 100ft. From looking at the image, I'd say there is far greater than 100ft between the back edge of the pond and the house in the back. They couldn't both be in focus.

With regards to the windmill, Vandana previously snapped a shot of the same windmill. I find it odd that two images have the extact same windmill in the exact same position with the blades at the exact same rotation.

http://vandana.smugmug.com/popular/1/184727446_JfNYM#51639518_A9wwe-L-LB

In looking at the red channel in Photoshop of the winning image, you can see that the house does not match the image at all. It is clearly from another photo.



In looking at the blue channel in Photoshop, you can see the two horses and the cowboy exhibit signs of retouching.



With regards to the reflections in the pond, the distance of the house would either limit or prohibit its reflection entirely. However, it shows up completely.

Again, it's kind of like beating a dead horse at this point. You asked if the image was in fact composited. I believe it is. However, as has already been stated, composited images were OK in the contest - so this is pretty much a moot point.

However, I can't help but imagine that many of the contest participants would be pretty disalusioned to discover that the image they lost to in a photography contest wasn't a captured image at all.

pyroPrints.com

I was not under the illusion that this was not a composite. If part of the composite was taken before the assignment, well that's something the judges should probably look into (IHMO).

Elaine

rex wrote:

... but if it takes a composite to win then there is no need for me to enter.

This has been discussed at length too, but there are a large number of folks who felt they didn't have the skills necessary to produce a winning image and still found much value in participating throughout the process of LPS. The way the contest was set up and run allowed for any level of photographer to grow in their chosen path...through taking photos they may not have otherwise, or through the feedback of fellow contestants, or through the feedback of the judges. There are a lot of ways to "win" throughout the entire year, so I would encourage people not to be disheartened by seeing the last image standing and thinking you're not up to participating at all. There were many winning shots along the way. Some were composites and some weren't. But I think those that consistently participated were pleased with the gallery of shots they had collected at the end, no matter the outcome.

James S

...

Richard

:deadhorse

LiquidAir

James Broome wrote:

However, I can't help but imagine that many of the contest participants would be pretty disalusioned to discover that the image they lost to in a photography contest wasn't a captured image at all.

I think I can safely say that well before the round started everyone participating in the LPS final knew not only that composites were allowed, but also that there would be several composite entries. More than that, I think by that point we all knew each other well enough that we could even make a fairly educated guess which of us would be entering composites.

Vandana entered many very nice composites over the course of the year long competition so the fact that she entered one in the final is no surprise. Bringing this issue up now, particularly in this thread, is inappropriate on several levels. My recommendation is to look a little more deeply both at what was submitted during the year and at the competitors overall body of work before you leap to a judgement.

James Broome

LiquidAir wrote:

Bringing this issue up now, particularly in this thread, is inappropriate on several levels.

It was brought up in this thread (particularly to the level it has) because Andy asked me to do so.

Andy wrote:

I received your PM about the winning image - you can ask any questions in the open forum please

http://vandana.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=253970665&ImageKey=A6irz

Andy

James Broome wrote:

It was brought up in this thread (particularly to the level it has) because Andy asked me to do so.

I did? I just wanted to know what your questions were But mainly I said we discuss stuff in the open forum, not by PMs. Thanks!

James Broome

This is getting kinda silly, Andy. What does "ask any questions in the open forum" mean if it isn't telling me to ask the question in the forum?

Honestly, what would you do if you asked a question of someone via PM and, instead of receiving a response, you were told to ask your question in the forum?

I did what I was asked to do. I asked via PM if the rules allowed composited images. Instead of answering the question, I was told to ask it here. So I did.

Richard

James Broome wrote:

This is getting kinda silly, Andy. What does "ask any questions in the open forum" mean if it isn't telling me to ask the question in the forum?

Honestly, what would you do if you asked a question of someone via PM and, instead of receiving a response, you were told to ask your question in the forum?

I did what I was asked to do. I asked via PM if the rules allowed composited images. Instead of answering the question, I was told to ask it here. So I did.

You are confusing forum (Contests & Challenges) with thread (this thread congratulating Vandana). It is fine to start a new thread to discuss whatever you want. LiquidAir said earlier that he found it inappropriate to discuss this topic in this thread. I concur.