🚀 go-pugleaf

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message
news:4649a947$0$22547$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi All,
>
> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
> images in a gallery:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>
> New competitions will be announced shortly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>

I am more than a little disappointed at the description as to why this was
the winning entry.

"In the end, everyone agreed that it came down to one image. So we award the
prize of an Epson 1410 printer to Tony Dimmock of Melbourne for his image
Passing Storm 2, shot at Lake Mungo. The judges felt it was a strong and
dramatic image, showing patience to get the sky and lighting right."

The description given by the artist shows that he completely erased the
original sky using photoshop and replaced it with another sky, yet you say
that the photo shows patience to get sky and lighting right.

Gerrit

gerrit wrote:
> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message
> news:4649a947$0$22547$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
>> images in a gallery:
>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>>
>> New competitions will be announced shortly.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
> 
> I am more than a little disappointed at the description as to why this was
> the winning entry.
> 
> "In the end, everyone agreed that it came down to one image. So we award the
> prize of an Epson 1410 printer to Tony Dimmock of Melbourne for his image
> Passing Storm 2, shot at Lake Mungo. The judges felt it was a strong and
> dramatic image, showing patience to get the sky and lighting right."
> 
> The description given by the artist shows that he completely erased the
> original sky using photoshop and replaced it with another sky, yet you say
> that the photo shows patience to get sky and lighting right.
> 
> Gerrit
> 
> 
lolol. That's funny - really quite funny.
A quick look is all that's needed to see that it's obvious that is 
exactly what he's done.  Long evening shadows on the ground, and clouds 
lit from well above.  The photo must have been taken on Tattoooine.

On May 15, 10:36 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
> images in a gallery:http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>
> New competitions will be announced shortly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> --
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/

????

Call me bitter and biased because I had entries in it, by all means!
But to me, an "Australian Landscape" competition just might possibly
be better biased *towards* real Australian images that are *not* PS
creations, especially the type of creation that has a non-matching
sky.  Yes, I know you said they could be manipulated, but a pasted sky
in a landscape comp?  Sheesh.

There are many excellent images (yes, other than mine!) in the
finalists that at least *looked* real.  I am simply astounded at that
choice.

But I guess controversy gets you more hits, so it's win-win!!

Ok, I can see your points but it still took patience to get the sky, and 
the lighting on the landscape, even if they were shot differently. Some 
of the judges may not have read the description before giving me their 
comments, others may have. Frankly I don't believe it matters. The 
competition allowed manipulated images and I did not specify degrees of 
manipulation.

The image is a very strong one and I was impressed that everyone put it 
first, though there was some difference in places of the next few 
images. These differences came down to variation on how important each 
person felt it was to look for a 'typical' Australian landscape or not.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



mark.thomas.7@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 15, 10:36 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
>> images in a gallery:http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>>
>> New competitions will be announced shortly.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> --
>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
> 
> ????
> 
> Call me bitter and biased because I had entries in it, by all means!
> But to me, an "Australian Landscape" competition just might possibly
> be better biased *towards* real Australian images that are *not* PS
> creations, especially the type of creation that has a non-matching
> sky.  Yes, I know you said they could be manipulated, but a pasted sky
> in a landscape comp?  Sheesh.
> 
> There are many excellent images (yes, other than mine!) in the
> finalists that at least *looked* real.  I am simply astounded at that
> choice.
> 
> But I guess controversy gets you more hits, so it's win-win!!
> 

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist 
> images in a gallery:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
> 
> New competitions will be announced shortly.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne
> 
Bullshit reason for winning entry
2 pictures photoshopped into one yet the description says he showed 
patience.

your competition just lost credibilty

Well I guess anything said will be branded as "sour grapes", but
really..... "patience"???  I see no patience in grabbing a late
afternoon "snap" and combining it with a sky from another image.

Patience would have been sitting there and waiting for everything to
be just right!

But having said that, manipulation was allowed for in the rules... so
be it.

What I find more disappointing is the poor composition, the blocked up
dark areas of the sky and most of all, the areas of the sky (blow it
up and have a look at the marks in the middle folks) that are
obviously bits of left over layers that were not removed.  For those
obvious editing floors to be overlooked (by both the photographer and
the judges) is just a not very professional IMHO.

On May 16, 8:15 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
> Ok, I can see your points but it still took patience to get the sky, and
> the lighting on the landscape, even if they were shot differently. Some
> of the judges may not have read the description before giving me their
> comments, others may have. Frankly I don't believe it matters. The
> competition allowed manipulated images and I did not specify degrees of
> manipulation.
>
> The image is a very strong one and I was impressed that everyone put it
> first, though there was some difference in places of the next few
> images. These differences came down to variation on how important each
> person felt it was to look for a 'typical' Australian landscape or not.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/


It seems my first post did not work.... but sorry if this ends up here
twice.

I guess anything said will sound like sour grapes, but I fail to see
patience in combining a late afternoon "snap" with a sky from another
image.  patience would have been to sit there and wait for everything
to be just right.

But manipulation was allowed for in the rules.... so be it.

I am more disappointed with the poor composition, blocked up dark sky
areas and most of all, the left over bits of old Photoshop layers that
have not been removed (check out the marks in the middle of the sky
folks).  For those obvious editing mistakes to go un-noticed (by both
photographer & judges) is simply unprofessional lIMHO.

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 15, 10:36 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
> 
>>Hi All,
>>
>>I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
>>images in a gallery:http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>>
>>New competitions will be announced shortly.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Wayne
>>
>>--
>>Wayne J. Cosshall
>>Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>>Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>>Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>>Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> Call me bitter and biased because I had entries in it, by all means!
> But to me, an "Australian Landscape" competition just might possibly
> be better biased *towards* real Australian images that are *not* PS
> creations, especially the type of creation that has a non-matching
> sky.  Yes, I know you said they could be manipulated, but a pasted sky
> in a landscape comp?  Sheesh.
> 
> There are many excellent images (yes, other than mine!) in the
> finalists that at least *looked* real.  I am simply astounded at that
> choice.
> 
> But I guess controversy gets you more hits, so it's win-win!!
> 

Don't feel bad but most competitions are like that, enhancement would be 
OK, but manipulation into something surreal is another. I didn't think 
it fitted the theme of an Australian Landscape. At first glance at the 
winning entry, thought, what a lot of crap. Didn't look any further.

I have yet to see the Mungo landscape like that at any particular time.

r

jasonstevens_aust wrote:
> On May 16, 8:15 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>> Ok, I can see your points but it still took patience to get the sky, and
>> the lighting on the landscape, even if they were shot differently. Some
>> of the judges may not have read the description before giving me their
>> comments, others may have. Frankly I don't believe it matters. The
>> competition allowed manipulated images and I did not specify degrees of
>> manipulation.
>>
>> The image is a very strong one and I was impressed that everyone put it
>> first, though there was some difference in places of the next few
>> images. These differences came down to variation on how important each
>> person felt it was to look for a 'typical' Australian landscape or not.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
> 
> 
> It seems my first post did not work.... but sorry if this ends up here
> twice.
> 
> I guess anything said will sound like sour grapes, but I fail to see
> patience in combining a late afternoon "snap" with a sky from another
> image.  patience would have been to sit there and wait for everything
> to be just right.
> 
> But manipulation was allowed for in the rules.... so be it.
> 
> I am more disappointed with the poor composition, blocked up dark sky
> areas and most of all, the left over bits of old Photoshop layers that
> have not been removed (check out the marks in the middle of the sky
> folks).  For those obvious editing mistakes to go un-noticed (by both
> photographer & judges) is simply unprofessional lIMHO.
> 
I agree.  There is "digital manipulation" that many or even most 
photographers would consider part of normal post-processing, and would 
hope should be "allowed" in a contest, then there is what has been 
allowed here - which isn't producing an interpretation of a real scene, 
but is presenting a fraud - a scene that never existed.  The winning 
photograph isn't "An Australian Landscape" at all.  The poor quality of 
the fraudulent work is almost a side issue.

You are missing the point. The winning entry was chosen because we felt 
it was the strongest image. The comment on why said this, and the 
patience bit was just part of what some people said. With hindsight I 
should have left that out. I personally don't like brief judge's 
comments, but some people like them and want some feedback.

Personally, I did not read any of the supplied information until after I 
had made my mind up about my ranking of images. Why? It wasn't relevant 
to me. I was looking for the image that produced the strongest reaction 
in me.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Smee wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist 
>> images in a gallery:
>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>>
>> New competitions will be announced shortly.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
> Bullshit reason for winning entry
> 2 pictures photoshopped into one yet the description says he showed 
> patience.
> 
> your competition just lost credibilty

The point is that the terms made it clear than manipulation was fine. 
End of story.

Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' photography 
(whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you want, I'll 
even make it a public choice one where you can score the images 
yourselves. How's that?

My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is a 
documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because I do 
not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard way, 
but because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d image can 
be a 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d world, so to me 
it is a matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This has been 
discussed on another list about setting the conditions for photography 
shows, as well as competitions, and you see various attempts along these 
lines :
1 in camera manipulations only
2 minimal image enhancement
3 darkroom level manipulations
4 anything goes

all these have practical issues. How does a judge work out whether 1 or 
2 have been followed to the letter. If done well, I don't believe you 
can tell, particularly with the heavily downsampled nature of emailed 
entries. 3 is a complete waste, because there is nothing we can do in PS 
that you can't do in the darkroom if you try hard enough. So are you 
limiting this to only what most people are capable of in the darkroom?

Running competitions and competitive entry exhibitions is hard because 
there will always be something to criticize (I know I've been critical, 
though not publically, of many of the competitions I've entered). One 
difference is that at least I am here and happy to discuss and more than 
willing to try to change things in future if there seems to be a real 
issue. Your comments have been noted.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



frederick wrote:
> jasonstevens_aust wrote:
>> On May 16, 8:15 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>>> Ok, I can see your points but it still took patience to get the sky, and
>>> the lighting on the landscape, even if they were shot differently. Some
>>> of the judges may not have read the description before giving me their
>>> comments, others may have. Frankly I don't believe it matters. The
>>> competition allowed manipulated images and I did not specify degrees of
>>> manipulation.
>>>
>>> The image is a very strong one and I was impressed that everyone put it
>>> first, though there was some difference in places of the next few
>>> images. These differences came down to variation on how important each
>>> person felt it was to look for a 'typical' Australian landscape or not.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>>> Publisher, Experimental Digital 
>>> Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>>> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
>>
>>
>> It seems my first post did not work.... but sorry if this ends up here
>> twice.
>>
>> I guess anything said will sound like sour grapes, but I fail to see
>> patience in combining a late afternoon "snap" with a sky from another
>> image.  patience would have been to sit there and wait for everything
>> to be just right.
>>
>> But manipulation was allowed for in the rules.... so be it.
>>
>> I am more disappointed with the poor composition, blocked up dark sky
>> areas and most of all, the left over bits of old Photoshop layers that
>> have not been removed (check out the marks in the middle of the sky
>> folks).  For those obvious editing mistakes to go un-noticed (by both
>> photographer & judges) is simply unprofessional lIMHO.
>>
> I agree.  There is "digital manipulation" that many or even most 
> photographers would consider part of normal post-processing, and would 
> hope should be "allowed" in a contest, then there is what has been 
> allowed here - which isn't producing an interpretation of a real scene, 
> but is presenting a fraud - a scene that never existed.  The winning 
> photograph isn't "An Australian Landscape" at all.  The poor quality of 
> the fraudulent work is almost a side issue.

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> You are missing the point. The winning entry was chosen because we felt 
> it was the strongest image. The comment on why said this, and the 
> patience bit was just part of what some people said. With hindsight I 
> should have left that out. I personally don't like brief judge's 
> comments, but some people like them and want some feedback.
> 
> Personally, I did not read any of the supplied information until after I 
> had made my mind up about my ranking of images. Why? It wasn't relevant 
> to me. I was looking for the image that produced the strongest reaction 
> in me.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne
> 
Wayne,
The competition was for "Australian Landscape" photograph.
There are some great images on the "finalists" page - that are AFAICT 
Australian Landscapes.  But for winner, you've chosen an image that - 
regardless of any artistic merit that it may or may not have - isn't an 
Australian Landscape at all. It's a photo-montage creating a scene that 
never actually existed.
I think that you have made a mistake - and I can understand why other 
entrants will not be happy. To fix it - then you have a problem.  Try 
explaining your position to Epson, perhaps they may donate another 
printer, and then you can select another winner.

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> The point is that the terms made it clear than manipulation was fine. 
> End of story.
> 
> Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' photography 
> (whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you want, I'll 
> even make it a public choice one where you can score the images 
> yourselves. How's that?
> 
> My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is a 
> documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because I do 
> not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard way, 
> but because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d image can 
> be a 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d world, so to me 
> it is a matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This has been 
> discussed on another list about setting the conditions for photography 
> shows, as well as competitions, and you see various attempts along these 
> lines :
> 1 in camera manipulations only
> 2 minimal image enhancement
> 3 darkroom level manipulations
> 4 anything goes
> 
> all these have practical issues. How does a judge work out whether 1 or 
> 2 have been followed to the letter. If done well, I don't believe you 
> can tell, particularly with the heavily downsampled nature of emailed 
> entries. 3 is a complete waste, because there is nothing we can do in PS 
> that you can't do in the darkroom if you try hard enough. So are you 
> limiting this to only what most people are capable of in the darkroom?
> 
> Running competitions and competitive entry exhibitions is hard because 
> there will always be something to criticize (I know I've been critical, 
> though not publically, of many of the competitions I've entered). One 
> difference is that at least I am here and happy to discuss and more than 
> willing to try to change things in future if there seems to be a real 
> issue. Your comments have been noted.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne
> 
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
> http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
> 
> 
> 
> frederick wrote:
>> jasonstevens_aust wrote:
>>> On May 16, 8:15 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>>>> Ok, I can see your points but it still took patience to get the sky, 
>>>> and
>>>> the lighting on the landscape, even if they were shot differently. Some
>>>> of the judges may not have read the description before giving me their
>>>> comments, others may have. Frankly I don't believe it matters. The
>>>> competition allowed manipulated images and I did not specify degrees of
>>>> manipulation.
>>>>
>>>> The image is a very strong one and I was impressed that everyone put it
>>>> first, though there was some difference in places of the next few
>>>> images. These differences came down to variation on how important each
>>>> person felt it was to look for a 'typical' Australian landscape or not.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>> Wayne J. Cosshall
>>>> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
>>>> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
>>>> Publisher, Experimental Digital 
>>>> Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
>>>> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems my first post did not work.... but sorry if this ends up here
>>> twice.
>>>
>>> I guess anything said will sound like sour grapes, but I fail to see
>>> patience in combining a late afternoon "snap" with a sky from another
>>> image.  patience would have been to sit there and wait for everything
>>> to be just right.
>>>
>>> But manipulation was allowed for in the rules.... so be it.
>>>
>>> I am more disappointed with the poor composition, blocked up dark sky
>>> areas and most of all, the left over bits of old Photoshop layers that
>>> have not been removed (check out the marks in the middle of the sky
>>> folks).  For those obvious editing mistakes to go un-noticed (by both
>>> photographer & judges) is simply unprofessional lIMHO.
>>>
>> I agree.  There is "digital manipulation" that many or even most 
>> photographers would consider part of normal post-processing, and would 
>> hope should be "allowed" in a contest, then there is what has been 
>> allowed here - which isn't producing an interpretation of a real 
>> scene, but is presenting a fraud - a scene that never existed.  The 
>> winning photograph isn't "An Australian Landscape" at all.  The poor 
>> quality of the fraudulent work is almost a side issue.

I understand what you are saying, but you have a PR problem.  None of 
the other "finalist" images appear to be "created scenes". 
Post-processed - sure, to greater and lesser degrees.  But they still 
"qualify" IMO as landscape photographs, yet "created scenes" do not.
That's just my opinion - but I'm guessing that it's not unique.

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:464b7424$0$17388$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> The point is that the terms made it clear than manipulation was fine. End 
> of story.
>
> Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' photography 
> (whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you want, I'll even 
> make it a public choice one where you can score the images yourselves. 
> How's that?
>
> My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is a 
> documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because I do 
> not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard way, but 
> because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d image can be a 
> 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d world, so to me it is a 
> matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This has been discussed on 
> another list about setting the conditions for photography shows, as well 
> as competitions, and you see various attempts along these lines :
> 1 in camera manipulations only
> 2 minimal image enhancement
> 3 darkroom level manipulations
> 4 anything goes
>

If images entirely created in Photoshop were allowed and such an entry 
actually prevailed then it was a Photoshop competition not a photo 
competition. That's plain, simple and obvious. Photoshop imagery is a 
different form of artistic expression than photography. A person can make 
beautiful pictures in Photoshop without ever so much as touching a camera. 
Having done so, however, in no way makes the person a photographer nor does 
it make the picture they create a photograph.

Only an idiot (or delusional photographer wannabe) would argue this.

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> The point is that the terms made it clear than manipulation was fine. 
> End of story.

There is manipulation and there is adaptation
the winning image is an adaptation and not representative of a true 
landscape image.
The reasons state that the photog showed patience which is absolute 
bullshit.

> 
> Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' photography 
> (whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you want, I'll 
> even make it a public choice one where you can score the images 
> yourselves. How's that?
> 
> My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is a 
> documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because I do 
> not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard way, 
> but because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d image can 
> be a 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d world, so to me 
> it is a matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This has been 
> discussed on another list about setting the conditions for photography 
> shows, as well as competitions, and you see various attempts along these 
> lines :
> 1 in camera manipulations only
> 2 minimal image enhancement
> 3 darkroom level manipulations
> 4 anything goes

Anything goes does not fit into the topic of true australian landscapes.
bad move
allows darkroom manipulation to bring out saturation etc but not blend 2 
images to make a fake image that is not seen in real life.


> 
> all these have practical issues. How does a judge work out whether 1 or 
> 2 have been followed to the letter. If done well, I don't believe you 
> can tell, particularly with the heavily downsampled nature of emailed 
> entries. 3 is a complete waste, because there is nothing we can do in PS 
> that you can't do in the darkroom if you try hard enough. So are you 
> limiting this to only what most people are capable of in the darkroom?
> 
> Running competitions and competitive entry exhibitions is hard because 
> there will always be something to criticize (I know I've been critical, 
> though not publically, of many of the competitions I've entered). One 
> difference is that at least I am here and happy to discuss and more than 
> willing to try to change things in future if there seems to be a real 
> issue. Your comments have been noted.


The winning image is fraudulent as far as i am concerned because it was 
not in the spirit of the competition which clearly stated Australian 
landscapes not created australian landscapes.

Credibility nil.
you should apologies personally to all the losing entrants who were 
robbed byt the fraudster who won. and the judges should hang their heads 
in shame for awarding a fraud the prize.

Smee wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>> The point is that the terms made it clear than manipulation was fine. 
>> End of story.
> 
> There is manipulation and there is adaptation
> the winning image is an adaptation and not representative of a true 
> landscape image.
> The reasons state that the photog showed patience which is absolute 
> bullshit.
> 
>>
>> Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' 
>> photography (whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you 
>> want, I'll even make it a public choice one where you can score the 
>> images yourselves. How's that?
>>
>> My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is a 
>> documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because I 
>> do not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard 
>> way, but because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d 
>> image can be a 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d 
>> world, so to me it is a matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. 
>> This has been discussed on another list about setting the conditions 
>> for photography shows, as well as competitions, and you see various 
>> attempts along these lines :
>> 1 in camera manipulations only
>> 2 minimal image enhancement
>> 3 darkroom level manipulations
>> 4 anything goes
> 
> Anything goes does not fit into the topic of true australian landscapes.
> bad move
> allows darkroom manipulation to bring out saturation etc but not blend 2 
> images to make a fake image that is not seen in real life.
> 
> 
>>
>> all these have practical issues. How does a judge work out whether 1 
>> or 2 have been followed to the letter. If done well, I don't believe 
>> you can tell, particularly with the heavily downsampled nature of 
>> emailed entries. 3 is a complete waste, because there is nothing we 
>> can do in PS that you can't do in the darkroom if you try hard enough. 
>> So are you limiting this to only what most people are capable of in 
>> the darkroom?
>>
>> Running competitions and competitive entry exhibitions is hard because 
>> there will always be something to criticize (I know I've been 
>> critical, though not publically, of many of the competitions I've 
>> entered). One difference is that at least I am here and happy to 
>> discuss and more than willing to try to change things in future if 
>> there seems to be a real issue. Your comments have been noted.
> 
> 
> The winning image is fraudulent as far as i am concerned because it was 
> not in the spirit of the competition which clearly stated Australian 
> landscapes not created australian landscapes.
> 
> Credibility nil.
> you should apologies personally to all the losing entrants who were 
> robbed byt the fraudster who won. and the judges should hang their heads 
> in shame for awarding a fraud the prize.


I agree with everything you and frederick wrote except for the 
fraudulent part.  The winning photographer stated exactly what he did to 
create the image, there doesn't appear to be any fraud on his part.

Greg
-- 
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

G.T. wrote:

> I agree with everything you and frederick wrote except for the 
> fraudulent part.  The winning photographer stated exactly what he did to 
> create the image, there doesn't appear to be any fraud on his part.

You are probably right - saying fraudulent when there was no intent was 
a bit heavy-handed of me.

Hi All,

In the end we are going to have to agree to disagree about what is and 
is not a landscape photograph. My view is wider than many of you, and 
that is fine either way. Over 30 years ago I was (and others) 
substituting a different sky when printing under the enlarger, and 
winning camera club competitions for these landscapes. I don't see that 
digital has changed anything. For me, all photography is an 
interpretation of the scene by the photographer and I have no trouble 
with any degree of manipulation or combination. That's me and that is 
how I run the competitions on my site unless I specifically state 
otherwise. Since I did not, and in fact explicitly stated that 
manipulation was ok (and did not specify what this included) there is no 
reason the winning entry should not have been judged with all the rest. 
Sure, I made a mistake putting in the patience comments but have 
explained this. End of story.

To me there is a difference between a landscape photograph and a 
documentary landscape photograph. Some of you seem to consider these to 
be the same. I do not. To me, saying it was open to manipulated or 
unmanipulated images spelt that out.

I am amazed by the rapid heat from some of the posters. These I have 
ignored. My comment to them is that if they care to get off their 
backsides ad organize their own competition and prize, I'll be happy to 
enter under whatever conditions they set. Some of you, Fredrick 
included, have done a good and reasonable job explaining your position, 
even though I disagree with it. I understand fully where you are coming 
from. So I will attempt to organize a competition for unmanipulated 
(beyond normal dodge/burn level) landscape photography with a suitable 
prize.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



frederick wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>> You are missing the point. The winning entry was chosen because we 
>> felt it was the strongest image. The comment on why said this, and the 
>> patience bit was just part of what some people said. With hindsight I 
>> should have left that out. I personally don't like brief judge's 
>> comments, but some people like them and want some feedback.
>>
>> Personally, I did not read any of the supplied information until after 
>> I had made my mind up about my ranking of images. Why? It wasn't 
>> relevant to me. I was looking for the image that produced the 
>> strongest reaction in me.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
> Wayne,
> The competition was for "Australian Landscape" photograph.
> There are some great images on the "finalists" page - that are AFAICT 
> Australian Landscapes.  But for winner, you've chosen an image that - 
> regardless of any artistic merit that it may or may not have - isn't an 
> Australian Landscape at all. It's a photo-montage creating a scene that 
> never actually existed.
> I think that you have made a mistake - and I can understand why other 
> entrants will not be happy. To fix it - then you have a problem.  Try 
> explaining your position to Epson, perhaps they may donate another 
> printer, and then you can select another winner.

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:464ce41e$0$21505$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi All,
>
> In the end we are going to have to agree to disagree about what is and is 
> not a landscape photograph. My view is wider than many of you, and that is 
> fine either way. Over 30 years ago I was (and others) substituting a 
> different sky when printing under the enlarger, and winning camera club 
> competitions for these landscapes. I don't see that digital has changed 
> anything. For me, all photography is an interpretation of the scene by the 
> photographer and I have no trouble with any degree of manipulation or 
> combination. That's me and that is how I run the competitions on my site 
> unless I specifically state otherwise. Since I did not, and in fact 
> explicitly stated that manipulation was ok (and did not specify what this 
> included) there is no reason the winning entry should not have been judged 
> with all the rest. Sure, I made a mistake putting in the patience comments 
> but have explained this. End of story.
>
> To me there is a difference between a landscape photograph and a 
> documentary landscape photograph. Some of you seem to consider these to be 
> the same. I do not. To me, saying it was open to manipulated or 
> unmanipulated images spelt that out.
>
> I am amazed by the rapid heat from some of the posters. These I have 
> ignored. My comment to them is that if they care to get off their 
> backsides ad organize their own competition and prize, I'll be happy to 
> enter under whatever conditions they set. Some of you, Fredrick included, 
> have done a good and reasonable job explaining your position, even though 
> I disagree with it. I understand fully where you are coming from. So I 
> will attempt to organize a competition for unmanipulated (beyond normal 
> dodge/burn level) landscape photography with a suitable prize.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
> Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
> http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
>
>
>
> frederick wrote:
>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>> You are missing the point. The winning entry was chosen because we felt 
>>> it was the strongest image. The comment on why said this, and the 
>>> patience bit was just part of what some people said. With hindsight I 
>>> should have left that out. I personally don't like brief judge's 
>>> comments, but some people like them and want some feedback.
>>>
>>> Personally, I did not read any of the supplied information until after I 
>>> had made my mind up about my ranking of images. Why? It wasn't relevant 
>>> to me. I was looking for the image that produced the strongest reaction 
>>> in me.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>> Wayne,
>> The competition was for "Australian Landscape" photograph.
>> There are some great images on the "finalists" page - that are AFAICT 
>> Australian Landscapes.  But for winner, you've chosen an image that - 
>> regardless of any artistic merit that it may or may not have - isn't an 
>> Australian Landscape at all. It's a photo-montage creating a scene that 
>> never actually existed.
>> I think that you have made a mistake - and I can understand why other 
>> entrants will not be happy. To fix it - then you have a problem.  Try 
>> explaining your position to Epson, perhaps they may donate another 
>> printer, and then you can select another winner.

I do find it interesting that no one has actually stood up for your choice. 

Well, it either means that no one does support my choice, which is fine, 
or they are scared of being attacked by the barking dogs :)

Cheers,

Wayne


Pete D wrote:

> I do find it interesting that no one has actually stood up for your choice. 
> 
> 

G.T. wrote:
> Smee wrote:
>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>> The point is that the terms made it clear than manipulation was fine. 
>>> End of story.
>>
>> There is manipulation and there is adaptation
>> the winning image is an adaptation and not representative of a true 
>> landscape image.
>> The reasons state that the photog showed patience which is absolute 
>> bullshit.
>>
>>>
>>> Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' 
>>> photography (whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you 
>>> want, I'll even make it a public choice one where you can score the 
>>> images yourselves. How's that?
>>>
>>> My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is 
>>> a documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because 
>>> I do not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard 
>>> way, but because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d 
>>> image can be a 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d 
>>> world, so to me it is a matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the 
>>> sand. This has been discussed on another list about setting the 
>>> conditions for photography shows, as well as competitions, and you 
>>> see various attempts along these lines :
>>> 1 in camera manipulations only
>>> 2 minimal image enhancement
>>> 3 darkroom level manipulations
>>> 4 anything goes
>>
>> Anything goes does not fit into the topic of true australian landscapes.
>> bad move
>> allows darkroom manipulation to bring out saturation etc but not blend 
>> 2 images to make a fake image that is not seen in real life.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> all these have practical issues. How does a judge work out whether 1 
>>> or 2 have been followed to the letter. If done well, I don't believe 
>>> you can tell, particularly with the heavily downsampled nature of 
>>> emailed entries. 3 is a complete waste, because there is nothing we 
>>> can do in PS that you can't do in the darkroom if you try hard 
>>> enough. So are you limiting this to only what most people are capable 
>>> of in the darkroom?
>>>
>>> Running competitions and competitive entry exhibitions is hard 
>>> because there will always be something to criticize (I know I've been 
>>> critical, though not publically, of many of the competitions I've 
>>> entered). One difference is that at least I am here and happy to 
>>> discuss and more than willing to try to change things in future if 
>>> there seems to be a real issue. Your comments have been noted.
>>
>>
>> The winning image is fraudulent as far as i am concerned because it 
>> was not in the spirit of the competition which clearly stated 
>> Australian landscapes not created australian landscapes.
>>
>> Credibility nil.
>> you should apologies personally to all the losing entrants who were 
>> robbed byt the fraudster who won. and the judges should hang their 
>> heads in shame for awarding a fraud the prize.
> 
> 
> I agree with everything you and frederick wrote except for the 
> fraudulent part.  The winning photographer stated exactly what he did to 
> create the image, there doesn't appear to be any fraud on his part.
> 
> Greg
Yer fair point Fraud is too harsh a word for the photographer.
The real fraud was the competition.

This is Usenet who would care how loudly they barked? As ever you have your 
agenda and you have made your choice and will do exactly what pleases you, 
more power to you but remember that future comps may not be so well attended 
because of choices you make now.

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:464d6731$0$19761$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Well, it either means that no one does support my choice, which is fine, 
> or they are scared of being attacked by the barking dogs :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
>
> Pete D wrote:
>
>> I do find it interesting that no one has actually stood up for your 
>> choice. 

Well, if some people choose not to enter then that's fine. People will 
always act for their own reasons. I am satisfied that in the time I've 
been doing comps I've managed to get some good product out to people, 
not charged them for the privilege of entering and provided good value 
to the companies providing the prizes. The terms were there, they could 
have emailed to clarify if they wanted or if they had read what I have 
written previously on these topics or looked at what won in previous 
competitions they might have realised what might be acceptable in the 
competition. So if some people choose not to enter future comps I can 
and will live with that. The fact is I get a lot of emails from people 
grateful for the competitions, even when they have not won.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Pete D wrote:
> This is Usenet who would care how loudly they barked? As ever you have your 
> agenda and you have made your choice and will do exactly what pleases you, 
> more power to you but remember that future comps may not be so well attended 
> because of choices you make now.
> 
> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
> news:464d6731$0$19761$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Well, it either means that no one does support my choice, which is fine, 
>> or they are scared of being attacked by the barking dogs :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>> Pete D wrote:
>>
>>> I do find it interesting that no one has actually stood up for your 
>>> choice. 
> 
>