| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
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 Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ |
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message u... 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 |
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
gerrit wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message u... 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. |
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
On May 15, 10:36 pm, "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 -- 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!! |
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
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. |
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
On May 16, 8:15 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" 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. |
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
jasonstevens_aust wrote:
On May 16, 8:15 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" 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. |
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
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" 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. |
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
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" 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com