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/

"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

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.

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!!

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/



wrote:
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!!

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

Bull**** 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" 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.

wrote:
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!!


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" 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.