A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital ZLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 15th 07, 01:36 PM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Wayne J. Cosshall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 826
Default 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/
  #2  
Old May 16th 07, 06:17 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
gerrit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default 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


  #3  
Old May 16th 07, 07:17 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default 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.
  #4  
Old May 16th 07, 10:03 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,311
Default 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!!

  #5  
Old May 16th 07, 11:15 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Wayne J. Cosshall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 826
Default Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists

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!!

  #6  
Old May 16th 07, 01:25 PM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
jasonstevens_aust
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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.



  #7  
Old May 16th 07, 01:53 PM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
jasonstevens_aust
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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.

  #8  
Old May 16th 07, 09:30 PM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default 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.
  #9  
Old May 16th 07, 10:14 PM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Wayne J. Cosshall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 826
Default 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.

  #10  
Old May 16th 07, 10:34 PM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 23 May 18th 07 01:42 PM
Australian Landscape Competition - win an Epson 1410 A3+ printer Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 3 March 25th 07 11:54 AM
Australian Landscape Competition - win an Epson 1410 A3+ printer Wayne J. Cosshall Digital ZLR Cameras 3 March 25th 07 11:54 AM
Australian Landscape Competition - win an Epson 1410 A3+ printer Wayne J. Cosshall Digital SLR Cameras 3 March 25th 07 11:54 AM
December Infrared Photography competition winner and finalists HarryO50 Digital SLR Cameras 1 January 15th 07 12:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.