Photog pulls manipulated image from contest

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:42:00 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:09:03 -0800 (PST), Rich A
wrote:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...on-found-65552

A better link is:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-photo-altered

This shows both the altered and unaltered photo.


If that was my photograph, I'd clone out that piece of straw *unless*
I was entering it in a competition where the rules clearly state that
this type of manipulation is not allowed.

It would be a legal clone job in most photo club competitions, but not
in this particular competition.

The problem arises when the rules are vague and state only that
"significant alterations" cannot be made. That leaves the
photographer to decide what is "significant".

The rules said no cloning: “The terms and conditions clearly state,
‘No cloning, montaging or digital manipulation other than cropping,
‘digital spotting’, burning and dodging is permitted."

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
A better link is:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...kley-finalist-
withdraws-entry-photo-altered

This shows both the altered and unaltered photo.

If that was my photograph, I'd clone out that piece of straw
*unless* I was entering it in a competition where the rules
clearly state that this type of manipulation is not allowed.

It would be a legal clone job in most photo club competitions,
but not in this particular competition.

The problem arises when the rules are vague and state only that
"significant alterations" cannot be made. That leaves the
photographer to decide what is "significant".

Bill W:
The rules said no cloning: "The terms and conditions clearly
state, 'No cloning, montaging or digital manipulation other than
cropping, 'digital spotting', burning and dodging is permitted."

What digital spotting ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotting_(photography)

--
Sandman

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:30:56 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:27:28 -0800, Bill W

wrote:

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:42:00 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:09:03 -0800 (PST), Rich A
wrote:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...on-found-65552

A better link is:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-photo-altered

This shows both the altered and unaltered photo.


If that was my photograph, I'd clone out that piece of straw *unless*
I was entering it in a competition where the rules clearly state that
this type of manipulation is not allowed.

It would be a legal clone job in most photo club competitions, but not
in this particular competition.

The problem arises when the rules are vague and state only that
"significant alterations" cannot be made. That leaves the
photographer to decide what is "significant".

The rules said no cloning: “The terms and conditions clearly state,
‘No cloning, montaging or digital manipulation other than cropping,
‘digital spotting’, burning and dodging is permitted."

Yes, I understand that. I was referring to photo club competitions
where the rules are vague. That's where the problem is.

Yeah - I saw that after I replied. Oops.

On 11/12/2015 3:27 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:42:00 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:09:03 -0800 (PST), Rich A
wrote:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...on-found-65552

A better link is:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-photo-altered

This shows both the altered and unaltered photo.


If that was my photograph, I'd clone out that piece of straw *unless*
I was entering it in a competition where the rules clearly state that
this type of manipulation is not allowed.

It would be a legal clone job in most photo club competitions, but not
in this particular competition.

The problem arises when the rules are vague and state only that
"significant alterations" cannot be made. That leaves the
photographer to decide what is "significant".

The rules said no cloning: “The terms and conditions clearly state,
‘No cloning, montaging or digital manipulation other than cropping,
‘digital spotting’, burning and dodging is permitted."


And he probably could have accomplished almost the same effect by
digital spotting and/or dodging.

--
PeterN

On 11/12/2015 10:30 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:27:28 -0800, Bill W

wrote:

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:42:00 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:09:03 -0800 (PST), Rich A
wrote:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...on-found-65552

A better link is:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-photo-altered

This shows both the altered and unaltered photo.


If that was my photograph, I'd clone out that piece of straw *unless*
I was entering it in a competition where the rules clearly state that
this type of manipulation is not allowed.

It would be a legal clone job in most photo club competitions, but not
in this particular competition.

The problem arises when the rules are vague and state only that
"significant alterations" cannot be made. That leaves the
photographer to decide what is "significant".

The rules said no cloning: “The terms and conditions clearly state,
‘No cloning, montaging or digital manipulation other than cropping,
‘digital spotting’, burning and dodging is permitted."

Yes, I understand that. I was referring to photo club competitions
where the rules are vague. That's where the problem is.


My club's rules are not vague, We allow all manipulations. i know your
club is different.

--
PeterN

On 2015-11-12 18:03:33 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/12/2015 10:30 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:27:28 -0800, Bill W
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:42:00 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:09:03 -0800 (PST), Rich A
wrote:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...on-found-65552

A

better link is:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-photo-altered

This

shows both the altered and unaltered photo.

If that was my photograph, I'd clone out that piece of straw *unless*
I was entering it in a competition where the rules clearly state that
this type of manipulation is not allowed.

It would be a legal clone job in most photo club competitions, but not
in this particular competition.

The problem arises when the rules are vague and state only that
"significant alterations" cannot be made. That leaves the
photographer to decide what is "significant".

The rules said no cloning: “The terms and conditions clearly state,
‘No cloning, montaging or digital manipulation other than cropping,
‘digital spotting’, burning and dodging is permitted."

Yes, I understand that. I was referring to photo club competitions
where the rules are vague. That's where the problem is.


My club's rules are not vague, We allow all manipulations.

We know! We know! ;-)

i know your club is different.


--
Regards,

Savageduck