Landscape photog loses £10k prize after photoshop work discovered.

Okay, nothing to see here... move on folks, but...

Indeed highly personal: photoshop or not - the images are overworked to the point of being illustrations/drawings rather than anything remotely close to "I was there and saw the billowing clouds". I could say less than nice things about these "photographs" but I refrain from doing so.
 
"Road to Nowhere" is one of my favorite songs of all time, perhaps David Byrne ought to stick to music. 😀

Edit: sorry, that's just a joke too stupid..
 
Photoshop is a tool like burning/dodging, retouching with pencil or using development with reels. You can do it with skill or with less skill... usually images out of camera with digital or film/negative are a bore...
 
Rules aside, my own personal line-in-the-sand is "adding" stuff that wasn't there in the first place. Taking away blemishes, enhancing clouds, darkening skies, all are good in my book.
 
Just to point out that digital and film trickery is not totally symmetrical - yes, I can composite two digital files A and B, whether they came from M9 or a (scanned) M3 images, then delete the A and B originals. In the case of film though, it is not so straightforward. I need to make a composite negative to show the judges, which means taking a photo of the composite print. Surely that would be even more obvious to the trained eye?

By the way, is that the Talking Heads David Byrne, or another guy with the same name?

Thanks to the OP for posting this, the detective work of the guy who outed the photo was very smart. He must have been really pis-sed off at that photo.

Randy
 
zauhar said:
By the way, is that the Talking Heads David Byrne, or another guy with the same name?
Click to expand...

The Talking Heads David Byrne is no mean photographer and visual artist (not that surprising given he graduated from art school).

But this one is a UK hobbyist who according to his web site " bought my first DSLR as a Christmas present to myself in 2009 but I have been taking photographs seriously since 2010.".
 
sevo said:
The Talking Heads David Byrne is no mean photographer and visual artist (not that surprising given he graduated from art school).

But this one is a UK hobbyist who according to his web site " bought my first DSLR as a Christmas present to myself in 2009 but I have been taking photographs seriously since 2010.".
Click to expand...

Thanks!

I wonder if the guy who outed the photo thought it was "the" David Byrne? That would be quite a motivation. ;-)

Randy
 
Pickett Wilson said:
He broke the rules. That's the only issue, here. If you enter a competition, play by the rules.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Regardless about how one feels about a technique (or lack thereof), people should not get lost in the "I hate [insert thing I can't do well here]" and focus on what the issue really is: something not abiding by the rules, it was found out, and that's that.
 
OurManInTangier said:
I've never been a member of a camera club but am surprised by reports of frequent 'swapping' of image elements. Personally I don't care if people wish to do this but would prefer the honest approach of being open about the composite nature of an altered picture.
Click to expand...

More than honest Simon 🙂.
They are proud of the technique and have "how to sessions" at club meetings a couple of times a year.
Its in response to the apparent strangle hold that the competition establishment have over clubs in the UK.
They have seconds to assess each picture so it has to have immediate impact in order to succeed.
Its so common now that they are considering a separate category for shots which , in their own words, have never actually seen a camera.
This decision will be a profound shock to many people because its so accepted as a method of working.
Its very unhealthy in my opinion as its institutionalised photography in the UK and the result is stuff like this.
So no surprise that its come from a UK photographer.
 
I think you lose the right to call what you've made a photograph once you start copy and pasting things together.
 
Are there not photoshop competitions that people that enjoy photoshopping could enter? I don't understand the point (other than the monetary compensation, I supposed) of entering a photography competition with something that is not really a photograph.
 
The interesting thing about competitions is they seldom seem to suit the style of photography I would be interested in. Many are promoting products and making money from entry fees. The judges often seem a curious bunch and I wonder if they're not friends of the promoters of the competition, many are not photographers.

I entered one several years ago and saw the winner. I was genuinely unimpressed, the photo reminded me of the subject. Many competitions seem to have prizes of thousands of dollars (in out-moded products supplied by the advertisers and supporters) but little real cash.

One competition I entered had a deadline. I raced to get my image and payment into the competition. Suddenly there was an extension of the deadline. I wrote and contested for all who had submitted as stipulated. Apparently someone who was expected to submit was late.. curiously they won. Another competition saw one of the advertisers employees win first prize.. It's things like these that brought me to the conclusion these competitions are for chumps. No one wins but the promoters and they often have image rights to your submission! Check that out folks.

Regarding being stripped of the title.. he may be heartbroken but imagine the emotions those whose work was actually original.


These photo competitions are good for something I'm just not sure what. Play at your own risk. Because someone will cheat to win. That's the way the players in these games roll today.
 
The photograph in question is a product of the UK system where bye all the local camera clubs (and there are about three or four in my small area of the country) affiliate to a regional organisation who run the competitions ,set the rules and appoint the judges.
Judges also give payed talks to the clubs.
Most of the clubs yearly subscription fees are paid to these regional bodies.
Success in these competitions is considered so important that clubs activity revolve around winning them.
In my opinion this structure has a big influence on photography in the UK.
This is the web site for the regional photographic union in my area.
http://www.lcpu.org/
 
Fascinating insight into the UK scene you've given us Michael. Very like Midsomer Murders on perpetual re-run here. The TV reviewers chuckle at how implausible so many murders are for such a pretty place. Maybe their disbelief is naive. I remember a number of episodes around paintings and at least a couple around photography.
 
Richard G said:
Fascinating insight into the UK scene you've given us Michael. Very like Midsomer Murders on perpetual re-run here. The TV reviewers chuckle at how implausible so many murders are for such a pretty place. Maybe their disbelief is naive. I remember a number of episodes around paintings and at least a couple around photography.
Click to expand...

HAhaha.

At first I thought this subject was merely an over-manipulated, pastiche, generic photo.

Now I realise it's merely the symptom of a hotbed of petty intrigue, middle-class corruption, the mendacity of our self-appointed authorities and the inner emptiness of provincial life. All the better!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom