Photographers vs Judges

[antoeknee]

Re the egret for me it stays but that means not competition material because a judge will probably disapprove.

Judging can steer things in a particular direction and that may stifle creativity.

My adjustments are much as the enhancements above. I've done this and more in the past in the darkroom.

[colin C]

What would be wrong, and if it were my shot it's what I would have done if I wanted to get rid of the Egret - just crop it to portrait format. The Osprey would still have room to fly into the shot.

You've got me Trev ........... just about.

Two or three wingbeats later, the Egret was out of shot and that would be the image I would put before the Judge. Slightly higher off the water, but not enough to matter. My motto for post editing is: "Don't do what you can .............. only what you need to!" By using the other image, I would only need to cover the very basics.

[El Sid]

In the unlikely event that I ever got a shot of an Osprey as good, or even half as good, as that then I would probably lose the egret.. As I don't do Natural History I feel less constrained to produce a true-to-the-moment image than to produce one which is aesthetically pleasing.

Were a painter to have seen this moment and be able to remember it I strongly doubt that he would paint in the egret with it being superfluous to the subject. This doesn't make him a bad artist nor even a dishonest one - he just wants to present his subject to the best of his ability. I see no issue with a photographer who wishes to do the same and the method used is irrelevant - one could argue that cropping off the part of the picture containing the egret is deceiving the viewer every bit as much as cloning it out. As long as the intent is neither malicious nor malign is it really deceit? I remember there was a bit of a hoo-ha some years back over a picture of a US presidential candidate (Joe Biden I think) used on a magazine cover - the original image was of the candidate in his kitchen preparing a steak for cooking while the magazine version cropped out the steak and much of the kitchen background making the victim (and I use the term deliberately) look like a nut job with knife... Now that's what I call intent to deceive...

[Coolcat]

Now if that was Trump,......No need for any photoshopping to give him the nut job look

[Trev B]

Another thought, did the Egret stay around. I'm not into Photoshop, someone told me recently that my version of Photoshop was brought to Britain by the Romans - Elements 10. If you were able and had taken a shot of the Egret after the Osprey had flown off, could it not have been played around with in Photoshop and one image achieved with both birds in focus.
Or, Egrets like Heron's have their favourite fishing spots - go back the Egret will most likely be still around - get the shot

[ColytonJohn]

I'd have removed it as that would have made a more pleasing image.

In the same way with my work I crop, clone out, adjust light balance, contrast, saturation, detail, etc. as what I want is a pleasing image - I've even been known to replace a sky with that objective. But then I'm rarely interested in reporting fact but, pretentious as it may sound, I want to make art.

I see far too many images (usually but not exclusively on social media) that are obviously straight out of the camera/smartphone and are crying out for a little tweak that will elevate them massively but, without, are just so much lost potential.

Cheers,
John

[antoeknee]

In the unlikely event that I ever got a shot of an Osprey as good, or even half as good, as that then I would probably lose the egret.. As I don't do Natural History I feel less constrained to produce a true-to-the-moment image than to produce one which is aesthetically pleasing.

Were a painter to have seen this moment and be able to remember it I strongly doubt that he would paint in the egret with it being superfluous to the subject. This doesn't make him a bad artist nor even a dishonest one - he just wants to present his subject to the best of his ability. I see no issue with a photographer who wishes to do the same and the method used is irrelevant - one could argue that cropping off the part of the picture containing the egret is deceiving the viewer every bit as much as cloning it out. As long as the intent is neither malicious nor malign is it really deceit? I remember there was a bit of a hoo-ha some years back over a picture of a US presidential candidate (Joe Biden I think) used on a magazine cover - the original image was of the candidate in his kitchen preparing a steak for cooking while the magazine version cropped out the steak and much of the kitchen background making the victim (and I use the term deliberately) look like a nut job with knife... Now that's what I call intent to deceive...

Photo manipulation for political means has gone on for a long long time. Hitler had people airbrushed (that's an old term) from images if he no longer wanted to be associated with them. He's not alone.

There is a picture of General Grant in the Library of Congress dated 1902 and shows Grant on horse back in front of captured Confederate troops.

In fact its a composite of three images the only part, the head, is Grant. The body and horse is someone else and the background another image.

[bobowen]

I'm in total agreement with Nigel.

As a Painter I look at a scene and interpret it how I wish considering compositiion, light, focal point, colours, tones etc. A quick tonal sketch would follow to confirm my thoughts before even considering getting my paints out. But I'd still need a photograph (or a stuffed osprey) from which to copy the details!

As a Photographer I also would also interpret the scene but cannot change what is in front of me (other than moving about). Also I can't ask the egret to move or the osprey to hang on a bit whilst it does.

So I don't see anything wrong with removing the egret from the photograph provided it's replaced with something sympathetic as Colin has done. As my Art Tutor tells me 'leave anything out but never put anything in'. Monet was known to have employed tree-fellers to improve a scene!

Before getting my coat I'll just say what a fabulous image it is and a judge is only someone giving an opinion.

[AlexR!]

I have no experience of proper qualified photography judges so cannot comment on what they would or wouldn't like. But as this has now seemingly moved onto a more general discussion on the merits or not of post processing and editing, my two penn'orth for what it is worth.
For me it is all about the photographer's intent. If their aim is clearly to show an artistic vision they can do whatever they want, colour the grass purple, swap the fish for a bicycle, whatever.
If it was my image (I wish...) I would be wanting to show the osprey taking the fish and the egret is irrelevant to that so I would have no qualms about taking it out. If the osprey was stealing the egret's catch, or it was well known that ospreys and egrets never came within 10 yards of each other (like showing a polar bear near a penguin), I would leave it in because it was relevant.
I generally baulk at additions or composites. I have replaced one sky in my life and still feel a bit guilty. But as I sit here today I know that in the image of the sunset I took last night I will push the saturation of the colour beyond what I actually saw. And the man in the yellow jacket cutting the grass around the base of Whitby Abbey will be eliminated. Yes I could have waited until he had gone but my wife's patience standing in the rain does have its bounds. And in my artistic opinion the image will be better for him not being there.
But, as I intimated, my pictures are just for my enjoyment and occasional sharing with friends, family and maybe this and another forum, so they are not meant to be perfect reflections of reality and only if I offered them as such would I be being dishonest.

[antoeknee]

There seems to be an aversion to post processing but using filters or techniques during exposure is acceptable.

A 10 stop ND can be used for a long exposure to eliminate people from a scene for example.

For me the egret was OK but would be a negative in a comp. If I was going to hang it on the wall then the egret would go.

[Brian Sugden]

I used to be a regular camera club member and have also judged. If that was my image I probably wouldn't enter it into a competition unless it was specifically nature and then would probably crop it as per Trevs suggestion. Whilst cropping off the right I would also crop off the bottom to increase the size of the osprey in the frame.

That said judging is very subjective and you never know their preference unless they have judged at your club before. I once entered an image of a rock climber, which I was really pleased with only to discover later the judge didn't like mountains. Another member who always entered shots of the Lake District entered something else for that competition!

It's easy to get hung up about the comments judges make, but your quality of life is not affected by it. It's a hobby and camera clubs like on-line forums are an excellent way to learn and gain experience. So my advice would be to enter as many competitions as you can and enjoy the hits and learn from the misses.

[antoeknee]

Quite agree, judging is quite subjective. Gave up with comps after some poor judging. In one instance a shot I'd taken on Orkney at midnight, still light in the summer at that time, the judge completely dismissed as fake. In his view taken during the day with a filter. I was disappointed but understood how it might look like that. Worst was when I spoke to him later and explained he basically called me a liar.

Find comments on here constructive, quite a contrast to some other forums where people can be abusive.

[Frederick]

Although a bit late I read this post and comments with interest. I liked the one with the Egret in but could have been made a little more blurred in post processing which would have given the picture a good impression of speed, which is what I have heard some judges remark on. I actually like both photo's but for my liking I like the one best with the Egret in. That is the more true to life photo for me. Hope You are all keeping well, Fred.

[colin C]

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, both on the merits of Judges and the side discussion on post editing. Whether you post edit, or not, I fully respect your views and indeed, I strive to get everything right within the camera, but sometimes events conspire against me and I need to resort to "The Tools of Satan".

For Judges, having been in the hot seat for many years, I am aware of some of the problems and since giving up Judging I have been on the receiving end of some silly opinions. However, from their point of view an image comes on the screen which they have never seen before and they have seconds to form an opinion, comment for a couple of minutes and award a mark. When I say seconds to form an opinion, I really mean two or three - five at the most. If the Judge takes ten seconds there are murmurings and fidgeting in the audience. While it is often easy to see what is wrong with an image, a good Judge needs to concentrate on the good points and almost as an afterthought, suggest that the author consider this or that action in the future.

At the same time, the Judge needs to consider the potential marks awarded to each image. There is normally a run through where each image is on the screen for five seconds. Most will be of a good standard and score sevens and eights, some will be of a much higher standard and be marked accordingly and some will be of a much lower standard. From somewhere between forty and eighty images, the judge needs to retain which are the really good images and the ones less so. Be really kind to the lesser images and gently suggest improvements. After all, somebody has entered this as their best work and may be a beginner, so some praise where you can and gentle encouragement may help on their photographic journey. Then comes the higher rated photographs and these can be more difficult. Some which have a lot of initial impact may not have the staying power and some are more subtle and need the second viewing to really show their strengths, so some previously pre-allocated marks may need to move up or down accordingly. It is a very fluid situation. And if that wasn't enough, the judge needs to keep their comments in line with the awarded marks. I have had many high praise comments and only been awarded an eight, but on the other hand, a rather dismissive commentary and then awarded a ten. It is not easy to keep marks and commentary in unison.

All in all, not an easy job and as in most areas of life, there are good and bad. Thankfully in our area we have a lot of Judges and only invite back those that are a credit to Judging. We have been through those who have their personal preferences and seem to award high marks if there is a steam engine in shot, or an old bicycle, or a bright red focal point.

I only take pictures for me and am not too bothered by Judges opinions. I like it if they understand my image and comment accordingly, but I am not too bothered if they don't like the image ..................... they've obviously made a mistake!

[SpringfieldPhoto]

Colin is so right. I take pictures for me and NOT for judges. I have a personal investment in the pictures and whether a judge would like them is of no interest to me.