I've been on both sides of the competition thing. For me a winning photo is a "complete" photo. Other than "Open Mind" or "Creative" or "Anything Goes" classes of competition, where abstract, conceptual or contemplative type images are submitted - a complete photo means that all aspects of the image - the camera related stuff - composition, focus, aperture, shutter speed, depth of field - are all handled properly, and then the post processing is similarly handled in such a way as to not distract from the image, and lastly, where appropriate in an image - the story. A strong image often has a story, even if it fails the so-called rules of composition. A high-key image on first impression to the uninitiated may appear overexposed, a blurry image of a Cheetah chasing an Impala at 60 mph where the story is clear - but focus, blur, noise etc which would be verboten in a picture of a building are totally appropriate in such an image - all of these break one or more of the long-held standards of image quality.

Just because someone has expertise in manipulating an image doesn't automatically make him/her an amazing photographer that will prevail in competitions. And the converse is true - just because you took the image with a cellphone or point and shoot camera doesn't make the image appear weak, amateurish or otherwise without merit.

When I judge, I can rarely tell what camera took the picture, or whether it started life as a jpeg out of the camera or it was processed from raw - nor does it matter to me. But I can spot an overprocessed image - take a look at any of Ken Rockwell's images - he maxes out all of his camera settings to create images that generate pain to my eyes and artistic sensibilities. If you want an example of overcooked jpegs that involve some post processing - then look no further than Trey Radcliff's work - he does what KR does but with a lot of exposure stacking - HDR. Or check out Captain Kimo in Florida - looking at their work gives me a headache. You don't need to start with a raw file to come up with "startling" (not in a good sense) images.

On the other hand, if you have a good artistic sense, even if you have horrible computer skills, you can use image editing software creatively to make your images into whatever you want - anything from a simple yet carefully lit portrait (little to no post processing) to something grand and spectacular that a viewer may find memorable, or better yet, appropriate enough to order a print to hang on their wall - and everything in between.

Being a computer geek is never a prerequisite to making good photography. But knowing your way around some image editing programs lets you more fully exploit the potential in your camera and in your creativity. You don't need to be very creative to use a camera as a visual recorder of life. But rarely are "real" images very interesting, except for really good reportage and some street photography. The images that are captivating are usually those where the photographer controls the entire process, from pre-visualization to final output and clearly takes a few risks to make the image different and personal.

I can't tell you how many images taken with cellphones have scored highly in competitions.