Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

In my days of film cameras - unless you did your own processing - what you took was what you got.

You could use creative filters - such as Cokin - but it was still experience and guesswork, so you wouldn't know what the results were until the film was processed.

If it was an important picture then you might bracket the exposure as a bit of a safeguard.

The only way to crop was with a pair of scissors!

Looking at winning pictures at photographic clubs today I wonder if there are actually any winning photographs entered that have not been processed - sometimes heavily - with a photo program?

I saw one recently which was very good - but had been processed through a HDR program.

So I am interested in knowing UHH members experiences in this and perhaps get an answer to my question - 'are competitions now more about post processing than the actual photo?'.

RTS100 Loc: NSW Australia

I recently asked this question of a 'real' photographer as he demonstrated his darkroom techniques. He reminded me that the Photoshop dodge and burn tools derive from the dodging and burning done when prints were made. He also reminded me of the work of Frank Hurley whose WW1 photographs were often composites. Getting it right in the camera is the goal but there has always been post-processing.

dragonswing Loc: Pa

Depends on the competition. Some specifically state that a photo can not be heavily processed. Some have specific categories for a processed picture. But I have seen photos entered in a non-processed category and then the photographer admitted later (after awards were given) that they used a certain program to get the effects. It is a bit discouraging to those of us who can not afford Photoshop and do not know how to use these programs.

BrettOssman Loc: near Tampa, Florida

Art is art, whatever tools you use to get there. :D

Malcolm B Loc: Leicester (UK)

In my opinion, Yes the art of photography has changed. As you say, with film, unless you did you own processing, you got what you were given. If had a good D&P company near you who you could go and talk to to get exactly what you wanted with hand printing from a negative then there could be some manipulation on the darkroom.

Nowadays, with digital cameras and enormous memory cards, we can take as many pictures as we like just to get one good one that we can then manipulate the hell out of to get exactly what we want and discard the rest.

Probably like a large majority of members, I grew up on film and learnt to take the pictures that I wanted in the camera, and that is what I still try to do. Maybe every budding photographer should start with film, because in my opinion, they will learn a great deal about taking pictures and getting it right in the camera rather than just click and hope and rely on PP to make it right.

I see I have not answered you last question, but the one in the title of your post. As far as competitions are concerned, and I haver not been a member of a camera club for many years now, I think the answer is probably yes. That is based on some of the pictures I have seen when visiting camera club exhibitions, and what seems to win competitions nowadays would appear to bear no resemblance to the original. Now my style of photography I have to say.

OZMON Loc: WIGAN UK

I agree with you Brett, things move on and sometimes not for the better,but if the capacity is there for processing your pics then so what, a good picture is a good picture no matter how it is produced.

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

Yes, photography has changed and will continue to change. Always has. There was a time when Kodak made a slide film with an ASA of 10. When they stopped, Ernst Haas, among others complained. But a greater variety of film types and speeds, was progress.

I always tend to bracket. Then, and now.

Some photography contests and magazines expressly forbid and reject images that have been post processed.

Cropping with scissors? One could also use a special chrome like tape to cover certain things - especially a distracting highlight in an otherwise dark background. Pete Turner, I believe, used to do extensive slide copying to get the results he wanted. I am sure there were others. Turner had an elaborate and expensive set-up to do this. One could also refine images with a modest set up, such as a bellows, enlarger or close up lens, and slide viewing attachment. Slide remounting and sandwiching, other options and double exposure techniques.

HDR is almost an art in itself. Some people shoot with the express purpose of using HDR manipulation. Some cameras have the HDR capability built-in.

And again, on your last question as to the prevalence of post processing in contest images, I think no. Even in our contest guidelines, extensive post processing is discouraged. Some contests forbid it.

Hope this helps. Thanks for posting. We will see how others process this information.

Thanks.

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

There are free processing programs. Picasa is one. Easer to learn that camera controls. Other fee based programs, not as costly a Photoshop.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

A little comparison:

Chefs are lauded because of the great things they do with the food they prepare. Some are basic in their preparations, others are more creative with the ingredients they use.

Why not laud photographers for the great things they do with the images they prepare? Some are very basic with their images, others go to great extremes.

BrettOssman Loc: near Tampa, Florida

Some aspects of post-processing are art in themselves. If you look at some of the effects the masters do with Photoshop, onOne, Nik, Topaz, etc., they are awesome. These are not fixing "bad" photos. I doubt anyone could accomplish this stuff right out of the camera.

Nothing easy or intuitive about it.

Just my two cents worth. :D

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

Using your comparison - all chiefs would all be judged the same although some would be working from a top hotel kitchen with all the best equipment while others would be working from home with whatever equipment they had.

The former would have much more chance of getting a Michelin star than the later.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Misconception #1
In the days of film cameras, no matter what you took you got 18% grey processing.
You took a bad exposure and they fixed it - therefore it was hard to learn from your mistakes.
You took a great shot - and the "fixed" it - turning it into an average shot. Fantastic eh?
You took a deliberate high key or low key shot - you got 18% grey processing.
You took snow - you got grey snow.
You took a black cat - you got a grey cat.

Unless you got sick of 18% grey and kept a notepad and got your photos processed by a professional lab- and then you got processing like all the pros got.
Contrast curves, a touch of saturation and better sharpness because the image was processed individually.
Much the same as what we get today when we process our own.

Or you could do what I did and change to Kodachrome.



It still is experience and guesswork.
Its just that we get immediate feedback, the ability to correct a dud shot, and the ability to process our own shots.



Because of average 18% grey processing bracketing was very much a lucky dip.
And the difference between cutting out part of an image with scissors and with software is....... ?



Every image you see has been manipulated - including your own.
Every digital image should be edited.



Read the first part of your sentence here - "... which was very good ......".
But you find a percieved negative in that "very good image".
Would you rather a crappy unprocessed image?



You have changed this from photography ... to competitions.
And as to your question - you will have to read the fine print on each competition to find that out.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Crwiwy, just my opinion, but the art of photography has not changed at all. Pulitzer prizes are still given out, and they are still just as hard to get.
Photography has evolved along with the technology, nothing more. In a competition, a VERY good photo will still win over a poor photo with 100 hrs of PP.
That said, if you are more than an amateur, you had better have very good PP skills. Good PP skills are just part of being a pro today. Every profession has it's set of skills, and they keep evolving.
There is no excuse for not having a PP program and using it, as EVERY camera manufacturer supplies one at no cost with every camera purchase. If one chooses not to use it, even for very fundamental corrections, that's a prerogative.
I can't understand how so many photographers were fire breathing dragons in the darkroom, then just fall flat on their faces in the 21st century.
Unfortunately there will always be cheaters.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Dragon, if you are talking about club competitions, and are unhappy with the definitions of the categories, perhaps you should look and see if there is a PSA club( Photographic Society of America) in your area. The competitions and the categories are VERY regulated by the National parent organization(PSA).
As for a PP program, PS is not at all necessary. There is a 60% chance that you shoot a Canon. Canon supplies its DPP program free of charge and it's easier to use than any digital camera is.
There is no need to be discouraged, except there will always be cheaters. Good luck