The Watcher

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Blank display.

UPDATE: OK now. Was at a location with faylty server. Sorry.

rebride

It didn't say what or how it was 'excessive digital manipulation'.

Croce Loc: Earth

I think the onus is on the judges. There appears to be no precondition to qualify the type or amount of PP which would be acceptable. If I were the photog I would refuse to return their prize money or sue for it if it had not been paid. In the absence of prequalifying rules they have not a leg to stand on. My 2 cents.

Photoquilter Loc: Virginia

The photographer apologized. The rules did say that nothing could be added to the image, and he added clouds and some other elements. Lovely picture, but he did not follow the rules.

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

Thats also what we call getting screwed here in he states. That was a very unfair decision on the judges part.

Photoquilter Loc: Virginia

How were the judges unfair? The rules said not to add any elements. It was discovered that elements were added. Why was the disqualification unfair?

It is a lovely photograph. Perhaps it was the wrong contest in which to enter it?

Croce Loc: Earth

Photoquilter: If what you post is correct and I must assume you did not just conjure it out of thin air, then you are absolutely correct and I amend my post to conform with yours. If the rules were posted, the photog either was remiss in not reading them or downright dishonest in his submission. I will at this point, in view of his speedy admission and appology, grant him the grace of the first possibility. ( After all weather does change, minute by minute in that part of the world and he could have denied his transgression.)

Photoquilter Loc: Virginia

It is unfortunate, and adds to the divisiveness between those who see photography only in a journalistic regard and others who consider it as an art form. Surely it is both. We need to be careful about reading the requirements for competition.

Barb


Here is a link you should find informative:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539279/photographer-loses-10k-crown-claims-editing-not-major



For those who prefer not to click to the link, the article includes the following (in a larger article):

Byrne has since said he did not read the rules, admitting that he digitally added clouds and 'cloned out small details' on a b&w image of Lindisfarne Castle in Northumberland which triumphed over thousands of other entries.

.....
Certain image editing, including HDR and the ‘joining together of multiple frames', is allowed in all categories.

But, competition rules state that for ‘Classic view' - the section in which Byrne's image had been entered - ‘the integrity of the subject must be maintained and the making of physical changes to the landscape is not permitted'.

Banned editing procedures include removal of fences, moving trees and stripping in sky from another image.

Byrne's triumphant photo had drawn stinging criticism from photographers online.

...

Disqualifying the winner, competition founder Charlie Waite said on 2 November: ‘This is extremely regrettable and it appears there was no deliberate intention to deceive the judges.

.....

Byrne admitted: ‘Unfortunately, I did not read the regulations and certain editing, such as adding clouds and cloning out small details, is not allowed.'

Writing on his website after being stripped of his title, he said: ‘While I don't think what I have done to the photo is wrong in any way, I do understand it's against the regulations so accept the decision. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.'

...
Charlie Waite added: ‘The integrity of the competition is very important to all involved and it was clear that disqualification was the only course of action open to us.

‘We will be reviewing our checking processes to ensure that such issues are picked up earlier in the judging process for 2013 and beyond.'

Croce Loc: Earth

Photoquilter, I read the article you linked and your comments. Byrne was either stupid,illiterate or plain dishonest. The rules as stated are very clear and I mean, he altered the entire image. Adding clouds which are as central to the image as the boats and deleting boats from the harbor? How could those actions have been dismissed as minor or unintended within the context of the stipulated rules. I'm back to square one with this guy. He was out to cheat the competitors out of about $15K American. He should have his camera taken away.