Epson Australian Landscape Competition Winner and Finalists
Wayne J. Cosshall
I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
images in a gallery:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
New competitions will be announced shortly.
Cheers,
Wayne
--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
gerrit
"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wa...@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message
news:4649a947$0$22547$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi All,
>
> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
> images in a gallery:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>
> New competitions will be announced shortly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
I am more than a little disappointed at the description as to why this was
the winning entry.
"In the end, everyone agreed that it came down to one image. So we award the
prize of an Epson 1410 printer to Tony Dimmock of Melbourne for his image
Passing Storm 2, shot at Lake Mungo. The judges felt it was a strong and
dramatic image, showing patience to get the sky and lighting right."
The description given by the artist shows that he completely erased the
original sky using photoshop and replaced it with another sky, yet you say
that the photo shows patience to get sky and lighting right.
Gerrit
frederick
A quick look is all that's needed to see that it's obvious that is
exactly what he's done. Long evening shadows on the ground, and clouds
lit from well above. The photo must have been taken on Tattoooine.
mark.t...@gmail.com
> Hi All,
>
> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
> images in a gallery:http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>
> New competitions will be announced shortly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> --
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
????
Call me bitter and biased because I had entries in it, by all means!
But to me, an "Australian Landscape" competition just might possibly
be better biased *towards* real Australian images that are *not* PS
creations, especially the type of creation that has a non-matching
sky. Yes, I know you said they could be manipulated, but a pasted sky
in a landscape comp? Sheesh.
There are many excellent images (yes, other than mine!) in the
finalists that at least *looked* real. I am simply astounded at that
choice.
But I guess controversy gets you more hits, so it's win-win!!
Wayne J. Cosshall
the lighting on the landscape, even if they were shot differently. Some
of the judges may not have read the description before giving me their
comments, others may have. Frankly I don't believe it matters. The
competition allowed manipulated images and I did not specify degrees of
manipulation.
The image is a very strong one and I was impressed that everyone put it
first, though there was some difference in places of the next few
images. These differences came down to variation on how important each
person felt it was to look for a 'typical' Australian landscape or not.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
jasonstevens_aust
really..... "patience"??? I see no patience in grabbing a late
afternoon "snap" and combining it with a sky from another image.
Patience would have been sitting there and waiting for everything to
be just right!
But having said that, manipulation was allowed for in the rules... so
be it.
What I find more disappointing is the poor composition, the blocked up
dark areas of the sky and most of all, the areas of the sky (blow it
up and have a look at the marks in the middle folks) that are
obviously bits of left over layers that were not removed. For those
obvious editing floors to be overlooked (by both the photographer and
the judges) is just a not very professional IMHO.
jasonstevens_aust
> Ok, I can see your points but it still took patience to get the sky, and
> the lighting on the landscape, even if they were shot differently. Some
> of the judges may not have read the description before giving me their
> comments, others may have. Frankly I don't believe it matters. The
> competition allowed manipulated images and I did not specify degrees of
> manipulation.
>
> The image is a very strong one and I was impressed that everyone put it
> first, though there was some difference in places of the next few
> images. These differences came down to variation on how important each
> person felt it was to look for a 'typical' Australian landscape or not.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> Wayne J. Cosshall
> Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/
It seems my first post did not work.... but sorry if this ends up here
twice.
I guess anything said will sound like sour grapes, but I fail to see
patience in combining a late afternoon "snap" with a sky from another
image. patience would have been to sit there and wait for everything
to be just right.
But manipulation was allowed for in the rules.... so be it.
I am more disappointed with the poor composition, blocked up dark sky
areas and most of all, the left over bits of old Photoshop layers that
have not been removed (check out the marks in the middle of the sky
folks). For those obvious editing mistakes to go un-noticed (by both
photographer & judges) is simply unprofessional lIMHO.
Smee
> Hi All,
>
> I've posted the winner of the Epson 1410 printer and all the finalist
> images in a gallery:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=983
>
> New competitions will be announced shortly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
2 pictures photoshopped into one yet the description says he showed
patience.
your competition just lost credibilty
frederick
photographers would consider part of normal post-processing, and would
hope should be "allowed" in a contest, then there is what has been
allowed here - which isn't producing an interpretation of a real scene,
but is presenting a fraud - a scene that never existed. The winning
photograph isn't "An Australian Landscape" at all. The poor quality of
the fraudulent work is almost a side issue.
Rob
Don't feel bad but most competitions are like that, enhancement would be
OK, but manipulation into something surreal is another. I didn't think
it fitted the theme of an Australian Landscape. At first glance at the
winning entry, thought, what a lot of crap. Didn't look any further.
I have yet to see the Mungo landscape like that at any particular time.
r
Wayne J. Cosshall
it was the strongest image. The comment on why said this, and the
patience bit was just part of what some people said. With hindsight I
should have left that out. I personally don't like brief judge's
comments, but some people like them and want some feedback.
Personally, I did not read any of the supplied information until after I
had made my mind up about my ranking of images. Why? It wasn't relevant
to me. I was looking for the image that produced the strongest reaction
in me.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
Wayne J. Cosshall
End of story.
Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' photography
(whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you want, I'll
even make it a public choice one where you can score the images
yourselves. How's that?
My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is a
documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because I do
not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard way,
but because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d image can
be a 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d world, so to me
it is a matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This has been
discussed on another list about setting the conditions for photography
shows, as well as competitions, and you see various attempts along these
lines :
1 in camera manipulations only
2 minimal image enhancement
3 darkroom level manipulations
4 anything goes
all these have practical issues. How does a judge work out whether 1 or
2 have been followed to the letter. If done well, I don't believe you
can tell, particularly with the heavily downsampled nature of emailed
entries. 3 is a complete waste, because there is nothing we can do in PS
that you can't do in the darkroom if you try hard enough. So are you
limiting this to only what most people are capable of in the darkroom?
Running competitions and competitive entry exhibitions is hard because
there will always be something to criticize (I know I've been critical,
though not publically, of many of the competitions I've entered). One
difference is that at least I am here and happy to discuss and more than
willing to try to change things in future if there seems to be a real
issue. Your comments have been noted.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
frederick
> You are missing the point. The winning entry was chosen because we felt
> it was the strongest image. The comment on why said this, and the
> patience bit was just part of what some people said. With hindsight I
> should have left that out. I personally don't like brief judge's
> comments, but some people like them and want some feedback.
>
> Personally, I did not read any of the supplied information until after I
> had made my mind up about my ranking of images. Why? It wasn't relevant
> to me. I was looking for the image that produced the strongest reaction
> in me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
The competition was for "Australian Landscape" photograph.
There are some great images on the "finalists" page - that are AFAICT
Australian Landscapes. But for winner, you've chosen an image that -
regardless of any artistic merit that it may or may not have - isn't an
Australian Landscape at all. It's a photo-montage creating a scene that
never actually existed.
I think that you have made a mistake - and I can understand why other
entrants will not be happy. To fix it - then you have a problem. Try
explaining your position to Epson, perhaps they may donate another
printer, and then you can select another winner.
frederick
I understand what you are saying, but you have a PR problem. None of
the other "finalist" images appear to be "created scenes".
Post-processed - sure, to greater and lesser degrees. But they still
"qualify" IMO as landscape photographs, yet "created scenes" do not.
That's just my opinion - but I'm guessing that it's not unique.
JoeT
> The point is that the terms made it clear than manipulation was fine. End
> of story.
>
> Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' photography
> (whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you want, I'll even
> make it a public choice one where you can score the images yourselves.
> How's that?
>
> My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is a
> documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because I do
> not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard way, but
> because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d image can be a
> 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d world, so to me it is a
> matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This has been discussed on
> another list about setting the conditions for photography shows, as well
> as competitions, and you see various attempts along these lines :
> 1 in camera manipulations only
> 2 minimal image enhancement
> 3 darkroom level manipulations
> 4 anything goes
>
If images entirely created in Photoshop were allowed and such an entry
actually prevailed then it was a Photoshop competition not a photo
competition. That's plain, simple and obvious. Photoshop imagery is a
different form of artistic expression than photography. A person can make
beautiful pictures in Photoshop without ever so much as touching a camera.
Having done so, however, in no way makes the person a photographer nor does
it make the picture they create a photograph.
Only an idiot (or delusional photographer wannabe) would argue this.
Smee
> The point is that the terms made it clear than manipulation was fine.
> End of story.
There is manipulation and there is adaptation
the winning image is an adaptation and not representative of a true
landscape image.
The reasons state that the photog showed patience which is absolute
bullshit.
>
> Now if you want a competition for unmanipulated, 'straight' photography
> (whatever that means), I'll organise one. In fact, if you want, I'll
> even make it a public choice one where you can score the images
> yourselves. How's that?
>
> My personal view with regard to manipulation is that unless there is a
> documentary purpose to an image, anything goes. This is not because I do
> not value the idea of being there and getting the image the hard way,
> but because I see all photography as manipulation, since no 2d image can
> be a 'true' representation of our experience of the 3d world, so to me
> it is a matter of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This has been
> discussed on another list about setting the conditions for photography
> shows, as well as competitions, and you see various attempts along these
> lines :
> 1 in camera manipulations only
> 2 minimal image enhancement
> 3 darkroom level manipulations
> 4 anything goes
Anything goes does not fit into the topic of true australian landscapes.
bad move
allows darkroom manipulation to bring out saturation etc but not blend 2
images to make a fake image that is not seen in real life.
>
> all these have practical issues. How does a judge work out whether 1 or
> 2 have been followed to the letter. If done well, I don't believe you
> can tell, particularly with the heavily downsampled nature of emailed
> entries. 3 is a complete waste, because there is nothing we can do in PS
> that you can't do in the darkroom if you try hard enough. So are you
> limiting this to only what most people are capable of in the darkroom?
>
> Running competitions and competitive entry exhibitions is hard because
> there will always be something to criticize (I know I've been critical,
> though not publically, of many of the competitions I've entered). One
> difference is that at least I am here and happy to discuss and more than
> willing to try to change things in future if there seems to be a real
> issue. Your comments have been noted.
The winning image is fraudulent as far as i am concerned because it was
not in the spirit of the competition which clearly stated Australian
landscapes not created australian landscapes.
Credibility nil.
you should apologies personally to all the losing entrants who were
robbed byt the fraudster who won. and the judges should hang their heads
in shame for awarding a fraud the prize.
G.T.
I agree with everything you and frederick wrote except for the
fraudulent part. The winning photographer stated exactly what he did to
create the image, there doesn't appear to be any fraud on his part.
Greg
--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
frederick
> I agree with everything you and frederick wrote except for the
> fraudulent part. The winning photographer stated exactly what he did to
> create the image, there doesn't appear to be any fraud on his part.
You are probably right - saying fraudulent when there was no intent was
a bit heavy-handed of me.
Wayne J. Cosshall
In the end we are going to have to agree to disagree about what is and
is not a landscape photograph. My view is wider than many of you, and
that is fine either way. Over 30 years ago I was (and others)
substituting a different sky when printing under the enlarger, and
winning camera club competitions for these landscapes. I don't see that
digital has changed anything. For me, all photography is an
interpretation of the scene by the photographer and I have no trouble
with any degree of manipulation or combination. That's me and that is
how I run the competitions on my site unless I specifically state
otherwise. Since I did not, and in fact explicitly stated that
manipulation was ok (and did not specify what this included) there is no
reason the winning entry should not have been judged with all the rest.
Sure, I made a mistake putting in the patience comments but have
explained this. End of story.
To me there is a difference between a landscape photograph and a
documentary landscape photograph. Some of you seem to consider these to
be the same. I do not. To me, saying it was open to manipulated or
unmanipulated images spelt that out.
I am amazed by the rapid heat from some of the posters. These I have
ignored. My comment to them is that if they care to get off their
backsides ad organize their own competition and prize, I'll be happy to
enter under whatever conditions they set. Some of you, Fredrick
included, have done a good and reasonable job explaining your position,
even though I disagree with it. I understand fully where you are coming
from. So I will attempt to organize a competition for unmanipulated
(beyond normal dodge/burn level) landscape photography with a suitable
prize.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
Pete D
I do find it interesting that no one has actually stood up for your choice.
Wayne J. Cosshall
or they are scared of being attacked by the barking dogs :)
Cheers,
Wayne
Smee
The real fraud was the competition.
Pete D
agenda and you have made your choice and will do exactly what pleases you,
more power to you but remember that future comps may not be so well attended
because of choices you make now.
"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wa...@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message
news:464d6731$0$19761$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Wayne J. Cosshall
always act for their own reasons. I am satisfied that in the time I've
been doing comps I've managed to get some good product out to people,
not charged them for the privilege of entering and provided good value
to the companies providing the prizes. The terms were there, they could
have emailed to clarify if they wanted or if they had read what I have
written previously on these topics or looked at what won in previous
competitions they might have realised what might be acceptable in the
competition. So if some people choose not to enter future comps I can
and will live with that. The fact is I get a lot of emails from people
grateful for the competitions, even when they have not won.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/