> From: Bruce Walker <[email protected]> > > For your Saturday reading amusement: > > > Don't Photoshop your landscapes: > http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/02/landscape-photographer-of-the-year-2012-stripped-of-title-for-too-much-shoppin/ > > > You gotta check out Mr. Whistleblower's in-depth analysis of landscape > altering > http://www.timparkin.co.uk/2012/10/landscape-photographer-of-the-year-2/ > > I say bullshit. Landscapes are valid grist for the mill. Just don't > make the mistake of submitting to contests run by anal retentives. > > -- > -bmw
Guys, I agree 100% with the decision to disqualify the photo. The rules of the contest limited the degree of manipulation and the photographer admitted to not reading the rules very closely. He also had submitted other images in different categories that permitted a greater degree of manipulation and it appears he's fairly good at it. There was £10,000 ($16,000) at stake as the prize. While the photographer may have indeed innocently breached the rules, I find that a little hard to swallow. If the first prize for winning was the acclimation of "Landscape Photographer of the Year" and £10,000 would YOU neglect to read the rules? I think the whistle blower did a pretty good job of detective work with the shadow direction not matching the god rays coming apparently straight down from the sky.It's clear from some other similar shots that a fair amount of cloning occurred. What I find hard to believe is the choice for the new winner. It has things to like but I would think that out of all the likely submissions in the category... well beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that the original image was a nice visual, it simply didn't adhere to the rules. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
