Photographer of the Year 2011

[russbarnes]

I agree with Karen. The practicalities of a RAW round are just not workable in my view and it would also rule out anyone that didn't have a type of RAW on their camera or people who just shoot JPG and don't know better. I think the principal of the idea is nice and idealistic but in practice pretty much impossible to make work I would have thought...

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by russbarnes

The practicalities of a RAW round are just not workable in my view................. in practice pretty much impossible to make work I would have thought...

Agreed - both unworkable and impractical. A raw file is just that, unprocessed data captured by the camera that is not even viewable until first rendered by software or part processed in camera to produce a viewable (and small) jpeg image on the cameras LCD. And when made viewable by having been rendered in software the same raw file will appear differently depending upon the software chosen for this rendering. Canon raw files for example are rendered much differently (and better in my view) in DPP that in Adobe's Lightroom with the latter only being used in my case because it offers more post processing capabilities. I don't think any of the contemporary photographic artists of yesteryear would be recognised as such today had they simply set up their box cameras, captured an image and then submitted it as is to a high street developer prior to the final print appearing in a gallery/exhibition.

[PolaroidSky]

"As photojournalists prepare return to Perpignan in early September for the 22nd International photojournalism festival, Jean-François Leroy, Visa Pour l’Image’s co-founder, has hit out at Photoshop abuses in the field, vowing to ask for raw files for the festival 2011 edition."

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-jo...down-photoshop

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/...lifies-winner/

[Forseti]

PolaroidSky, I'm not sure whether your post is related to mine or not, or quite what the reason for posting was. On the assumption that it was related to mine I trust that you are drawing the distinction between having a section in any forthcoming POTY where quite simply the original and unedited raw file is submitted as an entry, or one in which the original raw file is being requested to either check the authenticity/ownership of the submitted entry or indeed, as the article in your first link suggests, to check and see just how much Photoshopping has taken place.

From the article:
As a result, Leroy has already announced that, as of next year’s edition, he will request all raw files from photographers, to ensure they haven’t been heavily manipulated.

My contention is that the submission of a raw file as is, is pretty much meaningless as there are far too many variables - quality and amount of raw detail captured by any one particular camera and of course, the rendering application used which may well favour one brand of camera in lieu of another brand. The judging of any submitted image will not therefore be based on the image itself but on capture qualities of the camera and the rendering software used.

Quite how the article in your link relates to POTY I'm unsure as it relates to photojournalism - as different as chalk is to cheese and in any event, as the article makes quite clear, is only to ensure that the images haven't been heavily manipulated and not simply that only the original raw files and nothing else are to be submitted.

[AndyStevens]

On the 'RAW' category I suggested, I was thinking that we'd be trusted to upload a jpg saved from the default settings in ACR/DPP etc. Then, instead of supplying a hi-res for shortlisting, we supply the original RAW and PhotoRadar use the same RAW convertor set to 'default' for all images.

Probably not workable in reality - but I quite like the idea of a category where we submit completely unfettled images - what we submit is what we took with no Levels, Curves, Saturation boosts, Exposure tweaks etc. There are loads of comps for Photoshop work, HDR categories with other comps mentioning 'don't go overboard in post processing' type messages - how about a pure, straight out of the camera, not tweaked at all image - would show off the photographers skill quite nicely.

But we are excluding those who can't shoot RAW...

Originally Posted by PolaroidSky

"How about a RAW category?"

Awesome idea : )

That may prevent some entering if their equipment is not set up for / without facility in RAW

[Stormsong]

My suggestions:

1) Bring back a specific B&W category - I think the technique deserves and warrants its own category.
2) What about an architecture category - interiors and exteriors.
3) What about a food category - cooked and RAW - in other words, food given treatment or in its natural state.
4) Separating pros and ams - for obvious reasons. This is fairer on the hobbyists who take photos when they have time, as opposed to someone who gets paid by the day/hour to take photos for a living.
5) Mobile phone category - as mentioned earlier in the thread; widens the audience and makes POTY a more inclusive competition.

Let's see where this goes, because suggestions have been made in the past and nothing has changed.

[AndyStevens]

How about a Junior section? Something to encourage under 18's? Or do we give prizes to the best under 18 in each section? And yes, that was the Royal 'we'

[Stormsong]

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

How about a Junior section? Something to encourage under 18's? Or do we give prizes to the best under 18 in each section? And yes, that was the Royal 'we'

There is a separate competition for under18 year olds, although it is not as well publicised as the 'adult' version.

[Stormsong]

http://www.youngphotographeroftheyear.com/