Photographer of the Year 2011

[AndyStevens]

Originally Posted by Stormsong

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

And I rest my case m'lud

[PolaroidSky]

RE a Raw category.

If a submitter sends in a raw or a otherwise untouched file it could be included with the finished piece. " to check and see just how much Photoshopping has taken place." is the obvious reason for allowing Raw images.

@ Forseti

"PolaroidSky, I'm not sure whether your post is related to mine or not, or quite what the reason for posting was." my posting of the articles was purely and simply to highlight an issue throughout the world of photography at the moment, which it is and because I liked Andy Steven's idea and was nothing to do with your post at all.

A category that really showed of traditional skill and camera craft and not merely shooting in Auto or Program and then relying on Photo Shop to make a silk purse from a sows ear to me seems like a really interesting way to go for a photographic competition. Post Production has it's place but it should not be the be and end all of image making.

[karenoliver]

Raw files can still be edited though, can't they? Just looking at a raw file now in PS and I have options for exposure, clarity, contrast , sharpening and lots of other tweaks. And you can also download presets for use in raw as well. I really don't see a problem with adjusting levels, curve etc because in the film darkroom you use filters on an enlarger, you burn and dodge and can do so many other things. The only way you will really ever see a truly untouched image is by submitting a film negative.

Karen

[AndyStevens]

Hi Karen,

Yes, you're right, RAW can be adjusted in PS/PSE/LR etc. I was thinking along the lines of who could make the best image with no tweaks - just like submitting a slide/negative. Something to test who can get the 'best' image straight out the camera without relying on post processing.

We submit a straight untweaked jpg and the RAW is supplied for shortlisting instead of a high-res.

something like that anyway.

Cheers
Andy

[Flashman_]

The Raw file is a pure digital and camera centric interpretation of the scene and is almost meaningless as far as the skill of the photographer taking the shot. In the case of Nikon even the camera settings entered on the camera are not transferred to ACR nor are any other converter (as far as I know) other than Nikon`s own converters.
If you mean that you would like a category with absolutely no manipulations at all then I would support that as I am useless at Photoshop!
However do bear in mind that even with film the skill of the photographer was almost secondary to the skill of his ability to produce great prints. Raw processors now replace the processing and printing of film and having a Raw category would be like entering your unprocessed roll of film!
An out of camera jpg or tiff would be a better test of a photographers skill. I believe the fact that it was created "in camera" is recorded in the EXIF data, as is any subsequent editing programmes used, which would then preclude it from the category.
Given the controversies thrown up by this competition though I would make sure that the Data could not be hacked before having such a category.

I also think that the Black and white section should return, I was very surprised that there was none this year!

[AndyStevens]

Unfortunately Flashman, and why I like the concept of a RAW category, EXIF data can be hacked/stripped/manipulated. It would be quite easy to enter a shot having made tweaks and the judging panel would be none the wiser.

If we supply a RAW, and have got aperture/shutter correct, used filters correctly, considered compoeition etc etc etc, we should be able to supply a good image even from a RAW file. The organisers could use the 'default' settings for shortlisting with standard sharpening etc and colour profile applied so each image gets the same treatment.

I think it's a good concept - just how to implelement it...?

Cheers
Andy

[karenoliver]

Just had a look at one of my entries in the documentary category -

Go kart photograph - http://www.photoradar.com/news/story...list#ad-image9

And I just uploaded a screen shot of the raw file as I can't upload raw to be viewed?

http://www.photoradar.com/photos/116...liver/raw-file

To be honest I can't see much of a difference between the raw file and finished photograph? So I am not sure what raw will prove?

Karen

[Flashman_]

If that's the case about hacking, then a raw file could be just as easily hacked, surely Andy?

[Flashman_]

Originally Posted by karenoliver

I just uploaded a screen shot of the raw file as I can't upload raw to be viewed?



Karen

Karen, you will not be able to view a raw file on-line without some kind of special server-side software if at all!..
RAW files are a different type of data that internet browsers cannot read!

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by 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.

And therein lies the problem Andy - what are default settings? Each and every application, whether it be from Adobe, Canon or Apple and Co. use very different algorithms to render the data from a raw file just in order for you to be able to see an image on your computer. Just because all the sliders are at some predetermined setting in any one application does not imply that this is 'default' as these are primarily determined by the initial algorithms. Should, by way of example, PR opt for using Canons DPP as a raw converter then immediately Nikon users would be at a disadvantage and vice versa should Aperture be decided upon.

Originally Posted by PolaroidSky

RE a Raw category.

A category that really showed of traditional skill and camera craft and not merely shooting in Auto or Program and then relying on Photo Shop to make a silk purse from a sows ear to me seems like a really interesting way to go for a photographic competition. Post Production has it's place but it should not be the be and end all of image making.

Well, I am not aware of any camera, certainly not Canon, that is able to capture a raw image when set to 'Auto'. That is a mute point however, and I have some sympathy for your saying that "Post Production has it's place but it should not be the be and end all of imaging making". I am however a bit sceptical of your assertion that a silk purse can be created from a sows ear LOL. An image that lacks in composition and focus (to state but two) cannot be magically turned into a masterpiece whatever software is used. The basics need to be there in order to, shall we say, enhance it somewhat.

Originally Posted by Flashman_

If you mean that you would like a category with absolutely no manipulations at all then I would support that as I am useless at Photoshop!


An out of camera jpg or tiff would be a better test of a photographers skill.

With all due respect Flashman these two paragraphs of your post are contradictory in themselves. In the first you are supportive of a category with absolutely no manipulations whilst in the second you are advocating the inclusion of jpegs straight out of the camera which have themselves been processed in camera with such things as compression being pre-determined by the manufacturer. Additionally, with some cameras one has the ability to change standard settings such as saturation, contrast, sharpening etc to a much higher degree than with another brand/model of camera. So once again there is no level playing field although I certainly do have sympathy with the motives behind your idea.

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

The organisers could use the 'default' settings for shortlisting with standard sharpening etc and colour profile applied so each image gets the same treatment.

As I've mentioned already Andy - there is NO 'default' settings that would apply equally to each make of camera and camera model and it's even worse when it comes to colour profile. Adobe have gained a bit of notoriety in that after many many years they are still unable to accurately render the colour red from a Canon raw file as can Canons own proprietor application DPP.