Photographer of the Year 2011

[ABERS]

Originally Posted by russbarnes

For what it's worth:

1. I would like to see a return of a black and white only round as it's a significant part of photography which requires a specific skill.

...

I raised this point when the categories were announced, to be met with the reply, "Well there's nothing to stop you entering a B+W image in any of the groups".

This is true but the POTY award is for the photgraph of the year not Photographer of the Year, so you don't necessarily need a wide portfolio of images or skills to win it.

Whilst the final judging panel is only presentd with images that are deemed worthy by another set of judges who have no particular standing in the photographic world it's difficult to imagine how many other pictures worthy of the top prize have been deemed not good enough.

Good luck to all those who have been shortlisted, especially those who reside in the UK, you'll need it.

[matt wilson]

How a bout a competiton where you don't throw your toys out of the pram if you don't get shortlisted .And if you do end up getting petty then you disqualify yourself from entering the following year or until you can prove you have grown up !

[russbarnes]

It'll never catch on Matt

[AndyStevens]

BTW, I've discovered a way we can apply exactly the same settings to all RAW files irrespective of camera make and model. Images could then be output to exactly the same format/standard. This is using some of the software I have access to at work (there are two I could use) and I could ensure Photoradar/Future get access to said software FOC should they want to pursue a RAW category for POTY 2011.

To PR and Future staff - I've had dealings with your production department before. If you're interested in this, I could speak to someone in production with the initials JH (without giving names away on here). He should recognise my name and will probably guess what software I'm talking about - certainly one of them. Just let me know if you'd like to discuss further - and as I said, I could make sure this was free for the competition.

Cheers
Andy

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

BTW, I've discovered a way we can apply exactly the same settings to all RAW files irrespective of camera make and model. Images could then be output to exactly the same format/standard.

Andy, I've lost track of the reason for the desire of a raw file category. Without reading back through pages of posts could you please do me a big favour and post a summary? It might also be helpful if you were to place yourself in the position of being a judge and tell me what it is you would be basing your judgement upon.

Entrant X submits a raw file taken using a 5MP non interchangeable lens camera, no live view and with a view finder only showing 93% of the actual view. I meantime submit a raw file taken with my 18MP camera, live view and with a view finder showing me 100% of actual view. Sadly, due to the fact that I am able to change lenses and have done so a thousand and one times already, the submitted raw file shows dozens of dust spots which I have not been allowed to clone out. Also, because I am using one of Canons top of the range and most expensive lenses my image displays a lot more natural sharpness, contrast and definition than that submitted by entrant X and the same settings applied equally to both images may well in fact compromise my image somewhat.

So as a judge, what exactly is it that you would be looking for - surely it can't simply be composition? Sorry, I'm really trying hard to see what is to be gained by the inclusion of a raw category, the point of the exercise and exactly what you mean in post #7 when you say " best shot 'as taken in camera". How would you define best shot? Take a hypothetical case where you have judged that both the image submitted by entrant X and I have equally good composition and that we have both chosen the correct aperture/shutter speed for the subject chosen - let's say portraits. It now comes down to a matter of 'looks' doesn't it. Are you now going to judge my entry as having won simply because I have the more expensive camera able to produce much better images directly from the camera without too much editing when compared to entrant X?

I'm trying to imagine myself setting up both my Canon SX1 IS (fixed lens) and Canon 7D + 100mm/f2.8 lens, composing and shooting exactly the same scene followed by viewing them in LR/ACR using default settings. Comparable? I think not. I might have got somewhere close had I been allowed some post processing but as an unedited raw file - no chance. For starters, the CA on the SX1 is alarming when compared to the 7D and we won't even mention the need for lots of sharpening.

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

BTW, I've discovered a way we can apply exactly the same settings to all RAW files irrespective of camera make and model. Images could then be output to exactly the same format/standard. This is using some of the software I have access to at work....

I'm sure Adobe would be very interested to learn of such a piece of software and no doubt would be prepared to pay an considerable sum to licence it if not purchase it outright.
It must be able to take into account that with some cameras the user is able to set HTP (highlight tone priority) thereby protecting to a greater extent the highlights at the expense of the shadows and of course ignore it or apply it to all images irrespective of whether or not it is needed to maintain the need of applying exactly the same settings. I've already touched on CA - my 7D produces CA free images whilst my SX1 suffers from lots of it so what would be the default setting here - apply CA correction as a default setting or not and if so by how much? My 7D produced raw files would certainly suffer from having an arbitrary value of CA applied when absolutely non is required. The list goes on and on but I'm sure that you're getting my point Andy?

Leaving out the feasibility/practicalities of having a raw category I'm struggling at this time to come up with a single merit for having one at all. Sorry.

[karenoliver]

Its hard for me to get my head around all this technical stuff. Why make it all so complicated? Photography is something we all really enjoy, so just get out there and photograph. If you get a nice shot and its good enough to enter next year then enter it and see what happens. There will always be someone who is a better photographer with a better camera or with access to a better location but that's life?

Anyone heard of Richard Billingham? He was an art student who wanted to paint portraits of his alcoholic father and long suffering mother. He decided to photograph them first and work from the prints. To cut a long story short, he used a cheap camera, out of date film and paid for cheap budget processing at the local chemist. Despite this his photographs were stunning and really documented perfectly the sitution his parents found themselves in. He won lots of prizes with them, exhibited and published them ( Ray's a laugh ) and is now a sucessful photographer and visiting lecturer in universities. Point is, you don't have to have an expensive camera and a good photograph will always show through.

Karen

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by karenoliver

Its hard for me to get my head around all this technical stuff.


To cut a long story short, he used a cheap camera, out of date film and paid for cheap budget processing at the local chemist. Despite this his photographs were stunning and really documented perfectly the sitution his parents found themselves in. He won lots of prizes with them, exhibited and published them ( Ray's a laugh ) and is now a sucessful photographer and visiting lecturer in universities. Point is, you don't have to have ane expensive camera and a good photograph will always show through.

Karen

Oh there's nothing technical about this discussion Karen. As you pointed out in your post with me having highlighted the relevant part, Richard Billingham had his images processed. Quite obvious really otherwise we'd never get to see them.

Andy is proposing a POTY 2011 category for raw files only. These files, irrespective of which make/model of camera or raw file type will be submitted to PR for them to do the processing which they would have to do in order to view them. More, and somewhat ingeneously, they will all be processed in exactly the same way at default settings. This final part to my way of thinking is akin to Richard submitting two rolls of film to the local chemist - one standard film, the other slide film, and asking them to process them using the same process and chemicals.

I look upon it like inviting guests to dinner, leaving it all uncooked in the pot, requesting your guests to cook it and then asking them how tasty it was. A raw file is a digital unprocessed negative and, like the dinner, it's the final presentation - the final image - that should be judged not the half way point.

[AndyStevens]

Please Forseti, take this reply in the vein it is intended - I don't want to appear rude in any way but, for the sake of re-typing virtually the same reply for you over and over, I will make some comments. And these will be my last comments on a RAW category suggestion for POTY 2011. I would happily discuss the infinitesimal minutiae of RAW vs JPG vs TIF vs 8/16/32 bit vs sRGB vs AdobeRGB1998 vs Fogra39L vs blah blah blah but in another forum thread. Or even down the pub until we’ve both glazed over and staff start checking us for a pulse And Karen makes the valid point; we don't need to be technical here and a good image will always show through. This thread is for suggestions; if PR / Future want to pursue any of them, then they can have the technical discussions.

You mention you didn't look through previous posts. Perhaos if you had been bothered to look, you would have seen my comment that this thread is to make suggestions for categories or improvements for POTY 2011 and not discuss finer details. I have done that, I think a RAW category is a good idea which has been backed by others. Have you come up with any suggestions? No, I’ve checked back!

You would also have seen that others, and myself on more than one occasion, have stated that it may be good in principle but probably unworkable in reality. That has changed slightly as I could facilitate it but...

So, what is the point of a RAW category? To highlight someone’s ability to take a picture and get it right in camera through considered composition/lens choice/aperture choice/shutter choice/ subject matter/lighting consideration/filters/etc/etc. There are lots of categories that allow for high levels of manipulation and I would like to see an image taken that has no crops to improve composition/Levels/ Curves/ Contrast/skies swapped etc-type adjustments. I presume then that you’ve only ever shot in the digital age and never entered a slide/transparency into a competition?! Because there were lots of manipulations you could make to a slide... It’s that kind of level playing field (if that’s the right phrase) that I think a RAW category would give.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against image manipulation. I’m very much in favour of a B&W section and appreciate the skill of the manipulator as much as the content of the image. But I could argue that some people use digital cameras and have no B&W mode or a computer to work on (hence the popularity of PictBridge and PhotoBooths) and how would PR facilitate it and we would be excluding them so blah blah blah...but I wont as I think it's a good idea and respect other people's suggestions.

As for camera used? I don’t care! I regularly sell prints, hold exhibitions and get published in newspapers, educational books, guide books etc and I only use a Canon 300D currently with a massive 6.3MP sensor (which is why I couldn’t enter many shots into POTY 2010 as most of my 'best' shots and PR Gallery has been published already). It’s not what you’ve got, it’s what you do with it!! I’ve seen some absolute garbage taken on a Canon 1Ds MkII !!! A Magnum member only uses a compact and Charlie Waite is now offering Light & Land days out for compact owners. The tool is irrelevant – but, as posted by myself and others, not all cameras have a RAW facility so we are potentially excluding people.

If I was a judge, what would I look for? The most appealing photograph – just like any other category. CA etc wouldn't really be seen at a judging viewing distance so technicalities become irrelevant. The images that make me linger for whatever reason would be shortlisted. The image which kept me lingering the longest would be the winner! What would I look for – Wow factor which can’t be explained and just has to be seen on the day and appreciated.

As for you being penalised through dust spots that you couldn’t clone out a RAW file? By a sensor cleaning kit – I have one and use it regularly

As for the software I am proposing, Adobe know them both well as they have helped them both to accept and integrate metadata in particular .xmp packets. They have no intention or interest in buying either of them out as they are non-conflicting/competing solutions and compliment Adobe's products well. I’m not talking the kind of software that you can buy off Amazon here, I’m talking graphic arts industry enterprise level stuff. One would cost you a Canon 1D MkIV with 300mm f/2.8 L attached and was written by the team who used to write software for a well known medium format and digital back company; the other would pay off my mortgage, buy me a new car and have some left over for some Light & Land holidays and a whole new bag of camera kit. As I said, if they are interested, I can make these available to Future for standard processing of files IF a RAW category is to be discussed/added or even just to test if the principle could work.

I’m sorry you don’t see the merits of a RAW category. I, and others, still think it’s a good idea/concept. As stated in previous posts, upload an unprocessed jpg for initial rounds and then the RAW file for shortlisting just so the judges panel can make sure no adjustments were made to the jpg and the EXIF stripped. Let’s see the shot as taken with no tweaks and judge the image on the picture taker’s ability.

You never know, it might encourage a really good photographer, who has no image manipulation skill to use their RAW mode for the first time and enter! A comment made by a viewer at the Landscape Photographer Of The Year Competition recently? “You have to be really good on a computer these days to get a shot like that” – no you don’t! And this could prove it!!

As I said at the start, this is all very friendly and well intentioned – now please Forseti, move on and make positive suggestions for next year’s competition.

This is the last post from me about a RAW category. Next suggestion please

Cheers
Andy

Re the RAW idea - With my entries this year (with the exception of a couple in the Creative editing category) they are all more or less 'just as taken' off camera - In that, little post editing was done beyond, sharpening, tweaks to contast, saturation and an occasional crop (because the lens I use was not powerful enough to get in tighter to the subject!).

Following the POTY category editing guidlines; I cannot really see the need for a seperate RAW category - OK so my camera files are regretably atomatically set as .jpeg files (as the Fuji S8000fd does not provide the RAW data facility option) - You cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear and in my opinion - At the end of the day it is the end result that matters

As I understand it the judges can currently view direct off camera files for comparison to see if an object has been moved to improve an images composition or not!, without the need of a RAW category. And of course one day I will upgrade to a camera offering the RAW facility and no doubt my photography end result will improve ten fold simply through practice.

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by beauxreflets

With my entries this year (with the exception of a couple in the Creative editing category) they are all more or less 'just as taken' off camera - In that, little post editing was done beyond, sharpening, tweaks to contast, saturation and an occasional crop (because the lens I use was not powerful enough to get in tighter to the subject!).


As I understand it the judges can currently view direct off camera files for comparison to see if an object has been moved to improve an images composition or not!, without the need of a RAW category.

Well that would exclude you from the raw category Andy even if you had a raw capable camera. It is being proposed that a raw category be included in the POTY competition whereby the un-edited and original raw file be considered and judged on it's own merits (or otherwise) - no minor tweaks allowed.
It is my understand (maybe wrong of course) is that when a high-res file is requested by the 'team' i.e. original file it is to confirm ownership of the image and not to assess what edits have been made as these have not been excluded.

It would also be nice if someone from the PR team could add a comment or two regarding this raw file category issue and do they see it as being workable, feasible, advantageous or even worthy of consideration.