Photographer of the Year 2011

Originally Posted by Forseti

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.

No worries, my work already gets published and sells, so being unable to enter a particular category will not really make that much of a difference to me. I will just continue to enjoy the art of photography as always, come what may - and as you mention, it will be interesting to see feedback from the PR team.

I should add that I treat and keep my off camera files unedited and intact for Exif data etc. Converting them directly to .Tiff files before considering any post editing processing work, so that there is minimal loss of data beyond that lost within the cameras onboard conversion.

[AndyStevens]

OK ok ok ok - I said I wouldn't make another post regarding this RAW category suggestion, but I need to as, I'm afraid to say, despite several explanantions, you're still slightly missing the point Forseti.

Originally Posted by Forseti

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.

Uploading the original RAW file for shortlisting is not to confirm ownership of the image, it is to confirm no edits or adjustments have been made to the uploaded jpg. Here's how I would suggest it could work;

1. Take a photo in RAW.

2. Open in your preferred RAW convertor, make no adjustments whatsoever, save a jpg out.

3. Upload/enter the jpg into the RAW category.

4. If shortlisted, instead of supplying a high-res file, you supply the original RAW file so the judges can ensure the entered jpg had not been adjusted in anyway. If they consider the jpg has been edited, they do not then consider it for final judging or a prize.

Shimples

And it's photographers like Andy (beaxreflets) that I think could do well in this category (although I'm sorry you can't as you don't have RAW facility currently). Those people who can take good, appealing images without extensive use of editing software stand a very good chance of winning a prize. If it only needs a slight tweak or crop to make you happy, then the original RAW file must be appealing!

[AndyStevens]

Now, for a better suggestion...

Are PR considering improving the upload/entry process? The site ground to a halt near the deadline (as do most competition sites to be fair).

How about a separate comp entry site that runs off a server in a data centre with burstable connections?

Or staged entry dates? Landscapes by Sept 10th, Portraits by Sept 31st, Urban by ... etc etc. Spread the load as it were.

Cheers
Andy

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

Uploading the original RAW file for shortlisting is not to confirm ownership of the image, it is to confirm no edits or adjustments have been made to the uploaded jpg. Here's how I would suggest it could work;

1. Take a photo in RAW.

2. Open in your preferred RAW convertor, make no adjustments whatsoever, save a jpg out.

3. Upload/enter the jpg into the RAW category.

4. If shortlisted, instead of supplying a high-res file, you supply the original RAW file so the judges can ensure the entered jpg had not been adjusted in anyway. If they consider the jpg has been edited, they do not then consider it for final judging or a prize.

Shimples

And it's photographers like Andy (beaxreflets) that I think could do well in this category (although I'm sorry you can't as you don't have RAW facility currently). Those people who can take good, appealing images without extensive use of editing software stand a very good chance of winning a prize. If it only needs a slight tweak or crop to make you happy, then the original RAW file must be appealing!

The fact is that my Fuji

1. Takes a RAW image.
2. Coverts it in Fuji prefered onboard converter and saves to .jpeg out!

The same thing you propose Andy

Whether the RAW converter is on board camera or on your PC is totally irrelevant. The simple fact is that there is little difference - For some Fuji camera's the RAW facility is there and Fuji provide the converter software for the PC, MAC.

I am just astounded at the mythical fixation surrounding RAW - when in essence as said before its the end result that matters.

[karenoliver]

I agree about the end result being important. Seems to me the whole point of having a raw-only category would be to prove that no manipulation took place and that it would evidence that? Yet, even in the darkroom photographers can process negatives in a certain way, and can do all sorts of things to enhance a print.

Surely photography is all about the end result, the visual effect upon the viewer?

Where do you draw the line? Do you ban portraits that are supposed to be candid yet they were really posed?
Do you refuse to accept work where a photographer used an ND filter to reduce the light, or used coloured filters on the lens?

Look at the work of Gregory Crewdson. He could submit a raw file, yet all his manipulation if you like his carried out in camera, on set. He manipulates the entire scene. A street scene is composed of actors, the cars etc are props, his photographs are like film sets. He sits high above the scene controlling the lights , the actors and nobody is allowed in or out of the scene. Uses artificial snow, can produce rain from hoses, nothing is real at the time.

Would a raw file from him be accepted?

Karen

[AndyStevens]

In a word Karen, yes

Gregory goes to the lengths to get the image right and I would imagine his RAW files would look fairly spectacular.

My initial thoughts re a RAW category were more inline with submitting slides - there's little manipulation you could apply to a slide and the result was more down to camera craft and the photographer's skill. And a RAW file would provide the evidence... I hear what you're saying Andy, I guess I'm now starting to think that I just don't trust everyone - we should be able to have an 'un-edited' category - but adjustments could be made and EXIF stripped etc by those determined to win...

Posed portraits, ND filters, lens choice, shutter choice - all skills that add to the taken image if done well, but detract if done badly.

Cheers
Andy

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

OK ok ok ok - I said I wouldn't make another post regarding this RAW category suggestion, but I need to as, I'm afraid to say, despite several explanantions, you're still slightly missing the point Forseti.

No, I understand the point you are making completely Andy. I think it may be the case though that you are misunderstanding my point though LOL as I was referring to the comment made by Andy number 2 with regards to how the POTY competition stands at this time. To repeat:

It is my understanding (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.

Originally Posted by beauxreflets

The fact is that my Fuji

1. Takes a RAW image.
2. Coverts it in Fuji prefered onboard converter and saves to .jpeg out!

In case you weren't aware Andy 2 LOL (apologies if you already are) but the initial capture of images by all cameras is in raw format - irrespective of what mode the camera is set to. This is a physical characteristic of the sensor/camera in so much that all available data, or at least as much as the sensor allows for, is captured by the camera. The mode you select (in most cameras) determines what happens to that captured data. With the camera set to raw format then the captured data is saved as is with a small jpeg image being embedded for LCD viewing. In fact, the camera histogram is representative of this embedded jpeg image and not the raw data as a whole which can also be a little misleading. The prime difference when setting the camera to jpeg mode is that the captured raw data is then rendered as a complete jpeg file and saved as such. There are applications available for simply extracting the embedded jpeg file from the original raw file which is something that I used to do simply for the fun of it.

And this highlights one of the problems as I see it. Your Fuji is rendering out a jpeg in-camera to a standard as determined by Fuji engineers which in all probability is different (not saying worse or better) than if you had the ability to save out the raw data and render it in ACR or some other such rendering software. My point being - that different software will render out different raw files in different ways - even at default settings. In fact, one can go further and say that even one piece of software will render different camera raw files in different ways. In short, there is no starting point or level playing field in which to judge how a raw file has been rendered. The only solution would be that everyone would have to submit say CR2 files and they would all have to be rendered using ACR at default settings. This would exclude half the population - well not literally of course but you see my point.

Originally Posted by beauxreflets

I am just astounded at the mythical fixation surrounding RAW - when in essence as said before its the end result that matters.

A very salient point Andy 2 and the prime reason why I personally see nothing to be gained from having a 'raw only' category in any subsequent POTY competitions.

Some people are happy placing a roll of film in their camera and then taking the completed roll down to their local chemist/developing shop. The process used, or if in fact the chemicals are fresh or days old is of little or no interest to them (in fact how many even ask) - it is the end result that is important to them. For others, perhaps more critical they'll set up a darkroom (and yes I have one) and process/develop this roll of film for themselves where they have more control over the finished product.

The same can be applied to the digital negative - the raw file. Either import the data and let the software handle the rendering process, leave everything set to default and then export out a jpeg image. Me, I prefer to import my raw data into Lightroom, edit the image to what I believe is satisfactory and, if for subsequent printing or what have you, export a jpeg. Either way, it is as you say - the end result that matters and upon which judgement can and should be made.

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

Here's how I would suggest it could work;

1. Take a photo in RAW.
2. Open in your preferred RAW convertor, make no adjustments whatsoever, save a jpg out.
3. Upload/enter the jpg into the RAW category.

Ok fine - but no adjustments equates to default settings. Without listing them all their values, in ACR/LR there are default settings for Brightness, Contrast, Sharpening and Noise reduction all of which have plus (positive) values applied as default. These are as applies to raw CR2 files - are these same default values applied to NEF files or would in fact NEF files, even at default settings, be rendered much better in Aperture.

This will be my last post regarding this subject - not because I've not found it uninteresting, but due to the fact that I think this discussion has run it's course and either PR will see the merits in having a raw only category in the POTY competition or they won't.

I'll finish by saying this though, and as one who does in fact shoot 100% raw if you disregard the few entries I've submitted into the weekend competition which, because I don't take it all that seriously, are in the main jpegs - it's the end result that matters and not the methods used in getting there.

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

In a word Karen, yes
My initial thoughts re a RAW category were more inline with submitting slides - there's little manipulation you could apply to a slide and the result was more down to camera craft and the photographer's skill.

Really - that's a new one on me and I've shot and processed thousands. My initial 'manipulation' if we can call it such is in my initial choice of slide film for the subject in hand which, as you may know can greatly affect the end results.

[AndyStevens]

You're right Forseti, it's not that this is uninteresting, but we've well and truly run our course

My reason for suggesting a RAW category was so people who are good photographers, but have little skill or interest in manipulation, would feel more comfortable entering knowing they were on a more level playing ground.

I completely understand and take on board your comments that it is the final result that really matters. And thanks for outlining exactly how the camera/sensor handles all the 1's and 0's to make a jpg image from a RAW file. I already fully understand that but I would imagine many readers of your post wouldn't have beforehand.

I just get a little sad when I think of the increasing number of 'how to add skies' 'how to fake bokeh' 'how to create shallow DoF' 'how to make a silk purse from a pig's ear' kind of articles and the decreasing number of 'how to actually achieve this in-camera' articles. I almost whooped with joy when I saw the latest Digital SLR Photography magazine with it's article dedicated to Manual Mode This is again why I think a 'this is exactly what I took' category could work.

And as mentioned a few times before, I like the concept but don't see it as workable in reality...

As for slides... Yes, you could choose to manipulate the scene by choosing Velvia for a more saturated landscape. I did say 'there's little manipulation' as I was thinking of no dodging/burning/contrast boosts etc during slide processing. Yes, you can scan them and do the same these days but back in the 80's...

Now for the next discussion - perhaps we do that one over a few beers

Cheers
Andy

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

Now for the next discussion - perhaps we do that one over a few beers

Now that's something that I could go along with. It would have to be beer of the Bavarian variety though - can't stand that water you pass of as beer.

Originally Posted by AndyStevens

I just get a little sad when I think of the increasing number of 'how to add skies' 'how to fake bokeh' 'how to create shallow DoF' 'how to make a silk purse from a pig's ear' kind of articles and the decreasing number of 'how to actually achieve this in-camera' articles.

Well, in spite of our earlier discussions (won't mention a certain category again ) I do have considerable sympathy for your viewpoint in this regard. I, like others have mentioned, attempt to get as much of it right in-camera as possible editing only to compensate for the shortcomings of the camera itself. We must remember that digital photography is still in it's relatively early stages and it will be interesting to see what future developments bring in the way of sensor technology. The only time that I do practice extensive editing are for one-off projects - usually to achieve an overall effect to satisfy a clients wishes and with these it's often easy to see that it has been my editing skills (or lack of LOL) that have been called into play as opposed to photographic skills.

[AndyStevens]

Originally Posted by Forseti

Now that's something that I could go along with. It would have to be beer of the Bavarian variety though - can't stand that water you pass of as beer.

Now I'm worried, just thinking of my last session involving Bavarian beer - it all got very messy