I realize the genie is out of the bottle regarding digital imaging software like Photoshop and Helicon, and respect the skill of those that use software. As a photographer, however, I find it questionable to have altered images competing against non-altered ones in MR’s Photo contest.
In my opinion, this year’s winning image, while a wonderful example of digital imaging, is not truly a photograph. The amount of manipulation used to create the image far exceeds the old darkroom tricks of burning and dodging, or wiggling wisps of cotton to create smoke. Several years ago, my favorite photography magazine, Popular Photography, added Imaging to it’s title for this reason.
Perhaps, it is time to change the contest’s name to MR’s Photo and Imaging Contest. Rather then having Digital and Film divisions, maybe we should have Enhanced and Non-Enhanced divisions.
This is just my opinion, feel free to differ. But Please keep it civil and no personal attacks. Also, I sent this same basic letter to MR.
I know I was personally disgusted when the first digitally altered photo won one of the major awards in the contest some years ago. At that time you really needed a high end computer, program and skills to be able to do what the winner did. It was so far beyond what I could even imagine doing with my vastly inferior computer, and digital cameras were hardly even around much. But now I can do pretty well what that contest winner did, although it’s not something that I do very much.
Then too there was a vast outcry from contest participants who felt they were at a disadvantage, not being able to fairly participate any more, myself included. I more or less withdrew from entering in the contest but it didn’t bother me that much because I had won each of the place awards several times using unaltered slide photos.
Whether MR changes the name of their contest doesn’t really seem to matter, but I assume something will be done eventually as film gets passed by. I’d be interested in hearing what MR’s answer to your letter would be rather than what others think because its their magazine and their contest!
Digital Imaging -Vs- Photography…This argument has been around awhile now and I am amazed it still pops up on occassion.
Some have settled it by having two seperate contests and some 2 distinct categories.
I saw the phrase: altered images competing against non-altered and thought to myself are we not altering images as seen by our eye even through use of a camera? we are controlling our lighting, we are controlling our backgrounds, we are contrrolling our shutter speed for use in effects…I’d say thats Altering, Just in a different way.
In a WORD, What does it all come down to?..CREATIVITY
The Best creative Image/Photograph Wins.
In my mind you can make rules and have rules within rules and absolutely destroy the FUN that the contest is supposed to be about.
Yes, Computer graphic artists are going to be better with imaging programs than most of us giving them some advantages, just as Professional Photographers ( or those who made Minitaure Photography a Serious 2nd hobby) had a distinct advantage over the guy with a poloroid and a toilet paper tube pinhole lens cover.
Do we make new rules because now the guy with all the photography equipment and training no longer has an advantage?
OR
Do we make new rules because the guy with the best computer & imaging software won a contest or two? ( is that advantage any different than those who had the best Nikon and lighting equipment 10 years ago?)
I say think less about the equipment and more about the creative nature of the Photo/Image you will submit. You may win and you may lose…OH WELL!!
I have always thought that the seperation of the contest into film and digital was assinine. A demonstration of true stupidity if there ever was one.
I think it would be fun to take a digital picture, manipulate it to the hilt and then run it through a film recorder, which generates a film negative of the digital image. Develop the film, make a print and submit it as a film entry, because it is one. If it won, hopefully, announce how it was made a couple of months later to make that point.
Just what sort of contest is it actually becoming? I suspect that, in the long run, it will no longer really be a “model railroading” contest at all, simply because the images will be so highly manipulated that they become examples of the graphic arts, not of our hobby.
Honestly, I’ve become increasing less and less impressed by many of the images I see on-line and in the magazines as the degree of image manipulation grows ever greater. Recently, I’ve even noted it starting to slip into magazine layout tour photos. Give it enough time and you may see totally fictional images that rival shots of the G&D or F&SM in the magazines…and I’m not joking!
Now this outlook may sound like sour grapes to some but it’s certainly not. Like Railphotog, I’ve placed in MR’s Photo Contest in the past and had many photos in MR, RMC and elsewhere. Likewise, I graduated to digital imaging quite some time ago and am quite adapt at manipulating my layout images, too. However, I still only submit actual photographs for publication. What would be the point, from a hobbyist’s perspective, otherwise? I’m a modeler, not a V-scaler.
I’d ask posters to ponder the question of just what meaning does a “model railroading photo contest” have if the entries no longer depict/represent actual model railroads or an individual’s modeling ability? If the answer is neither, then it simply becomes a sham.
No, in the instance of model railroading, traditionally it has been about images of what you have actually modeled, depicted as realistically as you can make them appear. It’s not about creating some imagined scene where the majority of its elements never existed together in the real world. That’s part of a graphic arts contest.
I think you’ve hit the nail square on the head. In my eyes, photo contests are not 100% about the subject matter, but how that subject is interpreted and captured in the image. It does take some creativity to manipulate the subject and surroundings in order to convey the proper
The contest should be about taking accurate pictures of model railroad scenes. I see no difference between digital cameras and film cameras; and altering the film or digital image would both seem to be out of bounds. I also would exclude the fake smoke stream and other “effects” whether it’s done after the photo or before. The photo should depict what you would see if you went to the layout/diorama and viewed it in person. Otherwise we should call it train pictures and not worry about whether it’s a model, a real train, or someone fooling around with computer software.
Or anywhere for that matter (see some of the photo contests on other forums). In my opinion, as soon as it is altered with darkroom magic other than simple brighten/darken or color correction, it ceases to be a photograph and becomes artwork.
Exactly, it is either a photo contest or a picture composistion contest. It can’t be both.
The process of imagery, if the product is to be judged at all, is a complex one, no matter which system you use…photo or digital, and either one, digitized, can be manipulated with software after the fact.
No matter what you use, a film camera or a digital imaging device with CCD, it is extremely rare to find a simple subject that has not been imaged with several different imaging-relevant settings so that the most pleasing aspect is produced for presentation in media format. This is where the subjectivity comes to play…who says what is most pleasing? That is the factor that determines winners.
When you run a foot race, whomever places first wins. It is against an objective and quantifiable standard. Not so with imagery. Imagery contests are about pleasing the judges on what may be subjective criteria, or at least those criteria are qualitative. That necessarily means that there will be at least some disagreement, and that is sure to be reflected in feedback and in scoring. If it is honestly undertaken, you can’t even call it human error, because those judges are scoring as honestly as they can…there is no “measurement”, so no error.
Personally, an image is an image. I am intelligent enough to know that smoke rising from a train in an image purporting to be a model is going to be faked or at best artificial, including artificially inserted using software. I don’t see how that is different from manipulating the exposure or the depth of focus, or the timing of the shutter, or even the back and side lighting, or using reflectors that otherwise wouldn’t be there. What counts is what is presented, no matter how it was made. That is is of a steaming and smoking steamer suggests to me that I am not seeing what the camera imaged, and I am fine with that. It’s still an image contest, and I will
I’ve long wished they split between pictures of actual layouts vs. temporary dioramas…I mean, it’s one thing to be able to reproduce a realistic scene in your basement and make a real-looking photo of it, it’s another to slap a piece of snaptrack on a board, add some ground foam and ballast, and photograph a train sitting on it with the real Grand Canyon or Rockies or something behind it. Sure it might be a great picture, but how much of it is really “model railroading”??
BTW am I the only one that noticed that the digitally added locomotive smoke always look fake because it doesn’t cast a shadow like real smoke does ??
It defeats the whole “Model Railroad Photo Contest” build it to look real.
What ever happened to having a contest to show off how good of a modeler you are to create a scene on your layout/diorama, not computer. Maybe it should be called Scene Contest not Photo Contest.
I think a rep from MR replied to similar questions a while ago stating they were looking for the best images of model railroads, period. Not concerned how they were produced. Probably still the same.
How would one prove that an image had not been digitally altered? Or was altered?
I recall many years ago reading in a photography magazine the great extent that a particular famous black and white photographer (Ansel Adams?) went to in order to print his award winning photos. He had precise instructions on how to dodge, burn, etc. the images being made in a darkroom, and had special tools to do it.
I recall being reall amazed at the amount of effort it took to produce the images, as I never realized such work would take place. I had my own darkoom and would do similar work in very basic steps, so I had an idea what was involved. So esentially this great photographer was “creating” finished images from his negatives using his experience and techniques. So tweaking images isn’t something new, it just became easier to do with digital.
Funny, but that was exactly who came to mind when I was composing my post, Bob. [:)] Mine was getting long, so I didn’t get into my expectation that his photo renditions were very cleverly done…very highly skilled, too.
Just look at practically any magazine in print today or infommercial on TV or blockbuster movie on the big screen or pop hit on the Billboard chart and digital manipulation is “the norm”. It’s a pervasive attitude nowadays (in practically all walks of life) that you have to continually “wow” your audience because they are too quickly “bored” with yesterday’s “best”.
That’s not to say that all manipulation is bad. Sometimes it is nice to see a photo that hasn’t been altered or changed. However, I’m sure there have been a few that have crossed my eyes…and I didn’t realize it. Most of the time though - after close scrutiny and taking in a number of considerations - you can tell when a picture or image has been manipulated.
Perhaps the photo contest could be divided up into two catagories: “As is” and “Enhanced”. Course, I would imagine that the line between the two could get pretty blurry (no pun intended). Even with film technology and an SLR, you can “alter” a picture by just the method you go about to take it. That would be a tough one to define and regulate.
It just takes a different set of skills. You still have to light the scene properly. You still have to have a good model. The camera still has to be focused.
In some ways it improves the average person’s chances because in previous years the way to get those effects was with a room full of darkroom equipment. Now all it takes is a piece of software and for the equivalent cost of one engine, anybody can have access to the same imaging technology. After that it requires the skill and artistry of the person manuipulating the photo to get an award winning one. Just because you have Photoshop loaded on your computer doesn’t mean you can produce a better picture. You still have to practice the skills equivalent to dodging and burning, just with a computer. You still have to MAKE the better picture.
And that is the purpose of the contest. The artistry of the photo.
Good points all around. There is a distinct difference between film and digital to be sure and perhaps it is this clear distinction that makes it such a controversy, but I don’t think the subject of discussion should be “fairness” or how much it costs to do digitial altering. Back in the “good old days” there definitely was an advantage for the guy that had the funds to purchase a high end SLR over the guy with the 126 camera (anyone remember those?), the professional lighting versus magic cube and of course the guy that had the skill to make those really cool pinhole attachments (MR had an article on how to make one and I think scratchbuilding an HO Big Boy would be easier). Arguably the use of a film camera or attachment to one that gives a greater depth of field is some sort of altering as the picture resulting from their use may have a greater depth of field than what the human eye can see.
Other than having separate categories for film and digital, I’m not sure any more distinction is possible unless there is a definition of “altering” that could be easily understood and then determined by the judges. Simply saying “no software” won’t cut it. A guy that uses photoshop to change the contrast of his pic is doing nothing more than the majority of the photo processors do automatically. Is the use of filters on a film camera altering? Is there a difference between photoshopping myself into the cab of an engine and the old method of taking a pic of myself, cutting it out and putting it in the cab and then taking a pic? What of double exposing? To come up with a fair definition of “altering” IMHO would be darn near impossible.
The other difficulty would be enforcement. How would the judges determine which photos had been altered? Seems to be the contest could simply become a contest of which digital guru is able to “put one by the judges.”
I think a number of folks have touched on the real issue: if you’re having a contest, establish the objectives and criteria…is the objective the most pleasing image or is it the recording of the best modelling? If it’s recording the best modeling, should the model be functional (part of a layout) or are static dioramas allowed? Methinks that categorizing in this way pretty much stops the arguments.
Personally, I sometimes like to play around with photoshop - not to artificially improve my modeling skill but to improve the image. When I run trains on my layout I automatically “block out” the doors, windows, carpets, fascia etc. of my real-world train room and selectively focus on the layout, but I find it harder to do that when I look at a photo. Therefore, if I drop in a sky or something along those lines in a photo to eliminate these real-world distractions, what’s the harm? (as long as I “fess up” about it if I post the pic). Not always, but usually, it’s still apparent where the real-world layout ends and the digital world begins. As long as we all voluntarily disclose our manipulations, all’s fair.