Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it's not a documentary and it's not a camea test then it must be about photography. For years edits were done in the darkroom before the first digital camera came about. Part of the skills set is in the editing. It's like the edits are part B. Edits need to be explored by those seeking to do there best work and being that there are free editors available it would seem to me that one's best work is what they would want to present to us the judges? Just my 2¢.
If it's not a documentary and it's not a camea test then it must be about photography. For years edits were done in the darkroom before the first digital camera came about. Part of the skills set is in the editing. It's like the edits are part B. Edits need to be explored by those seeking to do there best work and being that there are free editors available it would seem to me that one's best work is what they would want to present to us the judges? Just my 2¢.
I have thought about that myself. You guys with experience will have to share what's usually allowed in contests and then we can discuss what is OK here and what is not.
I show in juried art shows, and each one is different. For example:
The first one this season, allows free edits to the work, no limitations.
The second, NO enhancements whatsoever, if you want to do a lot of edits and enhancements, there is a separate category for that. Now I don't know how they can tell stuff was done to a photograph, unless its a b&w with colorized areas...but some are more stringent than others.
For those of us who shoot in RAW editing is a must. I can see photoshopping items into the original image being a problem, but not adjustments to contrast, brightness, saturation, color balance, edge darkening etc.
For those of us who shoot in RAW editing is a must. I can see photoshopping items into the original image being a problem, but not adjustments to contrast, brightness, saturation, color balance, edge darkening etc.
I agree it should only be a single frame. RAW shooters must edit or be at the mercy of a software program doing it for us. The reason for the single frame is this is a photo, not a graphics art creation. There is a time and place for both and this is for a photo as I understand it.
This will sound, well kind of bad, but RAW for me is for portraiture, weddings, and work that will be hanging in a gallery, or in show...not on an internet forum. I shoot, and post.
I think mild editing should be OK, no adding/removing objects. Just simple color correction and crop should be good enough.
Not everyone has the ability or software to do fancy stuff, so to be fair, basic editing is all we need. Framing is another question, is it allowed or no?
I think mild editing should be OK, no adding/removing objects. Just simple color correction and crop should be good enough.
Not everyone has the ability or software to do fancy stuff, so to be fair, basic editing is all we need. Framing is another question, is it allowed or no?
No preferences on the framing thing but I agree with the editing thing. Honestly for me I like seeing what is captured. Not the capabilities of a graphic editor kwim?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
