• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

POLL: should mulitple merged shots be allowed in the competion

Should merged images be allowed as competion entries

  • Yes - Why not?

    Votes: 11 50.0%
  • No - Its about photography not photoshopography

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .

Peeej

Active Member
Following on from a discussion on the 'Its not valid thread'

The "It's Not Valid But I'll Post It Anyway" Thread | Page 4 | AVForums

I have created a poll and thread to discuss whether the use of diptych/triptych/quadtych (?) (multiple images merged into a single image) should be allowed in the monthly competitions or not?

Please vote but also give some reasoning behind your votes.

The poll is live for 5 days which hopefully means that we will have a result before the next comp starts but, of course, the final decision is down to Zone as the moderator of the comp......

thanks

Peeej
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
I don't have an issue with it. Last month's winner clearly was multiple pics, and there's at least one entry this month that is. I'm sure there'll have been other examples in the past too such as swapped skies etc. Also, how far do you take it on what you can and can't do in PP, for example I've cloned things out before, are we going to stop this too?

I think it should be allowed, but if people don't think it should win based on the fact they prefer shots to be SOOC etc then just don't vote for it :) That way you're not limiting it, but you also have the right to assess and vote as you choose.
 

Peeej

Active Member
OK I think that No only single images should be allowed, this is because firstly its hard to determine whether the shots are both eligible for the comp, secondly not everyone has the time to spend editing their shots.
 

Marika

Well-known Member
I don't think I can decide one way or another. I would accept triptych/diptych type of photos. But I wouldn't want to accept completely merged/shopped photos where you can't really tell if there's one or more shots involved. However.. if someone is doing multiple exposure, hence there are three shots, that would be fine with me always. After all, that is the exact same shot with different exposure. And if someone likes to do that (I'm certainly not one of them, never done a multiple exposure in my life), then feel free. Multilayer shots though, with different images, that's just too confusing I think. And photo shopping elephants in your picture.. well, how many of us can actually get shots of wild animals grazing in Tanzania? This whole thing seems to be a bit of a hot potato. And I think last time this discussion came up, we simply decided without any polls, that it's not a good idea. One photo, edit it the way you like and that's that. Simple.
 

Jonstone

Well-known Member
I am not so against images that have been photoshopped in a very obvious way like last months winner but I do have a problem with some other more subtle changes like changing the sky etc.

So long as any photoshop changes are clearly identified so people can make that informed choice as to how it affects their perception of the image then that is fine with me.

For instance, if someone changes the sky for a better one, then that sort of change should be declared, along with a reference to where they got the new sky image from.

If I voted for an image, only to find out that the sky was from one picture and the grass from another, and this person was added and that person taken away, and some of the images were not the OPs or were taken at a different time then I would not be happy with that.

This all complicates matters which is why I feel it shouldn't be allowed, but if it is allowed then those alterations should be clearly identified by the OP

Maybe if every entry had the sooc shot accompanying the entry it would help people decide whether the alterations were too extreme, and have the added benefit of showing some of us less able photo shoppers what can be achieved and how a photo can be improved which may be beneficial to our own skills
 

anibap

Well-known Member
Maybe if every entry had the sooc shot accompanying the entry it would help people decide whether the alterations were too extreme, and have the added benefit of showing some of us less able photo shoppers what can be achieved and how a photo can be improved which may be beneficial to our own skills

I like that idea. It will give everyone enough information to decide and vote on what they think is a good image on merits they value the most.
 

anibap

Well-known Member
I personally think every picture should be allowed as long as it follows the current rules of this comp or any other competition as such . SOme competitions are quite strict about extreme photo shopping and composites. While photography and photo retouching are different skills, they are often quite inseparable to certain content and intent of a photo.

A SOOC image actually means nothing as often it does not always capture the scene as seen at that time - due to limitations of camera or skills or both. This is where basic edits are important to make it look like how it wase or how the photographer wanted to see it or it can even cross over to artistic freedom where the creator can make it look very different to what it actually was - 500px comes to mind :D
 

shotokan101

Banned
I've voted NO - but I think that is a "qualified no" - in that I think that it might be acceptable to use multiple images to produce an HDR image..... but replacing skies or adding (and maybe removing? - other than dust bunnies or the odd small piece of litter etc.) objects no.


Jim
 

thedude

Distinguished Member
you open up a can of worms with this, i dotn have an issue with this and if they are or not. But we need clear rules either way. We should also have rules on critiquing as well in order to officiate better. Even if i dont post a pic i do like to vote. I'd like to see votes on a number of basis ie concept, execution and fitting the profile of the theme. And maybe make everyone vote on everyones pics to see how it works. But hey ho thats me im grumpy old and like to moan.

i'd disagree with Jim i dont think HDR should be allowed, but i did think this month i would to a time lapse image but i didnt in the end as my concept was well above my limited skills
 

Vigmandingo

Active Member
I agree with 'biccies'. For me, a lot of the skill now is the PP, just as it was when it came to developing your own prints many years ago.

"If it slides..." then slide it ;)
 

car-man

Well-known Member
I don't believe in allowing multiple images/changing skies, backgrounds, adding items/people etc.

One photo with the usual editing such as the usual slider functions/cropping is fine in my opinion.
 

BubbleDouble

Distinguished Member
I voted "yes", they should be allowed, but only if people give a very honest and clear indication of what pp has been done to it. Should rules be introduced to clearly define what pp is allowed and what isn't? For example exposure adjustment is okay, but replacing an entire sky isn't. IMO this would be near impossible to police and I'm sure Zone already has enough to do with just checking the EXIF, without trying to guess what's been done to a photo.
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
I am not so against images that have been photoshopped in a very obvious way like last months winner but I do have a problem with some other more subtle changes like changing the sky etc.

So long as any photoshop changes are clearly identified so people can make that informed choice as to how it affects their perception of the image then that is fine with me.

For instance, if someone changes the sky for a better one, then that sort of change should be declared, along with a reference to where they got the new sky image from.

If I voted for an image, only to find out that the sky was from one picture and the grass from another, and this person was added and that person taken away, and some of the images were not the OPs or were taken at a different time then I would not be happy with that.

This all complicates matters which is why I feel it shouldn't be allowed, but if it is allowed then those alterations should be clearly identified by the OP

Maybe if every entry had the sooc shot accompanying the entry it would help people decide whether the alterations were too extreme, and have the added benefit of showing some of us less able photo shoppers what can be achieved and how a photo can be improved which may be beneficial to our own skills
I agree, apart from the posting your SOOC shots as mine are awful :laugh:
 

rockchick762k

Active Member
After having a good think abut this question, I was going to vote NO! Actually on reflection I don't think I really have an issue with it. I probably would't do it myself as it takes far to much time to just get one picture I am happy with. I think it could be left for individuals to chose this method if they like and then up to the voters if they like it and want to vote for it. :)
 

scottydog101

Standard Member
I think a photograph becomes something else if it has too much manipulation, it just becomes an image or illustration rather than a photograph. Although in reality a photograph from a digital camera is only an image anyway in a literal sense.

The votes cast by the masses will eventually reflect if the effort to manipulate an image that much is worth it.
 

shotokan101

Banned
I voted "yes", they should be allowed, but only if people give a very honest and clear indication of what pp has been done to it. Should rules be introduced to clearly define what pp is allowed and what isn't? For example exposure adjustment is okay, but replacing an entire sky isn't. IMO this would be near impossible to police and I'm sure Zone already has enough to do with just checking the EXIF, without trying to guess what's been done to a photo.

At the end of the day this is going to be basically an "Honour System" as with digital images you can't even really "trust" the shooting date info as I certainly could make my entries "comply" irrespective of when they were shot and even whether they were my images or not.

So having said that I don't really see the "Policing" as a particularly important aspect that should influence us as participants in deciding what we think should be "within the rules" - if rules are defined and anyone chooses to cheat then so be it IMO....
Jim
 

Marika

Well-known Member
I must say, I agree with Jim. I'm not, for one, interested enough to snoop anyone's pictures more than maybe the date and that mostly just by accident if I view the picture larger in Flickr, for example. I certainly have never even tried to figure out anyone's pictures, if they're real or not or if there's more than one image used or not. My naivety is spectacular, that way. Because I have been honest with my pictures, I've assumed everyone else has been... That's the curse of honesty. And I think people probably have been honest. I just hope that can continue. And now, having seen all these comments, I don't think a rule change is needed or as such, even possible. Too many variables. One image, basic editing (meaning light, shadow, colour etc.) and that's that. So I guess after all this, I'm going to vote for NO.
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
I must say, I agree with Jim. I'm not, for one, interested enough to snoop anyone's pictures more than maybe the date and that mostly just by accident if I view the picture larger in Flickr, for example. I certainly have never even tried to figure out anyone's pictures, if they're real or not or if there's more than one image used or not. My naivety is spectacular, that way. Because I have been honest with my pictures, I've assumed everyone else has been... That's the curse of honesty. And I think people probably have been honest. I just hope that can continue. And now, having seen all these comments, I don't think a rule change is needed or as such, even possible. Too many variables. One image, basic editing (meaning light, shadow, colour etc.) and that's that. So I guess after all this, I'm going to vote for NO.
I don't even notice the date tbh lol. I'm just very trusting and take it for granted that the entry is valid. After all it's just a friendly competition and it's pretty sad if people deliberately cheat. I tend to give a brief description of the PP I've done, and will continue to do so. If I ever do get to grips with PS and choose to merge images, skies etc etc I will clearly state this.
 

Peeej

Active Member
Yeah I'm the same TBH, I tend to look at the EXIF purely to see what setting were used, don't look at the dates or anything just trying to learn. I guess if people are sad enough to cheat then that's their problem. Its all for fun and cheating doesn't necessarily make a shot a winner.

I'd like to think that the people here are an honest bunch, judging by some of the criticism of some of my shots, too honest ;)
 

steven_9709

Active Member
Personally, I don't like to see loads of PP. I much prefer to see shots that are more or less SOOC. I'm not against a bit of sharpening, or cloning to remove dust bunnies etc, or B&W conversions/sepia etc but anything more than that that adds/takes away from the original shot doesn't do it for me. Maybe a link should be supplied in the entry to the original unaltered shot hosted on Flickr etc, along with a description of what was done in PP to get the final image/effect. People can then decide to vote on it or not themselves based upon this.
Sorry Jim, but your egg timer falls into this! Just a personal opinion though, I'm certainly not jealous of peoples photoshop skills! (well, maybe a little!)
 

biccies

Active Member
As has been mentioned, this is just a friendly competition. I too assume that shots entered into the compo have been taken that month, etc. I voted yes as I believe the post processing is part of the photography process. I do agree that replacing the sky would seem a bit dishonest. However, my initial idea for the 'Through a child's eyes' theme was to take a shot of a climbing frame and overlay a picture of a castle. I got the castle picture taken in the month but I didn't manage to get a shot of a climbing frame- mostly due to my reluctance to take a DSLR into a park with children around! Clearly that would have been done by merging images, it would have been quite obvious. It would be a shame to limit entry ideas.

If people don't like the appearance of PP or edits then I suppose those photos will not receive as many votes. But you might as well allow people the chance to sway you into liking their photo enough to vote for it.
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
Personally, I don't like to see loads of PP. I much prefer to see shots that are more or less SOOC. I'm not against a bit of sharpening, or cloning to remove dust bunnies etc, or B&W conversions/sepia etc but anything more than that that adds/takes away from the original shot doesn't do it for me. Maybe a link should be supplied in the entry to the original unaltered shot hosted on Flickr etc, along with a description of what was done in PP to get the final image/effect. People can then decide to vote on it or not themselves based upon this.
Sorry Jim, but your egg timer falls into this! Just a personal opinion though, I'm certainly not jealous of peoples photoshop skills! (well, maybe a little!)
I understand with this, but what happens if people start to judge on the SOOC images and some shoot RAW and some JPEG? The jpeg will generally look better than the RAW SOOC and will make it look like the RAW shot has had more PP done :confused:
 

shotokan101

Banned
Also you'd need to "ban" any use of "scene modes" as well I guess - but I don't think anyone is really suggesting that the competition should only allow SOOC entries so let's not get "too" diverted ;)

Jim
 

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom