Weekly Competition #19 The Monochrome Landscape

Late in the day (and just to prove you'll never get a concensus on this), I really liked McBrian's picture and had it down as top two in my book. I know the Sun's not technically in the right place as per the laws of physics, but I thought it was just in the right spot to make a beautiful image. To be honest, <heresy>I prefer it to Lilly's picture</heresy>.

...and there go my chances in next week's compo...

I think when we judge a competition, we can only apply our own criteria as to what we consider a good image. We can see that John has no problem with the use of photoshop (https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5768&start=10), so we shouldn't expect him to rule out images that make use of it, or mark them down because of it.

The 'rules' of these competitions are very lax, because it's just a bit of fun. Sometimes things get 'placed' that I don't agree with, but I just think "oh well, that's what they like". It's nothing to get stressed about.

We all take photos, or create images, that we like, and then we show them to others who are totally indifferent, or negative, or who like them as much (or more so) than we do. It's why I like to think of photography as an art form.

And on another note, never mind the direction of the sun, what's all this fake 'black and white' photography stuff? It's not like that in real life. There's colour!

Dan

The thing is, as soon as you allow composite images at all, this can of worms isn't just opened, it's opened, and the worms thrown all over the ground. I was being flippant earlier with my comment about the floodlight, but actually I think it's a very serious point.

I simply don't see that if you allow fakery at all, one type of fakery is any better than another, just because (due to the absence of obvious mistakes), it's harder to detect as a fake.

A fake sky is not real. One that's been faked more cleverly isn't any more real, just because it could have been.

I recall a shot posted here some time ago where the clouds had a ton of visual impact, but they were completely unreal, since clouds like that would have been accompanied by a lot more wind, which would have whipped up the water. Which was calm. I happened to notice it simply because I have reason to be interested in the weather a little. I posted an aeroplane picture, and someone suggested that I turn it round to improve the effect. Had I done so, its control surfaces would have been completely wrong for the manoeuvre it was doing.

All of this is just a matter of degree, and the more specialist knowledge you have, the more fakes you will spot. It's not how good they are, to my mind, it's the fact that they're fakes at all.

That said, there's nothing wrong with a competition to see who can create the most apparently real fakes. It's a real skill, and those who are good at it should be recognised for that skill. There's also nothing wrong with a competition that says "there are no rules, the judge's decision is not only final, but doesn't have to be justified".

So I think it's wrong to criticise either Brian (for entering it) or John (for rewarding it) because the competition is in the latter category. You may not like it, but you don't have to enter it.

Personally, I'd like to see the winner of each competition specify not only the theme, but the rules as well. Then we'd have some rule-free comps, which are great, and some comps with rules too, which would also be great, but for different reasons.

Just to be clear, the criteria for judging mean absolute impartiality and a fair viewing for all the images. It also means that sometimes images do well that the judge doesn't actually like. For example, I personally don't go much for sports pictures, but I can recognise a good one.

Often in competitions, regardless of the care taken, we can find that we don't agree with the choice that the judges make. That is quite normal and there's not a lot can be done about it.

It is however a litttle harsh on the image in question as it is after all a powerful black and white creation, albeit it with some weakness at the bottom of the image, as mentioned in the appraisal. I'm happy with it as a worthy third place.

Everyone can have their turn at appraising the images. The winner chooses the next week's competition, judges it and has the final say on who wins and who comes close.

Please remember it's to be enjoyed, not agonised over, so let's have some good entries now for Lilly's new competition.

Now there's a good idea. And since this is a competition without rules, there is no rule to say a winner can't set some rules for his/her competition.

By the way, I agree with your main point, too.

G

ok, i'm being overly critical for no real reason, I'll say no more.

You are simply expressing your personal opinion which is what these forums are for. I for one found it an interesting debate

It's a debate that crops up from time to time in other places as well, but ever since photography was invented there has been manipulation of the images.

Even in the 1850s photographers were putting in fake skies and assembling images from dozens of different negatives. The very famous photo of a young woman lying dying in bed whilst the doctor attends and a relative looks out of the window is actually a multiple-negative fake. But it gets its message across with power and is one of the greats in vintage photography.

Photoshop is no different, it only lets us do what we did in the darkroom more conveniently.

Let's not confuse rules by the way with the competition brief. If someone set a competition, for example, "The Natural Landscape" there could be a stipulation that it was for straight shots only. I don't really see the point, but in this rule-light bit of fun you could if you wanted to.

It's quite interesting that some of us want to be bound by more rules, whereas the competition is designed to allow our imaginations full rein without too much hinderance. I think we have enough rules and regulations in life, but suggestions for new rules can always be posted...

Quite agree, but if a winner wants to impose a rule for that particular week, why not? I think it would add interest and variety.

After all, setting "monochrome" landscape is imposing a rule on top of the subject (the landscape).

G

The winner has always been able to set the parameters for the week's challenge - that's the whole point.

In the case of my Monochrome Landscape, if it can be called a rule, then I did say that the interpretation was up to the photographer. I would just call that a guide to the intent of the brief, which in this case was to be as wide as possible to encourage imagination.

Interesting that no-one opted for the human landscape or macro landscape.

Perhaps we are talking about different things, because I see the rules as being simply the instructions as to when and for how long the competition runs, size of images to be posted, and no discussion of the images within the competition thread until the judging is done. There are likely to be unspoken rules such as no pornographic images, but that has probably been understood by tacit agreement of all parties.

So don't feel constrained when setting the challenge, just state the brief and if you wish also what you have in mind. The challenge is to make the best image within the defined parameters.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the human landscape?

This usually means selective shots of parts of a nude. For example, using texture and shape to perhaps mimic the form of sand dunes.

I suppose it would also be possible to make a psychic-style portrait and suggest that it was representing J G Ballard's concept of the "inner landscape" - the lanscape of our thoughts. He wrote SF novels that tried to mirror our external and inner landscapes, suggesting that the one was influenced by the other.

Heady stuff...

Spencer Tunick

http://www.i-20.com/artist.php?artist_id=19

G

Than you, George, that would have done very nicely.

Wow the Switzerland, Aletsch Glacier 3 (Greenpeace) image is amazing, I wonder how long they had to lie there