Judging Digital Images

[Skyman]

My local camera club is having a raging debate over the judging of digital images. basically the categories they can enter are: colour, monochrome and slide. digital and digitally manipulated images can enter either colour or monochrome categories and are therefore judged to the same standards as silver halide images. this is causing controvery in that digitally "enhanced" images seem to be winning regularly and those without access to the technology cannot compete. the winner of the best print of the year for 2003 was a digital arrangment of three separate slides. this particular image could have been recreated in the darkroom (although the process would have been painfull) personally i see nothing wrong when the superior looking image wins, however i can still see a fairly strong argument for separating manipulated and "raw" images into two separate categories. what are your thoughts. should an "unmanipulated" digital image compete with film ? should all images have unmanipulated and manipulated categories, and what constitues manipulation. are filters ok, but not playing with levels ? what about if it is hand or home printed and with dodging and burning ? can you pick all manipulated images ?

[Sebastian]

Like you said, the winning shot could have been done with slides, although it would have taken more skill. So what's the difference?

I can feather, dodge, burn, crop, cut out, add, colorize, convert to black and white and do whatever else I can think of on both the computer AND in the darkroom. Someone skilled in the darkroom technique would create a better image than I could using the same methods, and I could produce a better image on the computer than they could using the same methods, in the end it's about vision, detemrination, vision, and vision. Just because one sits in front of a computer instead of slaving over chemicals doesn't change the end result...does it?

THere are people out there that do things IN THE CAMERA that put my PS skills to shame. If I have a better image then theirs but it was done on a computer, should theirs win because it was done inside a camera? Or should it win over an image manipulated in a darkroom for the same reason?

However, some images are so fantastic, so unreal, that even though they're made with photos, they are more illustrations.

So where do you draw the line? What is manipulated? Anything beyond dodging, burning, and cropping? Anything done outside the camera? (That last one's tricky, a lot of film cameras allow double exposures which can be used for great effects. Some digital cameras don't have double exposure functions, meaning that any special effect HAS to be done outside the camera.)

I think there has to be some sort of distinction, simply because illustrations require a different way of looking at them than photographs do, there are different things to critique, different ways to get desired results.

It's tricky, but I think one can reach a compromise that will make everyone happy. Nice thing about club rules is that if they don't work, they're easy to change.

Jeez, another rant that goes nowhere...sorry.

[Trevor Ash]

I think Sebastion did a good job rehashing what Skyman already said

I also agree with Seb. There *should* be a distinction. The problem, as Seb well states, is in coming up with that distinction.

That's about as well as I can put it. This is one of those debates that aren't always worth arguing because it can never be black and white.

[Asylum Steve]

I also agree with Seb. There *should* be a distinction. The problem, as Seb well states, is in coming up with that distinction.

...the ground rules are clear ahead of time.

People have a natural tendency to want to catagorize things, especially where competition is involved. Since judging any kind of art is subjective, I think most photographers will have a sense of fair play if they feel they're competing against similar types of image processes.

So in that sense, I think seperate catagories for digitally manipulated and "traditional" photography is the best way to go.

Still, I'm not a big photo competition kind of guy, and I believe highly catagorizing photography takes away from the art in general.

Good example: I love Warhol's work, and have always seen it as photographic. He inpsired me to get into photosilkscreen printing in college. All of my silkscreen work was photographically based. IOW, I started with a photo negative, used it to create density seperations of the image on large litho film, then made seperate screens of each layer and printed it on paper with ink.

Of course, the end result was a print, not a photo, but it had strong photographic qualities, and I always saw it as a product of me being a photographer...

Seb makes a good point about photo-illustration, one that I've made several times on these forums. In the real world (commercial art), the line between a "pure" or "straight" photo and an "edited" or "manipulated" one blurs completely. The end result is what counts.

I find nothing wrong with a photographer having high "standards" for maintaining image purity, but IMO this is purely a self-imposed discipline. I don't think you can discount another artist's work because they did not play by the same set of rules you set up for yourself.

Guess this will always be a gray area, but one that's fun to talk about...

[Michael Fanelli]

this is causing controvery in that digitally "enhanced" images seem to be winning regularly and those without access to the technology cannot compete.

Well, having access to the latest tools should not be an issue. Do we have a separate Pulitzer for pros and another one for amateurs who can't afford to travel and buy expensive equipment? Should the Indy 500 have a special category for those who can't afford the fastest cars? Maybe a separate Olympics for couch potatoes who have no time or money for years of personal training and monitoring equipment.

I am not being facetious here. The bottom line seems to be that the digital images are winning because they are better photographs. Is the point of your contest to choose the best photograph or to worry about preserving an old technology that has trouble competing?

[darkman]

These are tough questions that ultimately end up with vague or "odd" guidlines.

It's interesting becuase preserving the medium is not only a an issue in photography. I follow bicycle racing. You'd think defining a bike would be straight forward. But what defines a bike from a human powered vehicle (HPV)? All of a sudden it's not so simple. The world governing body struggles with this each year.

Someone brought up motor racing. The governing bodies here set up strict guidlines and rules for each series. If not, the best and highest budget teams would be winning by a larger margin than they are now.

With photography, when is an photograph, painting with light, a photograph instead of a pure graphical representaion? In other words, when does the final image have nothing to do with the original and becomes an animea? Some would argue there isn't a difference. Then, should we accept images that the person didn't even take? In old fashioned terms, would a painting be allowed in a photo contest?

I'm not against optimization. Let's face it, it's been done since day one. Check out ansel adams prints made from his negatives verses one he made. HUGE difference. But the best editing in the world won't fix a poor compositon. The exception may be if it was converted in software to something hardly reckognizable from the original.

It aslo sound to me like your club needs to screen judges better, or give them guidlines like composition, presentation etc. At the club level, most people want to learn and get better. A judge that could articulated well is what they want. A good composition is a just that, irregardless of colors. Still, you'll always end up with a flaky judge that will rate on instant impact. Thus, bright bold image will win that month. All in all, take it with a grain of salt and move on.

And as Steve points out, all contests have problems. At the local level I've always noticed that there is an "in" club and their photos end up on the top. Even in our club, I'm convinced the club president, who finds or interviews most of the judges, ends up with a few extra points because of it. If you've gone to many photography web sites, I'm sure you noticed that a popular person will always get kudo's even when they show mediocre work.

This is a tough issue without straight forward answers.

[racingpinarello]

Well, having access to the latest tools should not be an issue. Do we have a separate Pulitzer for pros and another one for amateurs who can't afford to travel and buy expensive equipment? Should the Indy 500 have a special category for those who can't afford the fastest cars? Maybe a separate Olympics for couch potatoes who have no time or money for years of personal training and monitoring equipment.

I am not being facetious here. The bottom line seems to be that the digital images are winning because they are better photographs. Is the point of your contest to choose the best photograph or to worry about preserving an old technology that has trouble competing?

Michael....After just shooting Ilford 3200 film, I would have a hard time finding a digital camera that could one match the wide angle (21mm), using a fast ISO, and being less than $2000. Film can compete just fine with IMPACT images, ie. an image that makes you think... I always have a hard time understanding why you have to bash film. Digital images are not better, but digital cameras allow people to learn faster so the photograper's skills have improved.

There should be a distinction between manipulation of an image, be it from a digital camera or a scanned negative. You say that having access to the latest tools shouldn't be an issue, so wouldn't that lead to a film camera and taking it down to the 1 hour lab?

[Asylum Steve]

Well. ok, not completely flawed. It really depends on the level of competition we're talking about...

Skyman's original post referes to a local camera club. I think it's safe to say whomever judges these events at this level is not a sole arbiter of what really makes a great image, at least not when it comes to the big picture of the world of photographic art. I also think folks at this level are much more impressed, maybe even fooled by heavy digital enhancement, THINKING it's "better" perhaps because they think it's takes more skill (much the way some think heavily "mixed" or sampled music is "better" than traditionally created music).

So ok, I realize you're responding to his comments. In that context, what you say makes some sense.

However, in the larger world of more competative photo contests, your arguments don't really hold up:

"Well, having access to the latest tools should not be an issue..."

Like it or not, with many art competitions, it's often a very important issue. A judged show of Polaroid transfer images has to be just that. Not slides, not silver prints, not poster size digitally edited prints. Precise description of media is often the key to sorting out how certain images will compete with others.

Graphic art competitions are sometimes broken down into dozens of catagories, including the type of software program you may have used to create a piece.

I'm not saying this is good, in fact it's one reason I don't particularly like art competitions, but it's a reality of the way they are run.

"Do we have a separate Pulitzer for pros and another one for amateurs who can't afford to travel and buy expensive equipment? Should the Indy 500 have a special category for those who can't afford the fastest cars?..."

I don't think these are legitmate parallels to what we're talking about, because now you're comparing local camera club competitions to large showcase national events in non-art related fields. Can't really do that...

Still, if you want to make that analogy, I'd have to mention that ALL kinds of cars race; everything from a multi-million dollar Formula One team to a bucket of bolts at a local dirt track. Would the Formula One car ever be allowed to compete with the junk cars? No, the slower, cheaper cars (and everything in between) have SEPERATE catagories that they race in. That's what keeps things fair...

THIS is what we mean when we say there sometimes needs to be a distinction between digital and non-digital images in competition. It's not really about money, but more that a heavily manipulated (which again is what we're talking about) image becomes a different animal than a "straight" shot, and so logically should be judged against similar images.

It's not a question of better or worse, but the fact that heavy digital editing in a sense has created a new media (much like oil and watercolor are two seperate catagories of painting). At least that's how I see it. But, as Seb says, where do we draw the line? Personally, I feel it should based on appearance. If an image doesn't appear to be manipulated, I don't think it should be catagorized that way, even if it was.

"The bottom line seems to be that the digital images are winning because they are better photographs..."

This may be true in a camera club, but again I want to emphasize that being PERCEIVED as better doesn't mean they really are.

I have yet to meet ANY pro, serious amateur, or photo artist who uses digital now because they think the resulting images are BETTER than they could have gotten with film. It simply isn't true.

It's almost entirely about ease and flexibility of workflow, economics, and the ability to personally control image processing and editing in ways that previously had to be left to others.

Does anyone else here think photography has gotten BETTER during the age of digital? I mean the actual images we look at? God, I sure don't. In fact, I think work going back fifty years or more, both bw and color, is easily as good as the work being created today. The abiltiy to create a good or great photograph, even today, does not depend on your method of working.

"Is the point of your contest to choose the best photograph or to worry about preserving an old technology that has trouble competing?..."

Ah, methinks you're trying to push some people's buttons again, because the correct answer is it's NEITHER. The point of a contest can be anything the creators want it to be. There are no ironclad rules.

A photo competition can simply be to showcase great images, regardless of how they were made. But it can also be to celebrate an individual technology, old or new, sometimes specifically because it IS old (such as traditional or alternative printing processes), sometimes because it IS new.

Once again you're making this a film/digital discussion, and in this case I don't think it is. The question is IMAGE MANIPULATION, and that's quite different.

To me, a "straight" shot out of a digital camera with nothing more than basic retouching is NOT manipulated, and should be allowed to compete with traditional film photographs. Similarly, a bw or color neg or slide scanned and then heavily edited in photoshop SHOULD be considered manipulated and perhaps in a seperate catagory. See the difference? It's not about the camera, but what you do with the image afterward. POST processing...

I guess my main point is, in the world of art competitions, media and technique in creating an image is often as important as the subject catagories are. In the highest and most legitimate levels of competition, they only judge the merit of the work AFTER it's been properly catagorized. Of course catagories like Best of Show open up the can of worms all over again..

I stand by what I said earlier: if you clearly know the rules ahead of time, it's fair.

And while I know it may not be completely right applying your words to the broader picture here, I feel the local clubs should take a page from the way it's done on the national and international levels, not the other way around...

To be continued, I'm sure...

[Michael Fanelli]

Michael....After just shooting Ilford 3200 film, I would have a hard time finding a digital camera that could one match the wide angle (21mm), using a fast ISO, and being less than $2000. Film can compete just fine with IMPACT images, ie. an image that makes you think... I

Fine. That means you will have no problems winning these competitions.

As for "bashing" film... The original post asked if a separate category for digital because digital keeps winning. Gee, I wonder what THAT means? Should I say "digital bashing"? I said a photograph is a photograph. Why is that so tough for some people?

As for "manipulation"... Someone show me ANY image from ANY photographic media that truly reflects reality and I'll concede on this one. Hmm.. we all know that doesn't exist. Again, the real issue here is that digital has given photographers so much more personal control than film did. That cold hard fact just steams some people. Oops, will that be called "film bashing" again?

[Trevor Ash]

Told ya so!

(I'm a little brat aren't I?)

I admit that I like reading everything you've all written. I'm going to go back and hide in my dark corner now.....

Michael sort of poses a good question for me though. What's the definition of a photograph these days?

[racingpinarello]

The bottom line seems to be that the digital images are winning because they are better photographs.

The bottom line that digital images do not make better photographs. But, I may have missed you main point. Sorry.

But perhaps, pretty soon if there are no distinctions between manipulated photographs and editorial/untouched images then we are forgetting a very important point. That can mean untouched film or digital.

We used this forum because we have computers, we have internet access, we have time, and the means to buy software, equipment, and flash cards or film. WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO DON'T?

Why can't somebody enter a contest with a $10 disposable camera with a GREAT photograpic eye and have a chance. Instead somebody who has the means to have a Mac G5 and the latest copy of Photoshop will win. That was my main beef.. photography in either format is frickin expensive, so I don't think it's wrong for a contest to allow photos from those without access to expensive software and equipment.

I say that a contest should have a category that allows for talent, and not the size of the wallet.

Loren