Winning NSS Salon Images Now on the Web!

[Chads93GT]

Teresa those are some good points. I guess I never thought of it that way. I guess I also suck at photoshop so I never mess with photos. I just take them and show them how they are. hehehe

I am no photo judge. I just take photos when i can, of whatever I can, with my cybershot. extreme novice ;) I just figured that the photos that were winners would have been of simply awesome scenic shots, not shopped, thats all. :) But now I understand why they are the winningphotos. crazy stuff

[NZcaver]

Chad, if you're interested, and not familiar, I'd suggest you look up the history of photography. With the possible exception of some news photography, where a person really was in the right place at the right time with a Polaroid camera, (or possibly the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assasssination, and some don't believe that) it's all doctored images.

<snip>

Photoshop just made the process easier and less messy. All pictures are in the mind's eye. It's just a matter if people can get them on paper, or not.

The human eye will interpret every scene in its own way. The eye is far more tolerant of light/dark contrast, color hues, glare and other conditions than the average camera. In my mind, Photoshop and similar programs are one way of manipulating an image to look more like what the eye originally saw. If done right I think gentle manipulation can make for a more realistic image than the original shot, without employing too much artistic license. These days this process is virtually automatic for most photographers who are publishing digital images in one form or another.

Then there is the other type of photoshopping. Techniques like adding and removing whole components of the image lead to creating scenes which did not exist in real life. This is certainly an art form in itself, and could also be considered a necessity in some cases of advertising and other specific uses. But in my humble opinion it is slightly less about the art of pure photography (capturing a visual image) and more about art. Images of this type deserve their own special classification in NSS photo salons, which is why we have the "enhanced and surreal imagery" category.

[wyandottecaver]

But the question is where is the line? One photo I remember from the Salon in 2007 had a cave entrance looking out on a nice blue sky with white clouds....Then you noticed the small white ring between the sky and cave entrance edges.... Some enhanced images make their enhancements obvious, but most (mine included) are designed to make the picture "better" without obviously showing it has been enhanced. Yes, darkroom techniques did much the same in many cases.

Some of the better cave photographers I know intentionally shoot in RAW format so they can more easily and extensively manipulate the images. I suspect many photos we now see in the salons are enhanced in some significant way...so are they really photos or art? I wish we had a "classic" category where only very basic adjustments like ISO, White Balance, Ect. were allowed to be manipulated. The truth is, many people who have never been in a cave could create virtually any cave scene they wanted and doctor it so that it looked like a normal photo and submit it. Would their award (if they got one) be for technical knowledge of software or for having the artistic inspiration to create a cool image? It certainly wouldn't be skill or eye as a photographer.

[Ralph E. Powers]

But the question is where is the line? One photo I remember from the Salon in 2007 had a cave entrance looking out on a nice blue sky with white clouds....Then you noticed the small white ring between the sky and cave entrance edges.... Some enhanced images make their enhancements obvious, but most (mine included) are designed to make the picture "better" without obviously showing it has been enhanced. Yes, darkroom techniques did much the same in many cases.

Some of the better cave photographers I know intentionally shoot in RAW format so they can more easily and extensively manipulate the images. I suspect many photos we now see in the salons are enhanced in some significant way...so are they really photos or art? I wish we had a "classic" category where only very basic adjustments like ISO, White Balance, Ect. were allowed to be manipulated. The truth is, many people who have never been in a cave could create virtually any cave scene they wanted and doctor it so that it looked like a normal photo and submit it. Would their award (if they got one) be for technical knowledge of software or for having the artistic inspiration to create a cool image? It certainly wouldn't be skill or eye as a photographer.

Very true. But take a gander at this photo... undoctored... I don't have all the specs but know that it was taken with a Canon DSLR (I forget the model) and one of those big Vivatar flashes


also this photo same camera, same cave

[Teresa]

Even if there were such a thing as a "classic"category, how would one tell for sure if the ground rules were being followed? It takes a pretty sophisticated photographer (and camera) to dink with white balance, for example. Ok, in film, you could choose tungsten or daylight film, but that's about 'white balanced' as a non-pro photog could manage. I've actually seen some pretty amazing things (the NSS logo reflected in a soda straw water drop, for one) done entirely optically, and without computers. What about dodging, or burning in, both things you could do in a darkroom with paddles and the enlarger? My husband has taken some fairly amazing cave amphibian shots by sticking the little guys in the refrigerator for five minutes to slow them down. Is this "manipulation"? (No one would know unless someone told, and no, the amphibians apparently aren't harmed by the brief freeze down.) I've seen some pretty surreal things in real life, and unless it is patently impossible (a live elephant hanging by its trunk from a cave ceiling) I wouldn't want to judge something and say it's not real.

Cartographers sometimes have the same problem, because some caves are stranger than they should be. Do folks go to the field and field check cartographic salon entries? Not usually. Have real caves been excluded from that competition because some judge doesn't believe them? Yes. (I drew a wonderful cave map that had no correlation in the real world when I started caving. Look very good, in fact. But since I'm not a cartographer, and I did this for my amusement and an April Fool's grotto newsletter issue, to see in anyone caught on. Many didn't. I also drew illustrations of imaginary scenes in the imaginary cave. and submitted an imaginary cave report and trip report . This sort of thing now wins awards in the Fine Arts Salon.)

Photographic Images have to stand or fall on their own merits, like writing, drawing, or any art. Judges always want categories, but since one of the criteria is "artistic merit" veracity may not be the most important thing out there. Depends what the artist or photographer is up to.

[Jeff Bartlett]

It takes a pretty sophisticated photographer (and camera) to dink with white balance, for example.

Maybe off-topic, but I strongly disagree with this statement. Nearly every recent (last 3-4 years) point-and-shoot camera has white balance options directly on-camera, even the POS Kodak my wife bought a few years back. I don't think scrolling through these settings (or simply selecting one instead of using the "automatic" setting) qualifies one as anything more than "curious," or maybe "vaguely cognizant" of the white-balance concept.

In fact I do agree with your principal argument, but inserting wild claims like this into your case only serves to weaken it.

[wyandottecaver]

Of course people could and will cheat. The point was to at least seperate or maybe better define the categories so at least the honest people can compare between mostly unenhanced work and pictures that have had a lot of help.

[Jeff Bartlett]

Compare between mostly unenhanced work and pictures that have had a lot of help.

I agree; HDR or otherwise digitally composited (or just plain faked) images need a separate category.

[NZcaver]

But take a gander at this photo... undoctored... I don't have all the specs but know that it was taken with a Canon DSLR (I forget the model) and one of those big Vivatar flashes

Not to drift too far off topic, but were those examples intended to demonstrate what photography can be done well without Photoshop? If so - and I mean no offense Ralph - but the composition and lighting of the first shot could really do with some improvement (in my humble opinion). Photoshop could compensate a little for the poor lighting, but there's nothing like lighting a shot properly in the first place. I really like that second shot though, even with the finger tips cut off. It looks like natural light was used in that shot, right?

I agree; HDR or otherwise digitally composited (or just plain faked) images need a separate category.

I assume you mean in addition to the "enhanced and surreal" category? I still consider minor adjustments to digital images (like we've been discussing) are perfectly appropriate for the "scenes from nature" category, but that's just me.

[Teresa]

It takes a pretty sophisticated photographer (and camera) to dink with white balance, for example.

Maybe off-topic, but I strongly disagree with this statement. Nearly every recent (last 3-4 years) point-and-shoot camera has white balance options directly on-camera, even the POS Kodak my wife bought a few years back. I don't think scrolling through these settings (or simply selecting one instead of using the "automatic" setting) qualifies one as anything more than "curious," or maybe "vaguely cognizant" of the white-balance concept.

In fact I do agree with your principal argument, but inserting wild claims like this into your case only serves to weaken it.

My point here was and is this: "white balance" is nowhere near as simplistic as just turning a dial to select a virtual filter on a camera. It's not a wild claim. Unlike your experience, I never had a digital P&S camera I could set a white balance (2 Olympuses) until my $550 Canon G9. Ok, any person can turn the knob or push the button and see the gross color screen image changes with such settings, but to understand the physics of light waves, varying temperatures of light from various sources, and what effects they will have on the potential image requires a certain level of understanding and sophistication.
For example: the reason many cave photographers turn off their headlamps is so you don't have mixed light frequencies-- and that color compensation for the flash is for the flash alone. LED light has some oddwave shape/color photographic properties-- this is why professional studio photogs are generally still using incandescents, halogens or similar for artificial lighting. This mix of light colors is also why taking good photos in show caves can be a nightmare...you have the flash, and the color of the cave lighting fighting each other. Most (not all) cave owners aren't that sensitive to this issue, which is why the typical point and shoot cave tourist gets images that make caves look like the doorstep of hell, with colors shifted way to the orange or red.
Another difference I've found, in both film and digital, is that the light collecting medium has a great effect on the resulting photograph. I avoided Kodak film like the plague, because the film itself was shifted towards the red, in order to bring out "rosy" faces for the typical (white person) snapshot. Fuji film was shifted to the blue-green, and did excellently on landscapes. Konica film (while it lasted) was almost perfectly balanced for my eye, but obviously the public didn't like it. Next on the list was Agfa film-- it was a sad day when that film/transparency died. Different manufacturers of CCDs deal with low light levels differently as well-- I notice that the Olympus cameras tend to shift towards the red, and the Canon shifts to the yellow, making caves appear to be more "sunlit" than they are.
We haven't even touched the apparent "white balance" changes between transmissive screen and reflective paper, between RGB and CYMK process color, CRT or LCD, or different colors and finishes of nominally "white" paper of the finished image.
The last thing is totally subjective: people's eyes. You can put a colorimeter in a beam of light and it comes out at some X degrees Kelvin, but one person "sees" the image as warmer or cooler than another. Whether this is pleasing or not is also entirely subjective. What may look to be white balanced perfectly to me may be garish to another. There are some colors I see as blue, and my husband (who says he's not colorblind) sees as green.
People may be able to easily dial up a blue-tinted or a yellow-tinted or an apparently neutral gray tinted white balance, but what you see on that camera screen is deceiving, and may be very far from the image once it is on the computer, or on paper.

[Jeff Bartlett]

My point here was and is this: "white balance" is nowhere near as simplistic as just turning a dial to select a virtual filter on a camera.
...long, ridiculous response snipped...

Now that your freaky diatribe has proved that you understand the nuances of light-waves physics, were you planning to address my assertion that you don't need to be a "sophisticated photographer" with a sophisticated camera to fiddle with these settings? Maybe the theory of white balance isn't as simplistic as selecting one of the available options, but in most modern cameras the controls sure are.

I'm sure you can write 4 paragraphs about the many factors that influence proper exposure, as well, but it doesn't change the fact that even novices are empowered to make use of exposure controls.

[NZcaver]

My point here was and is this: "white balance" is nowhere near as simplistic as just turning a dial to select a virtual filter on a camera.

Teresa - I agree the theory behind this may be anything but simple, but the action of changing the white balance on modern digital cameras really is as simplistic is selecting the correct setting. I think that's what Jeff was meaning.

I guess we're drifting off-topic.

[Teresa]

My point here was and is this: "white balance" is nowhere near as simplistic as just turning a dial to select a virtual filter on a camera.

Teresa - I agree the theory behind this may be anything but simple, but the action of changing the white balance on modern digital cameras really is as simplistic is selecting the correct setting. I think that's what Jeff was meaning.

I guess we're drifting off-topic.

My only point was: what is correct for a winning salon image? Correct is in the eye of the beholder and the judge.

To my way of thinking, there are two ways to take a good photograph: 1) Accidentally be in the right place at the right time and shoot way too many images, discarding the bad exposures (how it used to be done with film) and 2) have an idea in mind, and the technical competence to make it so in many fewer tries. That technical competence may be in using your camera, or in the image processing. I don't see that either one is morally superior. When you have equipment, such as my P&S Olympuses, (both of which cost several hundred dollars at the time) on which you cannot set white balance, you learn the Photoshop ways of accomplishing the same thing. That's all I really wanted to say.

[wyandottecaver]

also from the original thread, but I think the gist is that currently it seems that only highly obvious highly altered works are put in the enhanced/surreal category and that many works that have had a lot of serious altering but still look like a "normal" picture are left in the standard category. I would lean towards a more strict definition for enhancement. although adjusting brightness, contrast, and other underlying features may well be allowable. Painting in your fake sky though....... Essentially where is the line between an enhanced picture and an enhanced painting?

[Teresa]

also ... I would lean towards a more strict definition for enhancement. although adjusting brightness, contrast, and other underlying features may well be allowable. Painting in your fake sky though....... Essentially where is the line between an enhanced picture and an enhanced painting?

I guess how well it is done, and whether or not the judges can tell the difference. Skies were always problematic, even in black and white. There are ways you can burn and dodge with an enlarger and get awesome skies, or double expose with the same result, by sandwiching an awesome sky with an overexposed bland white blah sky. With the layer tool, you can entirely switch skies in Photoshop. I wouldn't call a photo montage, or collage a painting, though. In photo montage, you are putting pieces of real photos together; in a painting you are creating an image entirely from manipulation.

I wish some of the judges would weigh in here.