13 replies to this topic

[meganhaderphotography]

I've been entering several contests for a few months now and really haven't had much luck.  I've been doing some reading on improving my techniques and lots and lots of practicing of those techniques.  My real question is, how do I know if it's because my photography stinks or if I'm just not as good as other photographers when it comes to editing? Or is someone somehow throwing the contests so that they win?  I went to Twitter the other day looking to see if a new site had a Twitter feed yet only to find out that there actually is a website to gaining votes for online contests.  Lo and behold, because the photography site I was checking on ran their contest by online votes only, one of the photographs had gained 600 votes because of the vote gaining site unlike the rest of the photographs that had about 10 votes a piece or less.  I'd really love to see the before and after of the winning photographs to see how far off I am.  Hope to hear from others out there with some ideas! Thanks!

[IanB]

I have been on other forums etc where i see people asking for others to vote for their this and that and just feel it is so unfair on others, if you don't feel confident in your own skills and need to beg for votes then you shouldn't enter, and i have seen this on writing contests, model contests, photo contests..... allsorts.  Its wrong and i hope you win something soon just to give you a boost. Sorry i don't have any tips other than keep trying, and good luck 

 

Ian.

[TBonz]

I guess I'm not sure of your question...

 

To start, I am sure that cheating happens in some contests whether we want it to or not.  A simple example is the effort Adam had to go to here to make sure the drawing for the D610 was fair.  Some folks had claimed entries based on things they had not really done.  I don't really think that asking folks to vote is cheating compared to some things I've seen / heard of.  In that case, all you are asking is for folks to help you out and you really don't have any control over what they do.

 

But, in getting back to what I think your question was...I'd say the best way to find out about your photos is to post them in the Critique or Post your Photos sections here to see what others think.  Personally, I try to keep my editing to a minimum, but I'm afraid that the post processing has become a major factor in every photo we see these days.  Not suggesting they are fake or that photographers are creating something that never occured (although that does happen), but that pretty much every image out there has had some processing done.  At this point it isn't an either / or as much as it is a final result. 

 

In my case, my editing almost always includes some cropping.  Other than that, I may tweak the exposure and reduce the noise, but that's about it on most of my images.  Rarely I'll find an image that I play with to try and enhance some colors, etc. or I will have one that is being used for publication where I'll go over trying to get rid of any little imperfections I might find.  I've always thought it would be interesting to have two categories in a contest - one being the standard "best photo" that we're used to.  Another would be for fully unedited RAW files.  Even then I'm sure someone would take the time to figure out how to edit an image to "perfection" and then generate a RAW file from that modified image. 

 

The reality is that the most important job of any photo is to please the person the photo was taken for - maybe the photographer, the subject or a client.  As long as it does that, the rest is really not that important.  If it isn't doing that, then the photographer needs to determine (with or without assistance) where the photo failed and what needs to be changed to make it successful the next time.  I'm always looking at my photos to see what might have made it an even better photo.  As an example, this photo I shot last weekend:

 

 

It is a pretty good image all the way around, but I know there are a few things that might improve the image.  Some I can control and some I can't and some are a bit of luck one way or the other.  Just keep trying and doing what you can to improve your abilities...

[Tony892]

I agree with the last comments and think that perhaps the best way is to try and keep editing to the minimum, but use it for iceing on the cake for that really special shot. As far as competitions go, I think that folk can see if editing is obvious,

[nbanjogal]

You've got a couple ideas to address here. First of all, the contests. Just to boost your confidence, maybe you could try entering smaller contests in your  area? All two (ha ha!!!) of the contests I've won have been small, regional affairs, but they were great confidence boosters anyway! I see you're in the US--even a county or state fair is a fun place to enter some photos. A bonus for entering these smaller contests is that you can get some great feedback from the judges if you take the time to talk to them (whether you win or not, they are often willing to give pointers).

 

I shoot RAW and edit every image I make that will be seen by anyone else--however, I try to keep my editing to a minimum so that it looks natural. As Tony says, folks can see if editing is obvious, so I try to make sure mine is not. I do think some subtle changes can help images pop or add emphasis to areas where you want the viewer's eye drawn. 

[Wired]

I've never really entered a contest, so I have no experience there. But I do think that editing does have its place. I would never enter an image or produce an image to a client I haven't gone over.

 

One of my favourite images I've ever created (below) is far from the original shot. It's heavily cropped, the saturation is drawn out, I applied tone mapping, duo-toned it, adjusted contrast, played with the highlights/shadows, and erased some dust, but no cloning. It's still stands today after 2 years as my favourite image and is the first one I show people in my portfolio when I'm interviewing for work. I've never gotten a poor review from it.

 

The one thing I can tell you though, coming from Pentax, is that I find I need to do more to Nikon images to make them complete in my eyes, while a Pentax image is nearly there in it's basic form.

 

november 04 - Winter Runner {Explored} by LK_335, on Flickr

[alden]

That's a beautiful image, wired. The perspective, the background buildings, the warm muted colors... nice work. There's a lot to look at in that composition.

As far as the basic question goes, in today's digital world, even back in film days too, the photo is not done until post-processing or printing is done. I ALWAYS post process. I have to play with the curves a bit, maybe the color saturation, temperature, sharpness of the image, whatever it takes to get it to where I think it needs to be.

It's not complete until it's been processed, however you want to do it. It's not done until it's done.

[TBonz]

I think I should also point out that while the editing is quite a bit easier with digital - and there are probably a few more things that can be done with digital editing - editing was done before digital.  Other than getting a roll of film processed with a set of prints, every single print that I've created through enlargements has been edited in one way or another.  If nothing else, it was cropped to give it the best look. 

[Ron]

Sportz Guy has a good point. In fact, if you study many of the great 35mm photographers, you'll learn that many of them spent a great deal of time in the darkroom. One of my favortite photographers, W. Eugene Smith, would sometimes spend days or more working on a single print. Cropping, dodging, burning... using other tricks to coax every last shard of information out of a negative and bend the print to his vision.

 

--Ron

[alden]

Ansel Adams was a wizard in the darkroom. That very distinctive look of his B&W prints was not only because he used view cameras with enormous negatives.

[Ron]

Ansel Adams was a wizard in the darkroom. That very distinctive look of his B&W prints was not only because he used view cameras with enormous negatives.

 

Yeah, it's pretty cool being able to make an 8x10 inch contact print of a single image! But Ansel Adams developed (no pun intended) an exposure system that pretty much guaranteed a perfect negative right out of the camera.

 

One of the things that I find missing from contemporary (meaning digital) b&w photography is that look. The beautiful look of silver on paper.

 

--Ron

 

 

--Ron

[alden]

Yeah, it's pretty cool being able to make an 8x10 inch contact print of a single image! But Ansel Adams developed (no pun intended) an exposure system that pretty much guaranteed a perfect negative right out of the camera.
 
One of the things that I find missing from contemporary (meaning digital) b&w photography is that look. The beautiful look of silver on paper.
 
--Ron

I don't see why it couldn't be done digitally. Surely someone has tried to reproduce that look.

[Ron]

I don't see why it couldn't be done digitally. Surely someone has tried to reproduce that look.

 

Perhaps, but I've never seen it done. A few years ago I was fortunate enough to see some of Adams prints up close. It was an amazing experience. Those prints had more than just a silver coloration to them. There was a texture and presence to them that was indescribable. The images seemed to leap off of the paper. I've seen some beautiful digital B&W work but nothing approaching the look of those prints.

 

--Ron

[CanadiaNikon]

Hey Wired,

 

Is that the high level bridge?