Posted by Luke Ormand on January 9, 2011 at 8:39 PM
Just checked the photographer's website again, and mysteriously the original photo is gone and the original (non-photoshopped) version appears. Looks like my suspicions of masking + blurring was spot on and that the bird is perched on something man-made.
Also, this is directly from the Rules of the Contest:
All Photographs must depict “birdlife” and must therefore contain at least one bird, and accurately reflect the subject matter as it appeared in the viewfinder. Photos that have been digitally or otherwise altered beyond standard optimization (including but not limited to removal of dust, cropping, and/or adjustments to color and contrast) will be disqualified. Normal processing of RAW image files or minor adjustments to color and contrast are acceptable, as is minimal cropping. Stitched panoramas may be entered in any category.
I recently received a copy of Audubon Magazine and the latest issue has a photo of a Pyrrhuloxia on the cover - a quick glance at this photo shows it was poorly photoshopped (the bird was masked out and a blur was applied to the image). When the mask was applied, they missed a few toes which were subsequently blurred giving away the post processing. The image from the photographers website can be seen here: Pyrrhuloxia It can also be seen on Audubon's site - but the image is much larger on the photographer's.
What is shocking is not that this image placed in the contest (which is ridiculous in and of itself) but that the editors of the magazine chose it for the cover! Out of all the winning images - they put one that was poorly photoshopped and pass it off as a great image. The magazine cites the following people as judges for the contest: Kevin Fisher (Design Director), Photo editor Kim Hubbard (who left Audubon to go to Nat Geo), Designer Todd Standley and Steve Freligh (Nature's Best Photography publisher and editor-in-chief). These highly accomplished people didn't notice the PS work? And if they did, still let it place eventhough the rules don't allow it? And further, someone put it on the cover?
To be clear, this is not an attack on the photographer (who I'm not naming, but obviously a link to her website is above) because Audubon selected the PS'd image. It makes me really question the ethics of those @ Audubon magazine and makes me re-consider ever giving the magazine $$$ for contests or otherwise. It's hard enough to get published in this industry with all of the high quality work out there - but when PS'd stuff is getting chosen over honest works... you gotta really wonder.
Anyone's thoughts or opinions are greatly appreciated. I sent an e-mail to the editor asking for an explanation.
(And before anyone accuses me of jealousy - not like a fellow NPN'er would do such a thing) I couldn't care less that this photo was chosen over mine. If I had placed in the contest and this image was selected as the cover over mine, well... that would be a little different.
I'd agree with you - and it looks as if others are dubious as well - see the comments on the photo on your link.
Sandy
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 10, 2011 at 6:05 AM
It does look like blurring was applied - the toe and the fact that nothing is in sharp focus on the snow is the giveaway. It's still a good shot of the subject, though I'm not sure the PS blurring does anything to enhance it.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on January 10, 2011 at 7:28 AM
After looking at the image in question I would have to agree whole heartedly with Luke's assessment. But then I also have some suspicions about a recent image on NPN that received prominent recognition in last year's selections when no one else seemed to question it. Both are wonderful images in their own rights.
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 10, 2011 at 9:12 AM
FWIW: In my estimation the image was "Photoshopped". As has been observed there is no snow in focus and since some of it is the same distance from the camera as parts of the bird that are in focus, it follows that not all the snow should be fuzzy.
OTOH: I suspect that there are no photos on NPN that have not been "Photoshopped" to one degree or another. Photoshop and related image processing programs take the raw camera data and turn it into a viewable image. When you see the little preview on the screen on the back of your camera you are seeing a JPG version of the RAW data. Even a "RAW" image on your computer with no profile applied (which is generally very flat and dull) is an interpretation, albeit one with no bias applied. Cameras simply don't see like we humans do and to make a camera image look like what we see is the challenge of photography. Adjusting contrast, hue, saturation, sharpness are all "Photoshopping" too.
Because I understand how we humans see, and the differences between human vision and the way a camera 'sees' my own adjustments tend to be toward making the image a credible representation of how the subject would appear to my eye. When marketing our work however there are also 'editorial' concerns depending on the intended use. For example some end users might want a touch of drama added by substantial vignetting that is beyond what I would do on an image for my own use. The Audubon magazine is about birds, not technically correct photographs. The image shows the bird (their objective) very well. To question their ethics because one toe is a bit fuzzy is (IMO) missing the point of their choosing it.
I have sent some great (IMO) photographs to various publishers only to have them rejected in favor of photographs that (IMO) were of lesser quality but the fact remains that the ones chosen served the purposes of the publisher and mine did not. C´est la vie. Get over it and be happy for the photographer whose work was chosen.
Posted by John Tobias on January 10, 2011 at 9:52 AM
When I first saw this photo and read it was at the ASD museum, I thought where did the snow come from? Then I looked again and thought maybe this was taken on the patio of their giftshop/snack bar and it is the concrete wall the bird is on. The feet are OOF but it looks to me that is about where the bird starts to go soft and continues to the tail. Just my take on it. It is a nice image of the bird and considering some of Audbons recent covers very effective as a cover photo.
Posted by Howard Cheek on January 10, 2011 at 11:25 AM
I have the magazine in front of me Luke.
It's obvious they chose it because of the neutral grays of the BG, and it gave them what they were looking for text-space wise. I'm sure they were aware of the obvious, but chose to overlook it. 99% of the people picking up the mag will not study it as you & I would. They will see the fine details, beautiful complimentary colors, and then flip it open..
Simple as that
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 10, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Jim B.,
Thanks for weighing in. This is not a question of whether adjutsments were made in Photoshop or not - of course every photo has some level of adjustments made. The photo in question - which again, was chosen for the cover - had blatant masking/blurring which wasn't even done well. When you enter contests like these, rules always state that adjustments can be made but anything outside of color/contrst/sharpening is not allowed and they ask for a RAW file to verify this (if your image is chosen). So one has to ask how in the world this got past all of that scrutiny AND ended up on the cover (it wasn't even a first place image...?)
And for those who commented on the "snow", it goes to show just how 'shopped this image is. It's not snow the bird is on, but what is likely a man-made perch that was blurred to hide that fact. See this image taken @ the same location: cardinal
As for what Wayne said, I'm not sure which image he is talking about specifically but generally on NPN photoshopping does not disqualify you from a win, whereas in these contests it does.
Cindy has been addressed via PM for those reading this thread - but as I stated in the original post, this has really nothing to do with the Photographer, and everything to do with Audubon Magazine.
John, I urge you to look closely at the image and see that the toes that are "missing" are in different locations - the area of focus should be a clearly defined band and the area between the feet would then be in focus if this were true.
Howard,
Thanks for the perspective - I suspect you are right as there had to be a reason it was chosen. Even if most people would overlook it, don't the editors have pride in their work?
...and it gave them what they were looking for text-space wise.
That's one of the biggest factors for GA's in selecting cover images. It's downright amazing how many shots are printed "backwards" to achieve pleasing cover layouts. Talk about Photoshopping!
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM
Luke, My point is that the photo was what Audubon editors chose because it served their editorial purposes. It is not for us to judge them "unethical" because their choice did not adhere to the technical standards of some here. If that were the way publishing worked there would be a change over in editorship of most magazines every time a photographer faulted their choices.
Would I have run that photo if I had been editor? I really can't say because I 1) didn't see all the other available images & 2) don't know what the editor's standards/criteria for choosing are. I and by extension we, since none of us are sitting in that chair, are in a position to pass judgment on their choice. We are free to say we don't like the photo as happened in a blog discussion on The Online Photographer but frankly that's just grousing. The editor's and/or Audubon's ethics are not fair game in grousing over photos we find fault with. Having had some exposure to the editing process and knowing that there are considerations involved that go well beyond the technical aspects of the image, I'm guessing that I might well have made the same choice. It is not a 'bad photo' because of the flaws pointed out. It is really good photo of the bird which they are more interested in than the photo as an object.
In fact that may well be the core of the dispute here. We, as creators see our images as objects in themselves. We sometimes obsess over perfecting them. Editors see them as adjuncts to the story or message they are trying to convey. They make statements about submissions to the effect that they only want technical perfection but that is to discourage every Tom, Dick and Harry with a camera from submitting their photos (a lot do anyway). In the end they will choose the photo that they feel works even if it has a few flaws. It isn't about ethics.
Listen to me. I can't believe that I'm defending all the editors who over the years have rejected my work but that is the way it is as Walter Cronkite used to say.
We, as creators see our images as objects in themselves. We sometimes obsess over perfecting them. Editors see them as adjuncts to the story or message they are trying to convey....In the end they will choose the photo that they feel works even if it has a few flaws. It isn't about ethics.
...that is the way it is as Walter Cronkite used to say.
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 10, 2011 at 2:10 PM
Jim,
I see what you're saying and wouldn't care so much about this image being on the cover - save for the fact that it placed in a photo contest Audubon held - where the rules state you can't do PS work outside of the normal adjustments made in ACR for example. The fact that they have these rules, select an image that breaks them and put it on the cover makes me wonder why they have rules at all?
I have so many top notch images that benefit from a little PS work here and there (canvas adds, clone jobs, etc.) that I don't bother submitting to contests because they aren't straight from the camera - so to see something win that benefited from extra work is frustrating and I find it hard to believe out of every image (I think they said there were 8,000 or so) there wasn't another one that would make an acceptable cover?
The judges who selected this image ignored the rules set in place, then flaunted it on the cover which is why I think it's an ethical issue.
The judges who selected this image ignored the rules set in place, then flaunted it on the cover which is why I think it's an ethical issue.
I'll bet the editor and GA didn't even consider the contest rules. They just took it as a winner at face value. It seems to me that the issue is with the judges and upholding the rules of the contest, rather than the editor or GA.
Posted by Stan Rose on January 10, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Exactly! They ignored (their own!) rules (something which you yourself advocate, Luke ) because the image was pretty and they felt it met their purposes--rules be damned, its all about what works and what makes you feel good
That's what the danger of ignoring tradition and formality is--everything becomes chaos, and no one benefits.
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 10, 2011 at 3:39 PM
Stan, I can't tell you how many times I've entered contest, not just photography but also drawings, only to have work rejected for reasons that weren't even stated in the rules. I've been a judge (one of 3) who expressed my opinion and backed it up with a critique of the works I chose and why, only to be overruled by the other judges and/or the sponsor. That's why I don't enter contests any more.
Most contests grant the sponsor rights to all the images entered, not just the "winners". A substantial number lay claim to all rights in perpetuity. The only real winner is the sponsor. They run the contests to pad their image archives. They make to rules to benefit themselves and they bend the rules when it is to their benefit just like we bend the "rules" of composition when it suits us. A rule is a rule only if you slavishly follow it. It isn't worth anyone getting their knickers in knot over. It's only a photograph.
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM
Jim, I think your latest point sums up this whole thing beautiffuly.
And Stan, what can I say? You got me! ...But kind of makes it unfair for all those who enter abding by the so-called "rules"
Hank, Thanks for making that point - there certainly would be a disconnect betweenthe GA/Editor and the judges. That being said, it's still a gaffe given the quality of the PS work, is it not?
It's certainly a gaffe for you, but obviously not for them. It certainly reflects on the contest judges, but in the world of publishing editors are a breed apart.
Well I can see the (bad) photoshopping, and I do not understand why the foreground was additionally blurred. That this is no snow is very obvious by the way, photoshop or not.
As for the ethics - the photoshopping did not alter the bird, neither does it look like as if the bird was "shopped" in from another source. Still all fine for me in terms of adjustments. Just not very elegantly made actually so one can indeed question why it was choosen.
All this aside, I think it is a very nice photograph.
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM
A nice photograph indeed - which I stated to the editor in my e-mail and the photographer.
Posted by Richard Wong on January 10, 2011 at 4:24 PM
The photographer also needs to be responsible for what they submit as well because there are rules in place. Say if the photographer had done a perfect job of photoshopping stuff out, then you might be able to completely fool the judges but that is not being honest. But the judges also need to be more diligent in following the guidelines as well. I hate to say it but maybe there should be more follow up done by the judges to make sure the validity of their selections?
I've always thought it would be fun if contests asked for the original unaltered file along with the "adjusted" file so they could make their own judgments about Photoshopping. It seems the only fair way to do it. I wonder how many entries they get under that regime? Blenders howl now!!!!
Posted by dan elster on January 11, 2011 at 12:31 AM
I wasn't sure how I felt about your post when I first read it, but the more I think about it... good for you Luke! I'm quite sick of all of the crap going on in photography.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 11, 2011 at 1:07 AM
Interesting discovery Luke. Not sure if this comparison has been discussed, but if you compare the online Audubon image with the image on Laura's site directly... clearly the feet are altered - or should I say blur was applied to the Audubon version. All the toes are sharp on her website.
This raises the possibility that Laura, the photographer submitted here original and then Audubon blurred it for the purposes of the cover? Possible? Double shame on them if they did that. Pure speculation of course.
Lon
Posted by William Brozy on January 11, 2011 at 8:36 AM
A goal of every photographer is to elicit an emotional response with their work. This sure has - but honestly, as i read this, it reads like internet vigilantism.
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM
Lon,
She changed the photo on her website to the original after the blurred one had been up - in my letter to the editor I inquired whether it was the photog or Audubon that did the PS work but considering the blurred version was on her site, I deduce she submitted it like that.
William,
If it were internet vigilantism - I'd be attacking the photographer (whose name does not appear once in this thread - save for Lon's comment). Again, I don't care that the photographer did this - I've done lots of PS work to my images and every now and then I may forget to disclose it. The point of this thread was to call out Audubon for selecting an image that cleraly violated the rules of their contest as a winner. If this image were not part of a contest I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought beyond the GA's and Editors at Audubon are blind....
Posted by Brad Hill on January 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM
Hi all,
I wade into this debate only very reluctantly, partly because it's one of those "slippery slope" issues dominated by shades of grey, and partly because there appears to be offline communication going on here as well and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen all the points. Nonetheless, here's my two cents worth:
1. It seems ludicrous to me that judges in any photo contest would knowingly ignore the rules of the contest. Thus, I assume they either didn't know the rules or didn't recognize the alleged excessive use of Photoshop. It would seem logical to me that once the judges are made of the rules and/or are made aware of the transgression, the image should be disqualified - even after the fact. Just like the way Olympic athletes are stripped of their medals long after the games are long over and steroid use is detected. Simple.
2. Personally I have a real issue with photo contests that produce rulesets that permit only minor adjustments to an image (by the way, where does "minor" stop and "major" begin? Talk about arbitrary!!) and ESPECIALLY those contests that permit only global changes to an image. I completely understand and accept that the image should represent what was seen through the viewfinder (which is the type of verbiage that many contest rules include) and agree that wholesale removal or addition of elements to the image should not be permitted. But cameras are NOT perfect image recording devices and to represent what was seen through a viewfinder as accurately as possible often REQUIRES non-global changes to an image (such as selective adjustment of brightness, tones, saturation, etc.). This is particularly true if the photographer used an "archaic" digital camera (= one more than a year or two old and only able to record a narrower dynamic range than more current cameras). Digital manipulation need not move an image further from the observed scene - it can just as likely be used to return the scene CLOSER to what was seen through the viewfinder.
Finally...in my opinion image "manipulation" begins the moment we select a lens, aperture, shutter speed, etc - i.e., BEFORE post processing begins. All the technical adjustments made to a camera affect the final image AND have an impact on how closely the scene reflects what was seen through the viewfinder. To arbitrarily put strict limits on post-processing and ignoring the "front end" of the process seems more than a bit inconsistent to me. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating contest rule sets that add limitations to the lens or aperture that the image must be shot at, but rather if contests use the "as seen through the viewfinder" guideline then they should stop and think what that really means and allow more liberal rules in post processing (including non-global changes to images).
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 11, 2011 at 11:53 AM
Rebecka - I would refrain from pointing things like that out in this thread as it's neither here nor there. We are talking about an image selected by Audubon - not the photographer and their possible penchant for PS. My own blogs and portfolios contain many PS'd images (cloning, canvas adds, etc.) that I don't bother disclosing because it's not needed.
Brad, thanks for weighing in. The slope is about as slippery as an algae covered rock poking out of a raging white-water river
You said
1. It seems ludicrous to me that judges in any photo contest would knowingly ignore the rules of the contest. Thus, I assume they either didn't know the rules or didn't recognize the alleged excessive use of Photoshop.
Given the judges obvious talents and professional credentials (and experience as photographers and experience with other contests including Nature's Best which is one of the top contests in the world) - do you honestly believe they "didn't notice it"? The other side of the coin is that they "didn't know the rules". Again, the judges have been involved with plenty of contests and are qualified professionals who do this for a living - they never took a read-through on the contest rules?
I wonder if these judges actually picked the winning images - or if a group of interns picked a bunch that were pretty with various things in mind (like which one would make a good cover with room for text) and the judges just said "yea those are fine" without taking an in-depth look.
I generally agree with your assesment about what is manipulation etc. etc. but the contests I've entered have rules that essentially say that Adobe Camera Raw (or similar) adjustments are OK, anything beyond that is not. If we all play by the same rules then allowable adjustments don't matter. Audubon ignored their rules when they selected this shot making for an uneven playing field.
The few contests and magazine stuff I've done I've been asked to provide the RAW image to verify accuracy...that is the easiest way to see what has been done. But perhaps a photographer can circumvent that by saying "I only shoot in .jpeg" or "the RAW was deleted by accident"
Posted by Brad Hill on January 11, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Hey Luke,
I know SOME of those judges personally (no names mentioned) - you make a big assumption when you think that an editor or publisher of a major nature photography magazine knows ANYTHING about photography or digital processing. I used to work at Adobe Systems - do you think the CEO of that company knows ANYTHING about using Photoshop?? They don't (tho' they may know a LOT about the marketshare it has, or what % of their company's revenue it accounts for, but in terms of feature sets or how to turn it on - forget it!). They are BUSINESS people and are chosen for the optics of having them as judges. They WILL know what they like (and may have a valid opinion), but they can easily be lay people when it comes to understanding (or recognizing) image manipulation.
So...YES, I think it's entirely possible they didn't notice it.
So...now that Lightroom (which uses the ACR processing engine) and Aperture allow you to make selective edits during RAW conversion, what happens now?? More slippery slope stuff.
While it may be true that SOME photo contests require you to send in a RAW file, many don't. Just a few days ago I entered a friend's image in a Nature's Best photo contest and there was absolutely no requirement to supply a RAW image in any step of the process...
I guess I feel this whole thread has been WAY too alarmist - almost like "the sky is falling". Obviously there are evolving ethical issues to address (and address, and address and address again), but I would bet 99% of all magazine covers these days (and a LOT of photo contest entries) are heavily manipulated in an image editor. To me this is hardly surprising - and we know people cheat all the time. It's called the real world...
That's it for me - I have to go back to using my time to make a living with my images!
Cheers Luke...
Brad
Posted by Stan Rose on January 11, 2011 at 2:52 PM
I was wondering what the fuss was--until i finally took a look at the Audubon version (the link didnt lead me to the large version). That one makes it pretty clear that some blatant photoshopping blur was applied to soften the fake snow, and the tail magically appears sharp in that version as well--strange. Anyhow, rules are rules, and has been said, if the broken rule is that obvious, then there ought to be consequences.
I do wish there was more consistency (logical and inter-contest) with regards to extent of manipulation. Last year, I wrote one major contest to complain that their rule against any blending (Including blends for exposure) was ridiculous, since there was no eithical differnece in using a multi-exposure blend or a GND, and the digital way often produces more 'natural' results.) They indicated they would consider this change for this years contest...
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 11, 2011 at 3:30 PM
Stan,
Nice to know you got a thoughtful reponse! I hope to get the same...
Posted by David Bostedo on January 11, 2011 at 7:08 PM
Cindy - I disagree to a certain extent. The main thrust here is the question of how a photoshopped image won the contest. It's not in any way a put down of said image. Unfortunately, some people may be taking it that way, but I don't think Ms. Stafford has anything to defend (and yes, I don't think her name being here is a problem). There's been no implication that she did anything wrong. It's unfortunate that simply pointing out the photoshopping has caused an issue for her (and shame on anyone who may have disparaged her in an ad hominem way because of it). But I think Luke's question was valid and fine for civil public discussion. And I think the discussion here has been very civil overall.
One thing I'd like to clear up....you wrote that "...on her because of your suspicions". There are no suspicions. That image was in the contest and on the cover. That image had been altered. The question was how and why those two things happened simultaneously. I don't read that as a disparagment of Ms. Stafford at all.
No need to be embarrassed for NPN - I think this is a good place for this discussion. And I'd be really happy if Ms. Stafford joined in and shared her feelings on it - not that she has to feel obligated to or anything.
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 11, 2011 at 9:10 PM
The fact that this discussion has been so civil and well pointed is what makes me proud to be an NPN member - nothing to be embarassed about.
Posted by Jim Hackley on January 12, 2011 at 2:22 AM
Luke,
Since your first post asked for anyone's thoughts or opinions, I will give my opinion since reading this thread.
I think this is an total overreaction on your part. Do photos sometimes slip through contest rules and get recognized? Sure they do.
Was it the intention of the judges to ignore the rules? I do not think so, they saw an image they liked and chose it. As several people have stated the judges are not photoshop experts, they are businessman or editors and look at the image different than a photographer.
I looked at the winning images several days ago on the Audubon's web site and was not overwhelmed by the winning images but then I have been spoiled since joining NPN. Then I read this thread and went back to the web site to see what all the fuss was about and was quite surprised that all this was about Pyrrhuloxia image. It was not obvious to me and probably not to any judges that this had any blatant obvious photoshop edits done done to this image.
Along with rules you mentioned the Audubon website also stated what they were looking for. Item #4 states
"Do not use excessive photoshop. Adjusting the exposure or contrast is fine, but do not for example remove branches or cut and paste a bird into a scene." Did the Pyrrhuloxia image have excessive photoshop? That is subjective and up for interpretation and I guess the judges did not think so.
It is unfortunate that this could not have been handled more discreetly. You have made a lot of bold statements and unfounded suspicions directed toward the photographer. You may not think this is a good image and that it does not belong on the cover but you have taken what should have been a joyous occasion for that photographer and turned it into some thing else by stating:
" What is shocking is not that this image placed in the contest (which is ridiculous in and of itself) but that the editors of the magazine chose it for the cover! Out of all the winning images - they put one that was poorly photoshopped and pass it off as a great image."
"And for those who commented on the "snow", it goes to show just how 'shopped this image is. It's not snow the bird is on, but what is likely a man-made perch that was blurred to hide that fact."
If you would of read the comments with the image it was stated this was taken at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and they were sitting on the patio when this bird showed up. I do not think the photographer was trying to hide anything.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 12, 2011 at 5:22 AM
CLOSURE
I agree with many of the points in this thread, including the last post directly above. So before ending this discussion, I thought I'd add a few final remarks;
1. IMO, the photo being discussed is an excellent one. The conditions to capture a good image of this bird came together and the photographer was there to capture it in competent fashion. This is truly the essence of nature photography!
2. IMO, this was an honest entry into a photo contest. Does everyone always read the entire page of rules? Are entries often submitted that may not comply 100% to the subjective requirements of the rules? I think so...
3. The photo is really well suited for use as a cover shot. Along with being a good photo, it has plenty of clean "dead space" that is needed for text. I'm not sure I can blame the editor for selecting it (certainly no way I'd blame them for using the un-blurred version), and I certainly cannot blame the photographer for submitting it. Did I mention that I think it's an excellent photo?
4. Do I think the blur masking was poorly applied? Do I like the photo much better without it? Yes on both counts. Does this in any way diminish the fact that it's a great capture of the subject? Not in the least.
5. Do I think this thread was unwarranted? I don't think so, I think it was a good conversation to have on topics nature photographers typically debate (use of Photoshop, winning photo selection in contests, etc.). Overall, I think the conversation was conducted in a responsible and objective fashion, though I also agree with Jim H comments above in that a few of the comments could have been stated in a less judgemental manner.
In closing, our congratulations to the photographer for this excellent capture and for having their work recognized by Audubon Magazine. I hope this thread offers some constructive "food for thought" to everyone who reads it.
Discussion
34 repliesOriginal Pyrrhuloxia
Also, this is directly from the Rules of the Contest:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
I recently received a copy of Audubon Magazine and the latest issue has a photo of a Pyrrhuloxia on the cover - a quick glance at this photo shows it was poorly photoshopped (the bird was masked out and a blur was applied to the image). When the mask was applied, they missed a few toes which were subsequently blurred giving away the post processing. The image from the photographers website can be seen here: Pyrrhuloxia It can also be seen on Audubon's site - but the image is much larger on the photographer's.
What is shocking is not that this image placed in the contest (which is ridiculous in and of itself) but that the editors of the magazine chose it for the cover! Out of all the winning images - they put one that was poorly photoshopped and pass it off as a great image. The magazine cites the following people as judges for the contest: Kevin Fisher (Design Director), Photo editor Kim Hubbard (who left Audubon to go to Nat Geo), Designer Todd Standley and Steve Freligh (Nature's Best Photography publisher and editor-in-chief). These highly accomplished people didn't notice the PS work? And if they did, still let it place eventhough the rules don't allow it? And further, someone put it on the cover?
To be clear, this is not an attack on the photographer (who I'm not naming, but obviously a link to her website is above) because Audubon selected the PS'd image. It makes me really question the ethics of those @ Audubon magazine and makes me re-consider ever giving the magazine $$$ for contests or otherwise. It's hard enough to get published in this industry with all of the high quality work out there - but when PS'd stuff is getting chosen over honest works... you gotta really wonder.
Anyone's thoughts or opinions are greatly appreciated. I sent an e-mail to the editor asking for an explanation.
(And before anyone accuses me of jealousy - not like a fellow NPN'er would do such a thing) I couldn't care less that this photo was chosen over mine. If I had placed in the contest and this image was selected as the cover over mine, well... that would be a little different.
- Luke
Sandy
OTOH: I suspect that there are no photos on NPN that have not been "Photoshopped" to one degree or another. Photoshop and related image processing programs take the raw camera data and turn it into a viewable image. When you see the little preview on the screen on the back of your camera you are seeing a JPG version of the RAW data. Even a "RAW" image on your computer with no profile applied (which is generally very flat and dull) is an interpretation, albeit one with no bias applied. Cameras simply don't see like we humans do and to make a camera image look like what we see is the challenge of photography. Adjusting contrast, hue, saturation, sharpness are all "Photoshopping" too.
Because I understand how we humans see, and the differences between human vision and the way a camera 'sees' my own adjustments tend to be toward making the image a credible representation of how the subject would appear to my eye. When marketing our work however there are also 'editorial' concerns depending on the intended use. For example some end users might want a touch of drama added by substantial vignetting that is beyond what I would do on an image for my own use. The Audubon magazine is about birds, not technically correct photographs. The image shows the bird (their objective) very well. To question their ethics because one toe is a bit fuzzy is (IMO) missing the point of their choosing it.
I have sent some great (IMO) photographs to various publishers only to have them rejected in favor of photographs that (IMO) were of lesser quality but the fact remains that the ones chosen served the purposes of the publisher and mine did not. C´est la vie. Get over it and be happy for the photographer whose work was chosen.
It's obvious they chose it because of the neutral grays of the BG, and it gave them what they were looking for text-space wise. I'm sure they were aware of the obvious, but chose to overlook it. 99% of the people picking up the mag will not study it as you & I would. They will see the fine details, beautiful complimentary colors, and then flip it open..
Simple as that
Thanks for weighing in. This is not a question of whether adjutsments were made in Photoshop or not - of course every photo has some level of adjustments made. The photo in question - which again, was chosen for the cover - had blatant masking/blurring which wasn't even done well. When you enter contests like these, rules always state that adjustments can be made but anything outside of color/contrst/sharpening is not allowed and they ask for a RAW file to verify this (if your image is chosen). So one has to ask how in the world this got past all of that scrutiny AND ended up on the cover (it wasn't even a first place image...?)
And for those who commented on the "snow", it goes to show just how 'shopped this image is. It's not snow the bird is on, but what is likely a man-made perch that was blurred to hide that fact. See this image taken @ the same location: cardinal
As for what Wayne said, I'm not sure which image he is talking about specifically but generally on NPN photoshopping does not disqualify you from a win, whereas in these contests it does.
Cindy has been addressed via PM for those reading this thread - but as I stated in the original post, this has really nothing to do with the Photographer, and everything to do with Audubon Magazine.
John, I urge you to look closely at the image and see that the toes that are "missing" are in different locations - the area of focus should be a clearly defined band and the area between the feet would then be in focus if this were true.
Howard,
Thanks for the perspective - I suspect you are right as there had to be a reason it was chosen. Even if most people would overlook it, don't the editors have pride in their work?
That's one of the biggest factors for GA's in selecting cover images. It's downright amazing how many shots are printed "backwards" to achieve pleasing cover layouts. Talk about Photoshopping!
Would I have run that photo if I had been editor? I really can't say because I 1) didn't see all the other available images & 2) don't know what the editor's standards/criteria for choosing are. I and by extension we, since none of us are sitting in that chair, are in a position to pass judgment on their choice. We are free to say we don't like the photo as happened in a blog discussion on The Online Photographer but frankly that's just grousing. The editor's and/or Audubon's ethics are not fair game in grousing over photos we find fault with. Having had some exposure to the editing process and knowing that there are considerations involved that go well beyond the technical aspects of the image, I'm guessing that I might well have made the same choice. It is not a 'bad photo' because of the flaws pointed out. It is really good photo of the bird which they are more interested in than the photo as an object.
In fact that may well be the core of the dispute here. We, as creators see our images as objects in themselves. We sometimes obsess over perfecting them. Editors see them as adjuncts to the story or message they are trying to convey. They make statements about submissions to the effect that they only want technical perfection but that is to discourage every Tom, Dick and Harry with a camera from submitting their photos (a lot do anyway). In the end they will choose the photo that they feel works even if it has a few flaws. It isn't about ethics.
Listen to me. I can't believe that I'm defending all the editors who over the years have rejected my work but that is the way it is as Walter Cronkite used to say.
I see what you're saying and wouldn't care so much about this image being on the cover - save for the fact that it placed in a photo contest Audubon held - where the rules state you can't do PS work outside of the normal adjustments made in ACR for example. The fact that they have these rules, select an image that breaks them and put it on the cover makes me wonder why they have rules at all?
I have so many top notch images that benefit from a little PS work here and there (canvas adds, clone jobs, etc.) that I don't bother submitting to contests because they aren't straight from the camera - so to see something win that benefited from extra work is frustrating and I find it hard to believe out of every image (I think they said there were 8,000 or so) there wasn't another one that would make an acceptable cover?
The judges who selected this image ignored the rules set in place, then flaunted it on the cover which is why I think it's an ethical issue.
I'll bet the editor and GA didn't even consider the contest rules. They just took it as a winner at face value. It seems to me that the issue is with the judges and upholding the rules of the contest, rather than the editor or GA.
That's what the danger of ignoring tradition and formality is--everything becomes chaos, and no one benefits.
Most contests grant the sponsor rights to all the images entered, not just the "winners". A substantial number lay claim to all rights in perpetuity. The only real winner is the sponsor. They run the contests to pad their image archives. They make to rules to benefit themselves and they bend the rules when it is to their benefit just like we bend the "rules" of composition when it suits us. A rule is a rule only if you slavishly follow it. It isn't worth anyone getting their knickers in knot over. It's only a photograph.
And Stan, what can I say? You got me! ...But kind of makes it unfair for all those who enter abding by the so-called "rules"
Hank, Thanks for making that point - there certainly would be a disconnect betweenthe GA/Editor and the judges. That being said, it's still a gaffe given the quality of the PS work, is it not?
As for the ethics - the photoshopping did not alter the bird, neither does it look like as if the bird was "shopped" in from another source. Still all fine for me in terms of adjustments. Just not very elegantly made actually so one can indeed question why it was choosen.
All this aside, I think it is a very nice photograph.
This raises the possibility that Laura, the photographer submitted here original and then Audubon blurred it for the purposes of the cover? Possible? Double shame on them if they did that. Pure speculation of course.
Lon
She changed the photo on her website to the original after the blurred one had been up - in my letter to the editor I inquired whether it was the photog or Audubon that did the PS work but considering the blurred version was on her site, I deduce she submitted it like that.
William,
If it were internet vigilantism - I'd be attacking the photographer (whose name does not appear once in this thread - save for Lon's comment). Again, I don't care that the photographer did this - I've done lots of PS work to my images and every now and then I may forget to disclose it. The point of this thread was to call out Audubon for selecting an image that cleraly violated the rules of their contest as a winner. If this image were not part of a contest I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought beyond the GA's and Editors at Audubon are blind....
http://www.lstaffordphotos.com/p470282488/h829774a#h829774a
Sloppy editorial work on the part of Audubon.
I wade into this debate only very reluctantly, partly because it's one of those "slippery slope" issues dominated by shades of grey, and partly because there appears to be offline communication going on here as well and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen all the points. Nonetheless, here's my two cents worth:
1. It seems ludicrous to me that judges in any photo contest would knowingly ignore the rules of the contest. Thus, I assume they either didn't know the rules or didn't recognize the alleged excessive use of Photoshop. It would seem logical to me that once the judges are made of the rules and/or are made aware of the transgression, the image should be disqualified - even after the fact. Just like the way Olympic athletes are stripped of their medals long after the games are long over and steroid use is detected. Simple.
2. Personally I have a real issue with photo contests that produce rulesets that permit only minor adjustments to an image (by the way, where does "minor" stop and "major" begin? Talk about arbitrary!!) and ESPECIALLY those contests that permit only global changes to an image. I completely understand and accept that the image should represent what was seen through the viewfinder (which is the type of verbiage that many contest rules include) and agree that wholesale removal or addition of elements to the image should not be permitted. But cameras are NOT perfect image recording devices and to represent what was seen through a viewfinder as accurately as possible often REQUIRES non-global changes to an image (such as selective adjustment of brightness, tones, saturation, etc.). This is particularly true if the photographer used an "archaic" digital camera (= one more than a year or two old and only able to record a narrower dynamic range than more current cameras). Digital manipulation need not move an image further from the observed scene - it can just as likely be used to return the scene CLOSER to what was seen through the viewfinder.
Finally...in my opinion image "manipulation" begins the moment we select a lens, aperture, shutter speed, etc - i.e., BEFORE post processing begins. All the technical adjustments made to a camera affect the final image AND have an impact on how closely the scene reflects what was seen through the viewfinder. To arbitrarily put strict limits on post-processing and ignoring the "front end" of the process seems more than a bit inconsistent to me. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating contest rule sets that add limitations to the lens or aperture that the image must be shot at, but rather if contests use the "as seen through the viewfinder" guideline then they should stop and think what that really means and allow more liberal rules in post processing (including non-global changes to images).
Cheers...
Brad
Brad, thanks for weighing in. The slope is about as slippery as an algae covered rock poking out of a raging white-water river
You said
Given the judges obvious talents and professional credentials (and experience as photographers and experience with other contests including Nature's Best which is one of the top contests in the world) - do you honestly believe they "didn't notice it"? The other side of the coin is that they "didn't know the rules". Again, the judges have been involved with plenty of contests and are qualified professionals who do this for a living - they never took a read-through on the contest rules?
I wonder if these judges actually picked the winning images - or if a group of interns picked a bunch that were pretty with various things in mind (like which one would make a good cover with room for text) and the judges just said "yea those are fine" without taking an in-depth look.
I generally agree with your assesment about what is manipulation etc. etc. but the contests I've entered have rules that essentially say that Adobe Camera Raw (or similar) adjustments are OK, anything beyond that is not. If we all play by the same rules then allowable adjustments don't matter. Audubon ignored their rules when they selected this shot making for an uneven playing field.
The few contests and magazine stuff I've done I've been asked to provide the RAW image to verify accuracy...that is the easiest way to see what has been done. But perhaps a photographer can circumvent that by saying "I only shoot in .jpeg" or "the RAW was deleted by accident"
I know SOME of those judges personally (no names mentioned) - you make a big assumption when you think that an editor or publisher of a major nature photography magazine knows ANYTHING about photography or digital processing. I used to work at Adobe Systems - do you think the CEO of that company knows ANYTHING about using Photoshop?? They don't (tho' they may know a LOT about the marketshare it has, or what % of their company's revenue it accounts for, but in terms of feature sets or how to turn it on - forget it!). They are BUSINESS people and are chosen for the optics of having them as judges. They WILL know what they like (and may have a valid opinion), but they can easily be lay people when it comes to understanding (or recognizing) image manipulation.
So...YES, I think it's entirely possible they didn't notice it.
So...now that Lightroom (which uses the ACR processing engine) and Aperture allow you to make selective edits during RAW conversion, what happens now?? More slippery slope stuff.
While it may be true that SOME photo contests require you to send in a RAW file, many don't. Just a few days ago I entered a friend's image in a Nature's Best photo contest and there was absolutely no requirement to supply a RAW image in any step of the process...
I guess I feel this whole thread has been WAY too alarmist - almost like "the sky is falling". Obviously there are evolving ethical issues to address (and address, and address and address again), but I would bet 99% of all magazine covers these days (and a LOT of photo contest entries) are heavily manipulated in an image editor. To me this is hardly surprising - and we know people cheat all the time. It's called the real world...
That's it for me - I have to go back to using my time to make a living with my images!
Cheers Luke...
Brad
I do wish there was more consistency (logical and inter-contest) with regards to extent of manipulation. Last year, I wrote one major contest to complain that their rule against any blending (Including blends for exposure) was ridiculous, since there was no eithical differnece in using a multi-exposure blend or a GND, and the digital way often produces more 'natural' results.) They indicated they would consider this change for this years contest...
Nice to know you got a thoughtful reponse! I hope to get the same...
One thing I'd like to clear up....you wrote that "...on her because of your suspicions". There are no suspicions. That image was in the contest and on the cover. That image had been altered. The question was how and why those two things happened simultaneously. I don't read that as a disparagment of Ms. Stafford at all.
No need to be embarrassed for NPN - I think this is a good place for this discussion. And I'd be really happy if Ms. Stafford joined in and shared her feelings on it - not that she has to feel obligated to or anything.
Since your first post asked for anyone's thoughts or opinions, I will give my opinion since reading this thread.
I think this is an total overreaction on your part. Do photos sometimes slip through contest rules and get recognized? Sure they do.
Was it the intention of the judges to ignore the rules? I do not think so, they saw an image they liked and chose it. As several people have stated the judges are not photoshop experts, they are businessman or editors and look at the image different than a photographer.
I looked at the winning images several days ago on the Audubon's web site and was not overwhelmed by the winning images but then I have been spoiled since joining NPN. Then I read this thread and went back to the web site to see what all the fuss was about and was quite surprised that all this was about Pyrrhuloxia image. It was not obvious to me and probably not to any judges that this had any blatant obvious photoshop edits done done to this image.
Along with rules you mentioned the Audubon website also stated what they were looking for. Item #4 states
"Do not use excessive photoshop. Adjusting the exposure or contrast is fine, but do not for example remove branches or cut and paste a bird into a scene." Did the Pyrrhuloxia image have excessive photoshop? That is subjective and up for interpretation and I guess the judges did not think so.
It is unfortunate that this could not have been handled more discreetly. You have made a lot of bold statements and unfounded suspicions directed toward the photographer. You may not think this is a good image and that it does not belong on the cover but you have taken what should have been a joyous occasion for that photographer and turned it into some thing else by stating:
" What is shocking is not that this image placed in the contest (which is ridiculous in and of itself) but that the editors of the magazine chose it for the cover! Out of all the winning images - they put one that was poorly photoshopped and pass it off as a great image."
"And for those who commented on the "snow", it goes to show just how 'shopped this image is. It's not snow the bird is on, but what is likely a man-made perch that was blurred to hide that fact."
If you would of read the comments with the image it was stated this was taken at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and they were sitting on the patio when this bird showed up. I do not think the photographer was trying to hide anything.
I agree with many of the points in this thread, including the last post directly above. So before ending this discussion, I thought I'd add a few final remarks;
1. IMO, the photo being discussed is an excellent one. The conditions to capture a good image of this bird came together and the photographer was there to capture it in competent fashion. This is truly the essence of nature photography!
2. IMO, this was an honest entry into a photo contest. Does everyone always read the entire page of rules? Are entries often submitted that may not comply 100% to the subjective requirements of the rules? I think so...
3. The photo is really well suited for use as a cover shot. Along with being a good photo, it has plenty of clean "dead space" that is needed for text. I'm not sure I can blame the editor for selecting it (certainly no way I'd blame them for using the un-blurred version), and I certainly cannot blame the photographer for submitting it. Did I mention that I think it's an excellent photo?
4. Do I think the blur masking was poorly applied? Do I like the photo much better without it? Yes on both counts. Does this in any way diminish the fact that it's a great capture of the subject? Not in the least.
5. Do I think this thread was unwarranted? I don't think so, I think it was a good conversation to have on topics nature photographers typically debate (use of Photoshop, winning photo selection in contests, etc.). Overall, I think the conversation was conducted in a responsible and objective fashion, though I also agree with Jim H comments above in that a few of the comments could have been stated in a less judgemental manner.
In closing, our congratulations to the photographer for this excellent capture and for having their work recognized by Audubon Magazine. I hope this thread offers some constructive "food for thought" to everyone who reads it.
edit - typos