submitting raw file ONLY for a weekend event

I'll share my thoughts later, if this topic generates any interest. What do you think about a weekend photo contest that asks photographers to submit their raw file ONLY, ie no sidecar, no jpeg - just an unprocessed raw data file.

Pete D.

The only point I could see for doing this is to level the playing field in terms of exposure, color balance, cloning and cropping. But anyone who shoots raw knows that such an image typically looks flat and a bit fuzzy. How will the judges view the raw files?

It seems to me that how a RAW file gets processed is a major part of a photographer's artistic vision. Thus, this idea seems to remove much of what makes any photograph unique.

Ridiculous.

I'd have to trust the heck out of the event sponsors and anyone else with access to the files.

Beyond that, I see it as an attempt at a photography contest, as distinct from a computer manipulation contest.

This contest obviously discriminates against film shooters. Many years ago I submitted original transparencies, and I did not think that was outrageous at the time. I suppose I could have submitted a duplicate transparency if I felt it was good enough, and I don't ever recall any rule prohibiting that. However a color transparency at that time was very close to the final image, unlike a negative, which is a bit more like a RAW file in that it is generally regarded as a starting point in producing any image at all. I don't know of any contests that required submitting a negative, and I don't know how many photographers would put up with such a request, for the same reasons stated in previous comments here about RAW files.

Here's the issue I have... you can't actually look at a Raw file and see a photo. When you open one in software, you're looking at a bitmap interpretation of the raw data based on some set of default settings in the software. There is simply no way to look at it otherwise (unless you want to see mosaiced data that still has individual pixel colors and no real image data - and even then it's an interpretation).

So you would be beholden to the whims of how various software treats various cameras raw formats. There's no such thing as a standard set of defaults that would level the playing field for all cameras or raw files.

Pete, you've sparked some interest for sure.

I have another possible take on this. Some photo contests have, in the "fine print" (as a condition of entry) a statement that effectively grants rights to publish your photo to the host of the contest. Often, this will simply say 'publish in any brochure or advertisement....' but I've also seen "All entries become the property of the HOST... and will not be returned".... or "Individuals who submit their photos to us retain their copyrights, but grant to us the right to reproduce and distribute the submitted material on this Website, or in printed form"....

The only time I've seen a legit request for the RAW file as part of a photo contest was simply to ensure that digital manipulation was minor, limited to exposure/contrast/saturation/sharpening/etc.... the typical/traditional darkroom stuff, and that no significant editing (such as removal/addition of objects via cloning) had occurred. That purpose was spelled out very clearly, and it was equally clear that the submitted JPEG is what was being judged.

Without knowing more details about the weekend contest my reaction is along the lines of "buyer beware".... Asking for only a RAW file as a submission really makes me think the fine print will be hiding something.

I've encountered the same request from a major calendar publisher* I work with. I find it very annoying, because, as stated, the post-processing of images is an integral part of the vision of the photographer. So... I've taken to using a polarizing filter to make the colors jump as I like them to, and do a lot of looking at the back of the camera during photo shoots to nail the technicals to the best of my abilities. Still, the post-processing I do for clients really puts the finishing touches on the images, and it irks me to send the RAW files to the editors.

*dog photography, not nature photography.

Ridiculous.

I agree with John. This would be similar to me sending an original 4x5 transparency, or my high resolution scan file--which I would never do.

--P

I like the idea of having a photo contest based solely on shooting skills and not that of processing skills.

Are filters allowed? Anything goes as long as it's in camera?

I think these days there will be fewer people interested in this type of contest as there once might've been.

There may be value in this for some but to me it seems pointless.

This is one of the photographic topics that gets me a tad cranked. Photography has always been about post processing and manipulation. Look at work from the late 1800's where photo collages, hand tinting and the like were quite popular, Where the demand for as little post processing as possible came from was commercial work where the expense was to be avoided where possible. All software has done is free photographers from such financial constraints.

Just spent a week in Montreal where I saw an exhibition of paintings which were heavily photographically inspired and a series of photographs which were quite painterly. I have my suspicions that what is considered a photograph will change dramatically over the coming years.

I've participated in an event like this, Shoot The Hills, in the Hocking Hills State Park. You get 4 counties, 24 hours and 1 card to shoot and then submit 1 entry per category, with a total number of submissions limited to 6. They asked for the RAW file just as a way to keep people from manipulating photos, such as cloning or cropping for composition, etc. As long as it was done in camera anything was allowed.

They did take your processed jpg file, and as long as there weren't any drastic changes they would accept your entry. It was suppose to be a way to level the playing field. I recieved an email stating that some of the rules are changing, and that with a category where anything goes, brought on by HDR shooters, there will be a RAW only category. I question how these will be viewed, judged, etc. as it didn't appear they wanted jpg files anymore.