A number of years ago, I had a good conversation with the late Galen Rowell on this subject. At the time, there was some controversy about the use of filters (specifically GND). He indicated that camera technology could never achieve the complexities of how the human eye sees things. So certain types of filters and for that matter improvements (e.g., HDR) that more closely help to render the image a better approximation to what your eye actually sees is absolutely justified.

I think exposure, WB and other settings are fair game. Color is a gray area (no pun intended). I’ve never had an issue with cropping, but I know of a fairly well-known photographer that doesn’t consider cropping fair game. He thinks that the time spent setting up the picture and getting the right composition should be rewarded. I think he is probably in the minority these days. Personally, if the photo contest is not designated as one allowing “enhanced” photos, then I would have a serious problem with any of the common PS alterations (e.g., removing wires/people, cloning, adding clouds, etc.).

This debate is all over the Web. There’s a long thread in Linked In Photoshop users group (I think) about it also. I agree with Jim Nichols.

I’ve seen some amazing “photos” entered into competitions, but what I witnessed was a graphic artist’s idea of the photo imagined more than the pure photographic result. Adding HDR is definitely a more serious edit, imho. I tend toward the less is better approach.

I like the idea of separate categories, which might include:
Simple edits (crop, color, exposure adjustments),
HDR category,
Composites category,
Photos as art projects,
OR go for broke and require JPGs with NO edits applied! (Ergo avoiding the RAW process editing.)

Removal of wires is a hard one though. You can’t get a decent photo in the Boston area without wires in it – even if you’re in more rural parts with old bridges! Plus, Amanda, setting up a shot is all good if you’re shooting cars, models, or posed people – but action sports and wildlife aren’t so cooperative.

I see cropping as a way to focus the shot, but it’s not really editing it. Here’s my example of a crop with NO edits applied; it’s the jpg right out of the camera. What was removed? Just some more green grassy area and black and grey trees, which added nothing to the shot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29372499@N06/5861068319/

By the way, I saw a category division in a photo contest recently I like, which was something like this:
Pro = someone who makes 50% or more of their living as a photographer (which would include photo books)
Semi-Pro = someone who makes less than 50% of their living as a photographer selling photos (which would include photo books)
Advanced Amateur = someone who shoots for fun, but may sell a shot here and there.
Dedicated Amateur = someone who shoots for fun

OR more simple put (courtesy of the National Wildlife Federation -http://www.nwf.org/PhotoContest/pdf/Photo_Contest_Rules_2011.pdf)
• Pro—Full or part-time professional photographers who receive all or a major part of their income from nature
photography.
• Amateur—Beginning or amateur photographers at least 18 years of age, and advanced or experienced
photographers who do not receive a major part of their income from nature photography.
• Youth—Young photographers ages 13 to 17.

Another category to muse on:

DSLR user
non-DSLR user

Terry. is it me just waking up at four am or do you see a phallic symbol made of light? I don’t think that is what you meant by being more than a picture. Sorry, very distracting.

Now to your question. my brain interprets what my eyes see through its amazing bio-electric process. This is one of our interfaces with the world. Film and digital are tools we fabricated to recreate our natural interface. These tools are tools to be read by an observer to obtain more information. Sensors and film, post production… all are part of a the artists vision to convey information. It is for the observer to accept or deny the information that is presented.

Simple! Have a category for Unedited photos and one for Edited photos. They both have a place in today’s photography.

“I’m sorry… [long-exposures are] not photography… [they're] digital artwork. Things seen with real eyes in the real world do not look like [long-exposure] images ….”

In fact, it’s not photography if you use a tripod. Only photos taken hand-held are real photos, and frankly, serious photographers only take photos with their non-dominant hands, preferably while standing on their heads.

Only SooC is photography? What about those using cameras with in-camera editing? Is that somehow more acceptable than using Photoshop or Aperture just because you’re using a tool poorly designed for the purpose?

HDR isn’t photography? Hate to tell you, but if you use fill light and highlight recovery sliders in post, you’re tone mapping a wider dynamic range onto a narrower one, which is the essence of HDR. You’re just doing it with a single exposure rather than by stacking multiple exposures.

Do you ever use flash? Or lightpainting? Those do not represent the way your eye captures an image. Why are they allowable and post-processing is somehow anathema?

Oh, and I should perhaps mention that I rarely do heavy post-processing on my personal work, though I have both the tools and the ability. The fact that I don’t often do it, though, does not give me some special right to criticize those who do.

This whole, “My photography is more pure than yours” attitude is absurd*. The only thing that matters to me is the final image. If you can build it entirely with CGI while avoiding the uncanny valley, more power to you. If you use both exposure and focus stacking on a 52-pane panorama, I might think you’re not quite right in the head, but I’d still be interested in the image. And if you can take it in a single exposure with an Instamatic, great.

I’m only interested in the process when I’m so inspired that I want to try to do the same or a similar thing. Let me know when you write the tutorial, not when I’m judging a contest.

* That would be what we in the writing business call “an opinion”. Just in case there was any question.

I define myself as a “photo artist” rather than as a “photographer.” That’s because my goal is the end image, and I’ll use whatever tools I have to create the image. That includes graduated neutral density filters in the field, blended exposures, pushing colors, and removing distracting elements. If there were an “Unlimited” class in a contest, that’s where I’d fit. That’s my approach, and it works for me. Of course, there’s no reason it should be your approach.

I don’t think there’s “one right way” to set up a contest, as long as the guidelines are clearly defined. Fortunately, the rules apply to all entries, so we’re on a level playing field as far as what we’re allowed to do. When I enter a contest, I always read the rules. If they limit editing, then I select only images that fall within their guidelines. I may even process and image specifically to meet contest guidelines. Or, I may not enter the contest if I don’t feel I have an image that’s strong enough.

The concept of fairness in a contest is always a tough issue. The obvious purpose of the contest is to choose one person’s work as being better than all the others, and we hope we’re that one person. But the judgement is always somewhat arbitrary. A different set of judges would most likely see it differently, so it’s somewhat unfair to start with. Is it fair if the winner has a better camera, or sharper lenses, or a more sturdy tripod? Is it fair if they have lighting skills you don’t have? Is it fair if they have better processing software, or advanced processing skills?

There were problems in the film days as well. Very few photographers processed and printed their own color prints. Instead, we relied on custom color labs to make our beautiful prints. Even today, there are labs that specialize in making competition prints (for an added fee). How often was the winner chosen because he had a better color lab, or paid for more refined printing?

The best we can hope for is to have the rules clearly defined. As they say, enter at your own risk. And accept the fact that if you don’t win, the winner might have had an advantage – and that’s why they won.

As someone who does take all liberties with editing images, as art is really in the mind of the creator, I believe that it doesn’t really matter whether its photograph or not.

The person or people who establish the criteria for their photo event need to set clear guidelines about what is or is not allowed. After all most events should be fun, creative and a bit challenging and the rules should factor in the capabilities and interests of the participants.

If a event wants to limit it to 4×5′s, pinhole, film, hand developed, etc then great. If you have that equipment and or skills go do it and have fun. For others, join one of the many other events that fit your needs.

Niels Henriksen

Photos have always been manipulated even back in the days of film. Generally, the only people who care about how a photo is made is fellow photographers and those in the industry. Majority of people only care about the final results.

I think it is only to be a concern for contests and editorial use which relies on truth of the image. Both should define the categories in great detail as to what is acceptable considering the possibilities to avoid controversy.

I have read the article and the comments, and all are great. Thanks Terry for this interesting topic. My thought/opinion/reply: I think the only photo that is no longer a photo is the one never shot. Who captures it, how it is captured, what is used to produce the final result to me does not matter, photo’s are an expression of the one who shot it and once that is done it is a photo. The technology today simply allows an individual the ability to fine tune that expression as they want to display it. Any creative art form is this self expression, does an author who writes a book with pencil differ from the one who uses a computer or one who uses a quill?

Thank you for the insight, and more importantly thank you for sharing the shots you have done.