How Does One Tell?

One of the contestants in my latest contest admitted she had used a program that offered a tool called, “selective sharpening”.

I found that curious.

Don’t have a darkroom. Do I stop taking pix? For FAA contests, groups? NO WAY.
I love editing, finding new expression.

I am an artist, not a purist. Subterfuge is insulting as a moderator of a contest would call it.

a sure sign that someone is pushing digital modification too far is halo effects, like when someone cranks up HDR effects.
Digital painting is easy to spot as well when it's a newly developed interest.
On that vein though, we all start somewhere and I hate to discourage new skills. That said, I'm not going to randomly tell people how to do it well either.

On my contests, I usually tell those who submit to limit the editing time to what they feel is reasonable. If it's stopping you from having a life, you're probably doing too much of it.

The one I see lately that really makes my skin crawl is bad background substitution, where it's just painfully obvious. Done well, it is seamless and not a distraction from the subject, but done poorly, I can't see anything past the editing.

That's my two bits on it, but it is just my opinion.

if you can't tell, then it doesn't matter. if you can tell then you have your answer.

in the old days people would overly compensate in the darkroom too, look at ansel adams. he would be considered in that overly done category.

but if you can't see where they edited it, then they did their job. over regulation in a group or a contest makes it unfun for everyone. it will take time out of your day and just annoys the person entering it.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

The obvious tell is they use some crazy Topaz filter and proceed to upload every new image with this new "discovery" of their talent to click on a filter.

'overly digitized images' might as well be "amateurish images".

If there is a fine line, "overly digitized images" leap cross the line.

You can’t tell if done properly. But the question is why you would want to restrict. Reasons I can think of are: that you want the image to show camera skills rather than computer skills. That, though is rather tenuous as all digital images need processing (even a picture on my page taken on 35mm transparency required scanning and dedusting). That processing can be done on a computer or in-camera, my camera has shadow/highlight control, colour changing and all sorts of other stuff in-camera.
The other reason is for a true representation of what was before the camera, such as for news or wildlife. The FIAP definition is:

• No techniques that add, relocate, replace, or remove pictorial elements except by cropping are permitted.
• Techniques that enhance the presentation of the photograph without changing the nature story or the pictorial content, or without altering the content of the original scene, are permitted including HDR, focus stacking and dodging/burning.
• Techniques that remove elements added by the camera, such as dust spots, digital noise, and film scratches, are allowed.
• Stitched images are not permitted.
• All allowed adjustments must appear natural.
• Color images can be converted to greyscale monochrome.
• Infrared images, either direct-captures or derivations, are not allowed.

This discussion always makes me smile - and shake my head a little :)

Most of my images have "selective sharpening". Why would I sharpen the whole image, when sharpening can introduce noise or detract from the main subject? I never sharpen skys. I sometimes defocus the background a bit with Gaussian blur to emulate the effect I might get with a more distant background or wider aperture. If you can tell, I failed.

All images on FAA are digital and most of them were edited by the camera firmware to compensate for the sensor peculiarities before the photog even saw it. The question of what was done, and whether it requires that word "over" to be added is both a subjective matter and a question of personal taste. It also merges over into that question of whether an image is captured or created or somewhere in between. Personally, unless I was doing news, science or court documentation I would never state that any of my images represent any sort of literal truth. That sort of "truth" is, in itself, only selectively true since the photographer started out by deciding where to point the camera.

I'd really just rather stick with a convincing illusion or a nice picture. People who buy our pictures don't know and probably don't care whether the cloud was really there at that time and place, don't know the position of the sun or whether there was someone staring at the camera who was subsequently removed or what colors existed at that moment. They mainly look at it and think about whether it would look nice on the wall or on a mug or whether it matches the couch or whatever. Unless I was in court, delivering testimony, I would never reveal what was done. That's my secret.

I'm with Nikolyn as far as smiling and shaking my head. I will add a sigh here as well.

My submission of a dragonfly was one of those that you deleted, Walter. I was completely mystified about why it was deleted. There were skads of dragonflies left in the contest. You deleted some amazing photos (some of which are in the contest discussion thread). I even voted for the hoverfly image that was a frontrunner at the time. Yet it was deleted too, sadly.

My photo was taken so long ago, I believe I took it with my first (gasp!) digital SLR. It is simply a macro of a dragonfly resting on a dried-up plant stalk in a friend's garden. I never suspected it would come under such intense scrutiny! Just because I'm a decent photographer and the eyes are sharp, doesn't mean that it was "selectively sharpened"...and even if it were, so what? Pardon me, but I think such pickiness is just silly.

No offense intended, but I'll be avoiding your contests in the future. IMO contests are about having our work seen, and to have fun. Neither was achieved in this case.

Here is the offending photograph - https://fineartamerica.com/featured/smiling-dragonfly-macro-peggy-collins.html

contests are fun if the images are erased for silly reasons.

it always makes me shake my head when people say film - and don't think it was edited. it was edited, if you didn't do it yourself, the lab did it. then enhanced colors to make it look better.

i can understand that dragonfly being removed if you ran it through a fracilius filter, or a painter, or the like. sharpening - isn't a reason to remove something. heck your camera could be set to over sharpen.

and there is no fine line. you could get film that sweetened everything or had a heavy grain. and you can have a camera set to raw with no editing, or editing a raw, or let the camera do it on any number of functions that will edit the image. i just don't see the point. because contests as far as i'm concerned, is a way to sell your art. its not a photo club.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

if you can't tell, then it doesn't matter. if you can tell then you have your answer.

Correct.

This discussion always makes me smile - and shake my head a little :)

Yup. Me too.

Ahhhhh the future being spoken about, digital/filter enhanced is the way to go, but like classic cars there will always be a place and value for classic old school photography.

SMH too.

Here is the thread from the contest discussion which shows the deleted images and the contest winner in question-- which has led to this discussion:
https://fineartamerica.com/groups/wings-in-nature-.html?showmessage=true&messageid=5408866

Nominating the winner, Carolyn Derstine, who had her image removed after the contest was finished, for kindness sainthood.

Hi Joy.

Carolyn admitted later that she used a software tool called “selective sharpening” which in my years of using a film darkroom I have never seen.

Which in my estimation was disqualifying. If not a direct violation of the rules/guidelines it was certainly not in keeping with the spirit of the contest.

I also made it very clear in the homepage of the contest: "The administrator reserves the right to reject images at his own discretion".

NOTWITHSTANDING the FACT that your comment does not address the question asked in THIS THREAD. I would greatly appreciate if you would address the question I asked in the OP, Joy.

Thanks in advance.

wait so if she dodged and burned the image - that would be ok because it was in the darkroom?

so what if the camera added the sharpening - that disqualifies it too?

you could clone things out in the darkroom, so that should be allowed too yes?


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

With all due respect, I believe it actually does factor into this conversation, Walter.

How much is too much to be considered "un-straight"? It might be worthwhile to get actual images in front of others to get an idea as to what people perceive as acceptable straight images. It is one thing to discuss ideas, another to have actual examples you- and others- can visually see.

In addition, I find the ensuing discussion in that thread also has things of value that were brought up and worthwhile of consideration.

Cheers!

looking at the thread joy pointed out, you see to be under the impression that people know what a darkroom is, that they used it in the past and they know how to use it. well i never used it. its an artifact of the ancient ones.

basic editing is:

sharpening - doesn't matter how.
noise control
cropping
general color enhancement
cloning out baddies
adjusting brightness

that is basic editing and many cameras do this in house. so to erase everything you thought was bad - and i saw nothing that looked like it was overly done. considering they can have a much better lens than you, it may look sharper than what your used to. or your seeing compression artifacts from this site on the close up. this contest was different - you erased people that were being voted on. that is very different. usually its removed before voting starts.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Walter, if you're asking the question "How does one tell the difference between the two?" ... digitally manipulated or not.... that means you don't know the answer, right? Then how can you have contest criteria based on knowing what is and what is not digitally manipulated? You made a blatant error rejecting Peggy's photo.

That's my question. Digital manipulation can be very subtle. And unless a person is very experienced with Photoshop and filter programs and the way filters behave, you sometimes cannot tell.

I'm also of both the old school... film cameras AND printing black and white and also color in my school's lab and in my own darkroom for years... and the new digital school. But I do believe if you can't discern something about a work with accuracy, then don't have that element as a restriction. You can see the bad feelings this contest has now created.

Edited to add: "selective sharpening"... you can lasso/magic wand anything in Photoshop and just sharpen that one area or thing in the image. Easy peasy, super basic PS.

what about selective blurring - that can be done in the dark room. have a clear shot, and blur everything else around it, pretty sure it can be done.

like a RAW file will always have editing, it comes out fresh from the camera which will often be darker, softer without the punch you normally see.

----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I am the "Carolyn" Walter is referring to and I didn't realize "selective sharpening" was such a strange type of edit! It is, as Bradford Martin commented, a commonly used edit. Since almost all images need sharpening in post production, why would I sharpen the whole image when I really just wanted the hoverfly sharp and the background staying blurred? So I did "selective sharpening". As a number of us were wondering why our images were suddenly deleted from the contest, Walter and I have had a lengthy discussion on the contest discussions page of the contest he was running and I was trying to explain what edits I had done to my image. Yes, I was the "winner" until my image was deleted but that is no big deal. I basically was trying to plead for more clarity of rules and a bit of grace. I really couldn't quite grasp the fine line he was trying to draw so I suggested he post in the FAA forums for more input. But now I almost feel like a criminal for doing "selective sharpening"!

If interested, this is the image. I will plead guilty to tending to oversaturate which is initially what I thought I did wrong.

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/hoverfly-on-coreopsis-carolyn-derstine.html

Note: I want to thank everyone for their participation and let you know that you have given me much 'food for thought'. I will have to peruse the comments and give much consideration to the input you have provided. It may take some time but I will consider the ideas carefully.

Nonetheless I will also point out that I am sincere in my quest. Along these lines I will include here a statement I made in the homepage of the contest:

(Lets pretend we are working in an 'old school' film darkroom: What I like to refer to as 'straight photography'.)

Carolyn---


“I am the "Carolyn" Walter is referring to and I didn't realize "selective sharpening" was such a strange type of edit!”

It certainly would be considering I asked that we “pretend we are working in an 'old school' film darkroom: What I like to refer to as 'straight photography'.”

straight photography is no darkroom. otherwise you would say - editing is ok, darkroom or otherwise. and the skills of the photographer, lens choice etc - that is straight photography. like ansel - was not straight photography even though many on the outside think it was.

normal editing is ok for a contest, and then you would outline what is normal.

what you don't want to see would be - filters, any kind of enhancing filters.

a straight photo from a digital camera is never straight out of the camera, so it nullifies itself as soon as you take it. and if you post the raw - there is little chance of winning or selling which is the point in these contests.

----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Hello, James Lamb.

You wrote, “But the question is why you would want to restrict.”

That is not my question at all. Notwithstanding there are other admins that make the same sort of restrictions in both their groups and their contest.

Perhaps you might consider starting a thread as to why others make restrictions.

No shame? No ridicule? We all love you?

Indeed the thread is a barrel of laughs.


“This discussion always makes me smile - and shake my head a little :)

Yup. Me too.”

“SMH too.”

“I am an artist, not a purist. Subterfuge is insulting as a moderator of a contest would call it.”

“over regulation in a group or a contest makes it unfun for everyone. it will take time out of your day and just annoys the person entering it.”

“This discussion always makes me smile - and shake my head a little :)”

“I'm with Nikolyn as far as smiling and shaking my head. I will add a sigh here as well.”

“Walter, you are taking my posts the wrong way.. I have no ill intentions whatsoever. You need to get some rest now. Nighty Night”. (full of condescension)

“Wow, interesting thread, it is all pretty dark in here, I am getting out of this darkroom and going out where the light is.
Hope you guys find your way out of this darkroom.”

“that's the point of this thread, no one is in the darkroom, we are doing it on the computer. i can only think of one person that is still in that darkroom.”

“walter your very rude, you know that right?”

Cannot resist. If somebody replied that You can’t tell the difference, then, asked and answered.
The rest...a Joyous, read, whether OT, or not. So why is this still open? O/O

Viva, Why do you think I asked the question?

BTW. I don't know all the shorthand here either. What is OT and O/O?

Hello Walter,

I think I know where you are coming from and I think you asked the wrong question.

The simple answer to “how can you tell” is that you must require people to submit the RAW files - this is done in many wildlife competitions, usually only for the prize winners. What Reuters now do is to require out of camera jpgs as a speed/avoid manipulation compromise https://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/

Seeing the RAWS is not something that can be done in an FAA context.

FAA is facility for selling images, but that does NOT mean it’s only usefulness is for established artists with large portfolios. There is also the use of the site by photographers as a showcase for their work. There are many Groups on FAA which are effectively camera clubs, which are exclusively for photography and which frequently have contests to show what you can do when presented with working within certain constraints, such as Black&White, Selective Colourisation, Birds in Flight. The appeal of those contests is the personal challenge of working within the constraints. Those constraints need to be clearly stated at the outset, and unambiguous. The reaction to your contest and the fact you asked the question shows your rules were not unambiguous. I understand, I think, your idea of photos which would have been produced in darkroom days, but there are two problems: things like selective sharpening COULD be done then, albeit with far more effort than now; and camera technology has moved on so, for example, it was possible in the 1970s to have a motor drive and a bulk film holder attached to an Olympus OM1 and run through 250 frames at 5 frames per second. Now the Olympus EM1 can do 60 frames per second, which fundamentally changes what can be done. A photo of an arrow passing through and bursting a water filled balloon is now not difficult.

So I think what you need to be asking is what constraints make a challenging and satisfying contest. I think the skills involved in producing a great image are many and complementary: handling hardware: camera, lenses, flash, autofocus; processing in-camera, post-camera, compositing (in-camera and post) etc. I think it helpful, challenging and satisfying doing things such as “photos using only one flash” when it is clear that it can be a learning step and that acquired experience will go toward general use of flash.

The contests on FAA do not have such prizes that there is intentional cheating so it is not about enforceable regulation but about choosing criteria which appeal. (Of course removal of images from people who blanket-submit without reading the rules, such as colour shots in a B&W contest, is required, but this is not intentional fraud).

i find it almost fascinating, that you didn't bother to post all the actual answers you got in this thread. but instead focused on the reply's when you were negative to us.

that is why this is a bill thread.

a bill thread (in case you haven't been here when he was here), starts with a technical question. everyone answers, then he disagree's with all answers, then gets into a homeless lady who he takes in, who turns out to be quite rich, she owns many cats, that she didn't have on her when she was taken in. the cats were in a storage locker along with all her millions. but she's on the street because she lost the key and he had to make a key because he's an expert locksmith all of the sudden, and when he gets there, by motorcycle, 900 miles away, he finds it and opens it only to find the cats are not that alive and they ate the money and then there he says - why does this always happen to me? and then there is a story about a deer, maybe big foot, and no one goes back to the original question because he never cared about it anyway. and 900 posts later, he either leaves or its forced closed because he starts talking about religion or something.

and that's what this thread is getting to. we helped you. but the problem is, i don't know what the problem is here.

it seems to me that you invented a rule that you couldn't follow yourself. that people had to guess what things you did in a darkroom years ago, and they couldn't do those things you didn't do - like selective sharpening. so anything that looked in focus, you rejected. which is weird considering a blurry image, especially a macro, would not win or sell. and arguing with us in here is counter productive.

i don't know why you asked this question. if a person is wearing make up, but you can't tell - does it make a difference? if you hold a contest about making cakes and they can't use vanilla, but some did, and you can't tell, does it make a difference? and if you hold a contest where people can't edit too much and you can't tell the difference - does it make a difference?


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

also your not really leveling the playing field, people don't buy it because its edited well, they buy it because it was executed well. if you have to do a lot of editing - you did something wrong to begin with. light editing is all you really need.

if someone asked me what camera i use i will tell them - i use a canon 5d mk4 - because that's all the wanted to know. they don't care about how you created the image unless they are a photographer too and are amazed with the talent. anything more will sound condescending and you just want to talk about yourself. and if you lecture them, they don't want to hear the speech.

and it does make a difference what camera you use, because the quality you get from a phone, a pocket camera, a prosumer, and a very high end professional camera can make a difference. the focusing is faster on a higher end camera, lets in more light, it may let you capture something that a smaller slower camera can't get. the hopes of getting that thing in flight may be dashed because it just can't focus or track the thing.

how can you tell if it was film or digital? why does it matter? you can ask that question if you want.

now it sounds like your not selling based on the above posts about being stacked against you - the site will let you sell if people are interested in your work. its only against you if someone has a better image than you and they got to them first.


as far as bill's "wife" is concerned, she became big foot.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

am i reading this thread wrong then... thinking about it what you want to know is - how can i recognize it if people are cheating in my contest? how can i recognize that this was edited so i can remove it. what is the cheat sheet, the tell tale signs?

is that what your asking?

there are signs if that's the case. like if they did a selective bokeh, you may see sprites of the darker colors if they used a Gaussian blur without a good mask. or the main subject has a light coating of noise and the background is ice smooth. if the colors look too sweet. if you see a distinct amount of localized contrast on edges, it was over sharpened. if the sky looks oddly darker than the rest and there is a lot of noise in the shadows and white is absent - it means they used a tonemapper on an 8 bit jpg.

is that the stuff your looking for? because if you edit a lot, you will know the tricks to look for. and if you do edit a lot, you'll recognize it in your work and know how to fix it. or see it in other images. like if you did digital art you may be more sensitive to how it blends into a scene, the lighting, the scale, perspective etc.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I will go with the question of "who cares?". The first edit is selecting a place to shoot pictures, the next is when a camera is pointed somewhere at something by a photographer. RAW images suck until they are "developed", a curious terminology artifact from the film days since RAW development refers to a software process that changes every pixel in the image to create something that the software developer preferred. Physical sensor limitations on dynamic range and color capture mean that every single photo is either inaccurate OR edited, and probably both.

In one of my alternative lives, I do movie reviews. When I reflect on photography, I can't help but recall that when Judah Ben Hur won the chariot race in Rome, it was a fake race in a prop arena that pissed off a phony emperor in front of a crowd of Hollywood extras, but nobody cared because it looked real and satisfied their mental image of a chariot race.

In photography, especially when someone bemoans editing, it's less of a question of whether the photo was edited (it was) and more about whether the result seemed believable or whether it appears to be the result of somebody's creative intent. So, if the photo result presents the appearance of being real, then it's as real as a fake image ever can be. If it's full of obvious edits, objects removed, layers inserted, pixelated or full of halos then it doesn't look real. We will never know reality and nobody knows what was in front of my camera.

Since reality is a bogus concept in nearly all science, I'd just stick with a wimpy statement such as "it looks kinda like what I'd expect to see", a convincing illusion not unlike the Roman chariot race.

"There are lots of members here that don't make many sales---little guys, so to speak--- that don't have the means to produce exceptional photography that may be found in the pages of magazines or on the walls of art galleries.

Retired folks like me and semi-professionals as well as hobbyists that I believe deserve a small space in which they may garner just a little attention for themselves."

Methinks I detect a chip on a shoulder.

Walter, I'd appreciate it if you could answer your own question: "How do you tell?" How did you tell, or think you knew, the difference?

What bugged me in particular with this contest of yours was that you deleted perfectly reasonable photographs that had no alterations (including mine), possibly because they were sharp, or maybe you looked at our portfolios and saw that some of us have been published (I have), or maybe you've noticed that we sell our work consistently (I do), and then deleted our work because of that.

And what bugged me even more is that despite your instructions to NOT enter birds, etc., there were flocks of them to be seen in the contest. Why didn't they get deleted?

Excellent post, Peggy.

It seems like Walter is holding a contest for not-so-good images. It's as if a well-executed picture crosses some arbitrary line and gets deleted. That is SO wrong.

With all due respect, I second Peggy in her remarks questioning the contest this is all in regards to. It is concerning that images that met the guidelines and theme would be removed but others that didn't even meet the theme aren't deleted. I wasn't apart of the contest, but that inconsistency understandably is leading to the dissent we are seeing on the topic.

A plausible explanation would serve this thread well. I can't think of any, but I'm sure all involved would be willing to hear it out..

i'm curious where walter is. is he just ignoring us because we are asking him questions. i would really like to know why those were removed, especially if he can't tell the difference.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

My comment (that was not responded to) asked him how he felt he could put restrictions on his own contest that he himself couldn't even discern/judge.

He didn't like me asking that obviously, so I got no answer.

considering the other thread about this topic - said exactly the same thing. i don't quite get why he started another thread on this topic.. just to disagree with the entire site? i don't get it. maybe i should look for big foot.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Joy, he didn't respond to my first post either. Perhaps we were too on point?

Edited to add: and of course he never responded to either one of us. Hmmm...

I hate to go on and on about it, but injustice and unfairness brings out the devil in me.

yeah based on the - leveling the playing field thing he said, it sounds like a case of sour grapes, and an impossible contest to stay in rules. i still find it remarkable that he removed things while people were voting. i would say the contest is rigged. i can't really believe the site allows that.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Peggy, right. People don't like to hear the truth. Your photo was great, by the way! :)

I just put him on my list of people to not respond to anymore.... and also not to enter their contests, join their groups, follow, or really have anything to do with. It's just a time suck to respond to people who make it seem like you're talking to a wall.

Some people start threads for vanity reasons... not to really learn anything. Mike wrote out so much useful info in this thread and he got no thanks from the OP. He got sarcasm and derision though. You can't tell some people anything even when they ask you a question! Ok, enough of this noise... I'm out.

Wow, this discussion really exploded! I will take some responsibility for why Walter started this thread on the larger FAA forum originally. After realizing many contest images were deleted at the end of contest voting, I was going back and forth with him in the contest discussion thread trying to understand his reasoning and criteria for not just deleting my image but many wonderful others. Eventually, after much discussion, I felt like I was getting nowhere so I encouraged him to post his "question" in the larger forum for more input from others. And input he got!! :) I certainly don't mean any ill will towards Walter but it does seem he has not been very receptive to all of the great thoughts many of you have shared and seems to have had his mind made up. He did comment to me that he was very tenacious. . .and I think we have all witnessed that! But it seems it is time to end this discussion thread. Nothing more to be gained IMO.

just his silence is very telling. i'm not sure what he thought he would gain from this. i found it odd that he got real answers and he called it shaming him. which makes me think he had limited darkroom experience and didn't realize maybe we all have darkroom experience, just the modern methods?

this thread was very much like a bill thread, only less entertaining.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

it seems like he is trying to justify his own work because everyone else's look more high tech then his. And high tech is not a traditional form of photography in his mind. Just sayn

My art is definitely digitally altered. I go nowhere near these contests. But that is not the reason I avoid them.

I am wondering whose art is not digitally altered.

There is also original paint altered. Figure that one out. LOL

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

Name calling (keep compareing to another person)
I think is not a good idea.
If not walter then Abbie may have to close this thread.
It is not good now for any one to read any more.
It is also shows a lot about how everyone is handling this.

ditto, leave out the comparisons between individuals. We are truly all the same and all completely different. We deserve respect particularly as an individual.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

maybe walter is out because he caught the virus? if so get better then come back.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Yes , this thread is pretty crowded, we all need some safe distance from this infected thread.
It seems to be fermenting pretty good.

Sadly the thread has deteriorated beyond the point of being useful.

I want to thank everyone that offered relevant information pertaining to the question asked in the OP.


I am closing the discussion.

Walter, please excuse me for reactivating for a moment.

I'm personally disgusted by some of the posts in this thread, especially by those purporting to be artists themselves, against another artist.

This constant bile stops today.

All of you who have broken our respect rules will find yourselves blocked at some point today when I've read these again and carefully. We will have no more casual insults flung on this forum. Ever.


As an aside... James Lamb. Great post. Not condescending, factual and just an explanation of your belief without putting down another. Fabulous