CPS Competiton rules

Forums Critique Requests CPS Competiton rules

This topic contains 12 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of  Anonymous 4 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4714
    Profile photo of Peter Robinson
    Peter Robinson
    Keymaster

    Back in freezing March some of us brave souls ventured to the Nantwich Jazz festival. I took a series of shots of this lady singer giving it hell. Unfortunately I managed to clip her elbows off in different pictures. So with a lot of cloning in PhotoShop I extended the original and cloned in the elbows from other pictures. I also modified the background to add some more spot lights and converted it to black and white.

    Although it highly modified as far as I can tell I’m allowed to enter it for a CPS competition. As far as I understand any degree of modification is allowed except for annual competition entries. What does the team think?

    This is the original:

    This is the doctored version I’d like to enter as a PDI:

    #4715
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Like coloured pic.best. Very good lively photo all action-great shot Peter-ditch the mono.

    #4716
    Profile photo of meg cumming
    meg cumming
    Participant

    I see what you’ve done Pete and I love the new version as it gives space to the singer. As far as cloning and amending is concerned,at present I think this applies only to nature images. L&CPU rules allow only the minimal retouching,but no real clonining or alteration of an image.

    I think the debate that was quite lively and heated earlier on in this forum,was a basis for disscussion,because some felt that apart from simple retoucing as in nature which is deemed ok,major reworking like yours would be seemingly termed as creative and should be put in another section all together, that would include also the way out zany ones as in the ones from Adrian Liones et al. That way “pure” unadulterated images would remain and stay in general mainstream competitions.I for one am still of the thinking that this should stay in the same catergory as per usual and be allowed to compete with everything else that is submitted to that competition.

    I hope you do enter this for next years general competitions as I think it is such a lovely image and your re-working of it has made it a better image for its alteration.

    #4717
    Profile photo of D. Williams
    D. Williams
    Participant

    That is really good work Pete.  I would try and make the armpit a bit more attractive if possible as she didn’t have too close a shave that morning.  You could also slim the arms with a little touch of liquify in PS and see if it helped. She was a slim lady but the angle is giving her slight bingo wings. I think she overdid the blusher and I would lighten some face shadows a touch in the mono.  Just a suggestion.

    I am going to have to nobble you for next year! Is your camera insured? 😉

    As far as I know this is fine in any category but Nature.  There is no absolutely straight general category yet even at the LCPU. Hopefully that can of worms will stay shut.

    With repair work like this there would be no point in trying to do it to an undetectable standard if you were forced to shout it had been done by having to enter it in to a montage category … hence making the judge concentrate on looking for the join and trying to guess what had been done.  This detracts from the simplicity of the image when the  work is to restore to a natural, complete (ie the arm repair) and uncluttered result rather than create a fantasy image.

     

     

    #4719
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    Dee said, “There is no absolutely straight general category yet even at the LCPU. Hopefully that can of worms will stay shut”

    Just for information, I thought I’d mention that there has been a serious discussion on the L&CPU forum of how to deal with montages and single-image photographs in competitions here:

    http://www.lcpu.org/forum/index.php?topic=2513.0

    There is concern more widely in the PAGB about the increasing prominence of montages. This is reflected in the intention of the Bebington Salon (BPE) to include a new section in an attempt to address the issues discussed in the L&CPU thread.

    Nationally, the RPS response is indicated by the fact that the 2013 RPS PDI International (now to be called International Images for Screen Exhibition) has three sections: “In Camera”, “Altered Reality” and “Nature”, whose characteristics are reported in the L&CPU forum thread here:

    http://www.lcpu.org/forum/index.php?topic=2513.msg9507#msg9507

    So it looks like the worms are already out. 😉

    But as far as I can tell, there seem to be no plans at present for CPS to introduce any changes ahead of further discussion by L&CPU / PAGB, so Peter’s image should be OK this season.

    #4722
    Profile photo of Tom Seaton
    Tom Seaton
    Participant

    Nice one Peter. Absolutely OK for this season competitions.

     

    #4726
    Profile photo of Peter Robinson
    Peter Robinson
    Keymaster

    Many thanks for all of the advice and comments everybody. It’s given me a lot to think about. It looks like I’m OK for this season, but thinks may change for next. Thanks for the links Ian. The comments make interesting reading and clarify the situation more.

    #4736
    Profile photo of D. Williams
    D. Williams
    Participant

    It is a shame that such decisions are being made using comments made by contributors to the LCPU forum as an opinion source … when that forum is closed to all but a select few as registration had been impossible for some time.

    Personally, I think allowing multiple exposure images done in camera should not be allowed if it can’t be done out of camera. What on earth is the difference?  It is still multiple exposures.  Are we going to bend the rules to allow only owners of certain cameras / equipment this privilege?

    If sensitive traditional non software using photographers do not wish their simple images to be judged against fantastic multi layered creations of people with animal heads on flying donkeys, I fail to see the point of creating a category with rules that mean that images such as Pete’s above or something with a new sky or an added half inch of side space / pavement / elbow … ‘still’  have to be judged against them.  What exactly will have been achieved?  How on earth can this clarify the situation?

    If the ‘truth’ of an image must not be altered then use of lightroom to dramatically pull out detail in flat skies which in reality were not visible in the initial raw or JPEG image should also be completely against the rules.  In all fairness these images would also have to go into the altered reality category.

    I would feel pushed to just enter everything into the altered category, as who wants to find some innocent edit has caused them to be held up publicly as a cheat?

    I bet I would not be alone!

     

     

    #4737
    Profile photo of Ian McNab
    Ian McNab
    Keymaster

    Dee said, “It is a shame that such decisions are being made using comments made by contributors to the LCPU forum as an opinion source”

    The Royal Photographic Society and the Bebington Salon of photography are the organisations actually making decisions at present, and they are independent of the L&CPU. Any discussions the PAGB may have will also not be reliant on informal conversations on the L&CPU forum. Unease about the preponderance of montages in general photography competitions is much more widespread than L&CPU, and extends nationally.

    Indeed, L&CPU and CPS are two places you probably won’t see any changes next season!

    #4745
    Profile photo of D. Williams
    D. Williams
    Participant

    Just noticed that I can still slightly see the ear (near the microphone) of the person you have removed / cloned out Pete.  I am sure you have already noticed and this was a first draft.   Also some of the spotlights are fainter than others so I would make them uniform or remove the fainter ones. I do think I prefer the mono version although it would be good to see it in colour with the cleaner background as well.  Just a thought … the background has a navy cast and it may not be acceptable as a mono in comps, so I would desaturate the final image if it was mono you were aiming at.

    #4746
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    MY FRIEND PETER-as like others a total admirer of your work–I am unsure if you are trying to wind us up –and no one else can see it. Writing as one of a few members who have had a mono selected as picture of the month L.C.P.U.- my grey cells can still evaluate a mono–and this ain”t. This is an “IF” photo-if you had gone back a yard-if you had come around to get all the arm and the guys trumpet–the colour version would have been un beatable- As it is the colour version beats the rythm and is vibrant and one no one could pass by without a second glance and third. As a mono thats a bit flat  its the spots that catch the eye. But you are such an expert you know this and more  -so can I plead you stop winding up the ladies  and make me a 20×16  colour print to hang on my wall. Now having said that, we hav e seen the judges rate highly some flat work   -so see how it runs.Keep her teeth white though.

    #4757
    Profile photo of Peter Robinson
    Peter Robinson
    Keymaster

    I’m quite surprised by how much interest this subject has raised. thanks for your comments everyone. Some I wasn’t excepting and some conflicting, but that’s the beauty of the forum. Ity’s given me some new ideas and has made me take a closer look at my effort.

    I’ll gladly print you a colour enlargement Ken when I have my prints made in a couple of weeks. You’re right by saying it’s an ‘if only’ picture. I have many ‘if only’ pictures!

    #4759
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    SUPER PHOTO-THATS WHY THE INTEREST—–doooon”t shout at me

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.