[Tweeters] Current Issue of Audubon Magazine-Photoghahy awardsand Disqualification Discusion

Teresa Michelsen teresa at avocetconsulting.com
Sat Jan 25 14:27:01 PST 2014


For a photography contest, I would say only cropping should be allowed. The photo is what it is, and this way the skill of the photographer is paramount. Of course, with your own photos for your own use, anything goes.



I agree that many ills of our society can be traced to how women’s images are manipulated and the effect that has on the viewers. We don’t need to do the same with images of nature. I’d like to look at a photograph and think that’s something I can aspire to, not dependent on how good the person’s software is. I’d also like it to be representative of actual nature. Idealizing anything causes us to move ever-further from being able to appreciate its reality.



Teresa Michelsen, Olympia



From: tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu [mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of plkoyama at comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 2:14 PM
To: ck park; notcalm at comcast.net
Cc: Tweeters
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Current Issue of Audubon Magazine-Photoghahy awardsand Disqualification Discusion



Yikes, Dan, who says airbrushed, surgically enhanced female models are “natural?” I’m with Caren on this. Though not a photographer, I like to think that when I look at a nature photograph it is “real.” Maybe there should be another category for surgically-altered photos!!!

Penny Koyama, Bothell

plkoyama at comcast dot net

From: ck park <mailto:travelgirl.fics at gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:04 AM

To: notcalm at comcast.net

Cc: Tweeters <mailto:Tweeters at u.washington.edu>

Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Current Issue of Audubon Magazine-Photoghahy awardsand Disqualification Discusion



I suppose it depends on your definition of "photograph" versus "digital image".

mine definition? if i clone away dust bunnies, crop, or maybe apply a bit of sharpness, to me it's still a photograph. the image is as i saw it.

if, however, i alter the shape(s) of something, alter colours (obvious saturation, HDR, etc) and/or clone away distracting poles, buildings, trees, etc, what you would see is no longer as i saw it, and therefore, while it may be beautiful, interesting, etc, it is a digital image, an interpretation that is no longer a photograph.

this definition is mine, and while shared by many, is not a universal definition. as well, some folks today believe "photograph" == "digital image", that there may be no inherent difference between the two.

your mileage may vary.



00 caren
http://www.ParkGallery.org
george davis creek, north fork



On 25 January 2014 03:04, <notcalm at comcast.net> wrote:

Hello Fellow Tweeters,



There is an interesting discussion regarding alteration of bird photographs and rules for the Annual Photo Contest in the current issue (January, 2014) of Audubon magazine. A great image was disqualified. I am interested in what Tweeter's community members think. I think it is an interesting question.



Many of our best single images of birds and humans are now modified and enhanced to varying degrees. This a now a routine practice for images of female models in fashion magazines. The controversies in many fields, including bird photography include: when should it be disclosed; at what level of change, including enhancement; and what image enhancements should be considered in photo contests. The Audubon Editor asks for feedback.



Thanks,

Dan Reiff

Mercer Island


_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters



_____

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters



More information about the Tweeters mailing list