Photographers Who Got Caught Cheating
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 сен 2024
- I take a look at a selection of photographs that were disqualified from various competitions over the years. Some of the photographs were not intentionally trying to mislead the judges, and some were blatantly cheating. You can find links to the relevant articles below. Thank you to Squarespace for sponsoring this video. 10% off your 1st purchase at www.squarespac...
Order my 2024 Calendar: thomasheaton.c...
My Weekly Newsletter: thomasheaton.c...
Some Gear in this Video. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴.
Ecoflow Batteries. 5% Off with Code ThomasHeaton: uk.ecoflow.com...
360 Camera: geni.us/360cam
SAVE MONEY
Did You Like the Look of My Camera Bag? Use: HEATON10 & Save10% at shimodadesigns...
My Filters: kasefilters.com Use "Heaton" for 5% off.
My Landscape Photography Book Vol-1: thomasheaton.c...
My Landscape Photography Book Vol-2: thomasheaton.c...
Binge Watch My Entire 'On Location' Catalogue: • Binge Watch EVERYTHING...
You Might be Interested in These:
My Website: www.thomasheat...
My E-Book: geni.us/onlocation
My Facebook: / thomasheatonphotography
My Instagram: / heatonthomas
The Music in These Videos from Artlist & Epidemic Sound: 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬s
share.epidemics...
artlist.io/art...
Hand Wrap Img - amateurphotogr...
NatGeo Img - petapixel.com/...
Elephant Ear - digital-photog...
Look Up - www.digitaltre...
WolfGate - www.dailymail....
Anteater - www.theverge.c...
A.I. Surf - www.techradar....
A.I. Portrait - www.bbc.co.uk/...
#landscapephotography
I just had a legit photo booted off a landscape photography group on FB because they thought it was AI. A couple of other photographers commented that the scene was in fact real and to their credit the moderators reinstated the image.
I don’t even “like” any photos online anymore because of AI.
@@ighdesignsso cool
@@ighdesignsthat's so weird🤔
@@ighdesigns I suppose the ethical thing is to disclose the use of AI(?). Like Mr. Heaton mentioned in the video, AI is causing a similar stir as "Photoshopped" (and "airbrushed" before that) did initially. Photoshop now is an "Industry Standard" tool and it (or other tools) are expected to be used - I think AI is just the next tool (But the ethics are still being hammered-out). Cheating (and plagiarism) is always cheating, I think the most important thing is honesty and transparency in our day-to-day - integrity and reputation is all we have in the long run.
maybe stop using AI. You're ruining our credibility
Regarding the anteater picture, anyone who spent hours waiting for the perfect shot would NEVER flip to playback after ONE picture to check if it's good while the subject is still standing there. You keep taking shots until it leaves and THEN you check and hope one of them is a keeper.
my thought exactly.
Exactly. You shoot as many photos as you can and hope one of them will be a winner. And you still continue your session. After session. After session.
My thoughts too. You might wait for the perfect shot, but afterwards you’d keep waiting. Maybe the anteater stops and looks up, or does something else. You’d be ready for that. Check your photo once the animal is out of frame.
Exactly! I've never EVER did that (I'm pretty sure most photographers didn't as well). I always shot as much as I thought it would be necessary and only then check what I've got.
@@luxincognita that would be my guess as how wildlife photographers work. Or any type of photographer really, but wildlife photographer has to race against time as well. :)
And a fact, only very few people know: Anteaters love being photographed so much, that they instantly freeze for at least 5 seconds, if they notice the click of the camera, not to create any movement blur. But after that, they run away pretty fast.
😂😂
yes.. and their ability to freeze mid air is just astonishing...
@@Patrik6920 It takes a lot of practice and aard vark...
@@KenLieck lol .. maby even an Alf ..
Seriously??? Anteaters have poor hearing and poor eyesight. I doubt it can hear the sound of a camera. However they do have an excellent sense of smell. The only known predators of Giant Anteaters are jaguars and pumas. I've been within a rock's throw of Giant Anteaters in Costa Rica and Ecuador. I would guess they smelled me and were not threatened at all - because I am not a jaguar or puma.
In one of my photo classes years back, while discussing credibility in digital photography, we were shown a series photos of Civil War solders killed in the war. But look closely, it was the same solder in every photo. This photographer dragged this poor soul around the battlefield, posing him in different ways and taking pictures.
I remember learning about this in my photo history class. Powerful images without context, but I hate how they were made.
How could someone drag a corpse for a photograph instead of photographing the countless dead men as they lay?
Like the movie Nightcrawler!
Again... what's the point? Are you saying that becuase that kind of thing routinely exists in the world of imaging that despite the rules stating no manip that its ok? One, a contest like that has rules of no manip for very specific reasons. Its a contest, not a photo assignment for the war department, or a model shoot, or a casuall family photograph. I think there is far too much false equalizing going on here in this, all to try and justify the option to manipulate despite it being clearly a no option. If the contest was of the type where manipulation is considered part of the process than of course... by all means. But if it isn't, then respect that. Because you know there are many who did. Now are you saying that if you won that prestigous contest despite manipulating when you knew it wasn't allowed you would be fine with that? Even though you also knew that there were far more who entered that perhaps had far more powerful images than yours but lost because of one minor flaw they chose to let stand because they honored the no manip rule? If that doesn't phase you, or any of the others here in this comment section then you and we have a huge ethics issue. Sadly, that anyone has to explain any of this is beyond belief. Should blood doping and steriods, etc., stand in your favorite sport? Or should the competition organizers look the other way when the contestent that won, beat the hell out of. your favorite athelete? Ahhh helll, it's just a little manipulation. Besides, shouldn't all just be considered part of the nutrioinal supplement aspect of sporting?
@@th1649 because of whats called ´´composition´´
Probably not many combat photos/film that aren't staged, because they were taken after the event. Photographer is going to make a set of photos hoping to sell just one to a newspaper/press. Reminds me of Flags of our Fathers (2006, Eastwood) where they raise the flag two times over Iwo Jima.
Many years ago a young girl won a national youth photo competition with an image of a yacht framed in a perfect rainbow. The photo was featured on the children's TV programme Blue Peter. The presenter Valerie Singleton and the administrator of the competition asked the photographer about her photo. She replied that all her photos had rainbows as the camera lens was cracked. An embarrassed silence and a rapid cut to Shep was made.
I want that lens 😊
so what's the problem?
😂 Luv it. Bless her!
But it was done "In Camera"
So it was basically a built-in 'rainbow filter'. Surely a real rainbow would look different from a cracked lens rainbow! I wonder if I can make one by cracking a lens protector.
I have zero respect for photographers who edit photos and then try to claim them as unedited.
Why!? the Process of Editing starts on the lab with dodge & burn and film stops pushed etc...🧐
@@GizmoMaxx He said EDITED and claimed UNEDITED
Do not believe everything you read. This photo has NOT been manipulated. The ears have NOT been swapped, and all that stuff about left ear tear is rubbish. The judges are clearly a bunch of snot-nosed, uninformed arseholes. I know this particular elephant intimately and this photograph is 100% kosher. The photographer should have kept his award. The judges are twats.
I think the point they were making is that traditional dslr settings being altered isn't typically considered "editing" @@djmocok
@@carcarbinx98 have a look at the darkroom practices of ansel Adam’s and alike. They heavily edited their photos.
Photo judge here- I had to disqualify an image last year for being AI. Myself and the other two judges really liked the image, but luckily, I noticed that the lighting came from multiple directions. The longer we stared, the more issues we found.
It's a tricky world out there for photo judges, but I do think RAW files or negatives are going to have to be shared soon.. I personally don't see a way around it
I think "faking" a RAW file is not rocket science. But I don't know if there are tools to uncover this?
@@erikverhoef5718 Even crazier is you can fake a negative too. There are services out there that will take a digital image and put it on a negative which you can then scan and get a true film grain on your digital image. It's wild.
@@erikverhoef5718 Can be done, but few can do that. At least I don't know of any commonly used tool that does this. Of course camera manufacturers are coming up with a fix, which is RAWs that include an authenticity stamp. Which then allows to verify that a RAW wasn't manipulated. Doesn't verify whether it was staged, though.
You can relight an image afterwards although if there were more problems then it's probably likely it is AI a heavily retouched image sometimes there's artifacting when you clean up an image using Lightroom
I entered 1 competition here in Oz which was for night sky related images and never again, one image that made the top 10 cut was AI and as fake as you can get with a milkyway backdrop with a crescent moon very prominent in the foreground with clouds behind it but that's not even the best part. Somehow miraculously there was a lady figure sitting on the moon looking out over the vast sky as though admiring the milkyway, now i didn’t care that my real nightscape didn’t make the cut but i cared and felt sorry for all those whose were far superior than mine(at least 50)who got chopped out by that fakery.
I think photo competition rules should be respected. If you are in it to win it, better make sure you follow the rules.
Only fair to other contestants
Wenn es dabei um Geld und Bekanntheit geht ist für Ehrlichkeit i. d. R. kein Platz mehr. Auf Die Ehrlichkeit aller zu bauen, ist nur naiv.
People who think like that make the soldiers and corporate robots who ruin the world.
What people dont understand is that when you allow one person to break the rules, you have to allow it for everyone, then it becomes a slippery slope...and there would be no point in competitions
Are you a photographer or an image editor? In my opinion, these competitions should accept only JPEGs straight from a camera, with zero editing allowed. Otherwise, it's only a competition of "who is better with photoshop" in my opinion.
What about the editing the camera can do on a JPEG? Going down this road of reasoning is absurd. Allow edits that could be made in the darkroom and that’s a good standard.
Not to mention that before about thirty years ago, to even be a photographer one had to be a printmaker as well.
@digitalme2 30 years ago you'd just send the film into get it developed by someone else. Unless you mean over 100 years ago and they painted over their photos as 'touch up artists' even back in the victorian period. Photo editing has been going on about as long as photography has
@@shibasurfing im not sure what kind of "editing" a camera does that you're talking about, unless you mean how you let the light interact with the lense.
@@rabbitguts2518 adding contrast and lowering highlights is all they did then, also not anyone could do it. In a day of Photoshop, I stand behind my comment a 100%.
My guess on the elephant is that he flipped the *whole elephant* and then realized people will be able to tell because of his tusks, so he swapped those back and forgot about the ears being very distinguished - therefore "accidentally" making the elephants left ear smooth and right ear jagged.
There's even a flub on the screen-right tusk of his leg highlight.
This! Look at the right ear, thats exactly the "damage" as in the comparison left ear!
So much effort though.
You can't flip the tusks. To get the tear on the other ear it looks like it was just painted in by just cloning the illuminated skin. Not by grabbing the ears and switching them. Photoshop is not THAT good.
@@AaaaNinja Not Photoshop but the user? Maybe I'm wrong but I would start by duplicating the image, flip it, align the ears and then erase the parts of each photograph that I don't want. Leave the ears from one, removing the ears from the other and then do some cloning to fill in any gaps and clean up the image.
Long since retired photographer - photo manipulation has gone on since the beginning, they just did it in the dark room. Having known several National Geographic photographers that used semi-wild/domesticated animals as well as baiting were standards. In my younger days I was lucky enough to assist on a shoot and was truly shocked to find out about these unspoken methods. The publisher took me aside and look kid, we have three days to get "The Shot", no shot, no cover that issue. We just use computers today.
Some nature documentaries have obvious cutting work to spin an interesting story.
How many slip by because some specie's individuals are near-indistinguishable?
Behind the scenes of some sir David Attenborough was eye opening.
Of course that time lapse of a growing wine was taken in a studio.
They used a mixture of wildlife photography from length expeditions and studio work to tell a story that might not be what actually happened, but could be.
It is so often done to be able to cram in more facts. One individual did A, another experienced B and on a return trip two years later we caught behaviour C on film.
I think the narrative helps us a viewers remember, so I think it is in general a good thing, as long as you are aware that you knowledge about the subject is extremely shallow if all you go on are binge watching nature shows on TV.
A matter of whether being purist or not. Whether a photographer or a darkroom technician/DI artist.
A job is typically time based. Cant afford to have time and perfect angle for a single shot.
Not the point. Yes, we all know about manual, chemical, and now digital manipulation. I grew up in one school, and graduated into another. But this is a competition, not a deadline for a Vogue cover shoot. There are many reasons why a no manip rule is put out there.. There are even more reasons why those rules are often followed by the words "for no reason whatsoever". Because any manipulation is manipulation. And there will always be losers who think that rules are for someone else but not them. But when they win a contest despite breaking those rules, and it gets out then all those who should of or could have won but didn't AND didn't do any manipulation BUT could have, well... get my drift here? Many a fantastic image was made useless because of a random hand, or screwed up blurry spot. Then get your craft together and deal. Don't do the, "well... it's just a little manipulation, what harm can it do?" Garbage. I've won contests and I've lost contests. But one thing I never did was take liberties where they weren't mine to take.
I really don't know where this mentality of bending rules is for winners thing came into being. The notion that one has to do anything and everything to win or succeed has become one of our boondoggles. There is nothing virtuous about it, yet I have seen it made out to be these past few decades. And that sucks terrible for us.
@@datatwo7405 You are definitely right there.
This "narrative" thing is relatively harmless in the setting of a nature documentary, as long as it portrays something that is realistic, even if some of the images are staged or doctored.
On the other hand we have a photograph of two American soldiers with a captured Iraqi soldier, where cropping alone makes all the difference. There is a reason people talk about "having the whole (or full) picture".
I have an M.A. degree in photojournalism and I worked as a professional portrait photographer for about 20 years after that. In college in the 1980s, we didn’t have access to digital manipulation of images; you had to do that the old-fashioned way by painting onto the negatives and then painting onto the prints, or by airbrushing, pencil work, burning and dodging, etc.
Photoshop came along early in my professional career, but its use age was limited in those early years because computers couldn’t handle large files and it was hard to output a digital file into a large print. I was perfectly happy sticking with (mostly) reality, just fixing wrinkles or spots or splotchy skin tones. As we got into the 2000s and approached 2010, everyone was aware of what Photoshop could do and I was asked to do more and more digital manipulation of portraits. I was spending 90% of my time fixing thousands of little problems every week that would never have been an issue in 1990. I was doing "digital weight-loss surgery" on more than half of all my clients. I was swapping out parts of different images. I was changing the color of clothing, removing objects from photos, addIng objects to photos, giving people digital haircuts, etc., etc., etc.
That was the point where I hung up my Hasselblads and Mamiyas. Photography was no longer about being able to capture beautiful, authentic images. No matter how gorgeous a bridal portrait was, the bride would want it to look like one of the fake images in a magazine. "I know we did my portrait in a field of wildflowers, but can you make it look like that field of wildflowers is on the top of a cliff overlooking the ocean?" "Ummm, we did this portrait 200 miles away from the nearest ocean." "I know, but I want it to look like we went to the coast…"
Now, I take photos with my iPhone and work as a classical musician in live opera. It’s so much easier than dealing with photography clients.
You seem to have a cool life
Always find it the saddest to hear about people altering pictures of themselves. Every kid takes photos with a boat load of different filters now, teaches us to hide our 'imperfections' and not embrace them from such a young age
Sounds like the rules for wildlife photography competitions reflect that they are photography competitions, not editing competitions.
Well said
Then maybe they should make one for edited photos or at least a category for that because how often do people get the exact shot they want without having to edit at all? So many artforms are not at their peak without at least some editing. Right? Not that a photo can't be brilliant without editing, not wanting to say that.
I would like to see examples of the contests that don't allow cropping or exposure adjustment?
@@jarlrmai wasn't there mentioned one in the video? It was some kind of wildlife photo comp that doesn't allow ANY editing? As far as I remember it was in the second half of the video.
@@jarlrmai7:53 did you watch the video lol
For a photography contest, I am with disqualifying retouched images even that trash bag on the side of the photograph. Either you got it, or you didn't -if those are the rules. Whether it's ok to touch for a customer wedding or such it's a different story. But for a contest, I want to see unaltered touched up photography if the rules states so.
Exactly. Otherwise there should be other rules. Who says what would be OK to cut out and what not? What would be the limit?
A good photographer sets the frame before taking the shot, not after. You can walk up and remove that trash bag when you're there, in person, but if you didn't you didn't.
Because the alternative is a Photoshop contest
Your making art not breaking news here. A "slight" retouch to aid composition is not violating the spirit of the image. In contrast for example, altering the photograph of the instant a prominent person is assassinated to change the historical evidence now that is a lie that needs exposing. But if the rules of a photo competition clearly forbid any corrections or manipulations no matter how ridiculously minor then you have to abide by it.
@@jukeboxfandango
But - if you want to take that image, removing the litter, then you have to tell the people to stage the photo.
And actually, is not removing litter from the scene also manipulation?
I cannot believe how willing you are to excuse these photographers who "harmlessly" touched up their photos. They were contests where technique and composition matter.
Sometimes, I will "touch up" the scene "before" taking my photos. For example, if I am taking an extreme closeup of a mushroom where everything is perfect but there is a small twig lying there that is out of place, I will remove the twig from the scene. Is this considered cheating?
he never said they shouldn't have been disqualified. he clearly said that as the photographer himself, he would have done the same. the jury decides whether it's a violation of the rules.
@@mytoolworld Cheating or not, some "wood-n't" do it as it may twigger a judge's negative reaction.
You're right, judges shouldn't be expected to play "spot the 6 differences" while evaluating entries.
Exactly, if you allow cheating...then where does it end? We will just continue allowing blatant editing and then the rewards wont mean anything. A great example is the oscars, it's an award show that pretty much doesnt mean anything any more, because you know it isn't merit based, but politics based.
The aeroplane up the ladder is just SO RIDICULOUS because there is no conceivable chance of getting that shot WITHOUT massive preparation, simply because the speed of the plane would take it out of the frame of the ladder almost quickly as depressing the shutter button!
Yeah, would have to have been a billion to one coincidence to get the shot with the plane so perfectly framed by accident.
Actually, the aircraft would have been in frame for 1-2 seconds as it only only be doing about 160kts. The photographer states that he was taking an image of the ladder (and any decent photographer would take multiple, rapid exposures) and that the aircraft appeared in one of them, so yes, the entire composition in plausible, although it is more likely that the aircraft appeared off-centre and he simply moved it.
The only way to get that shot is to video record it, then take a screen capture at the right moment. Also, it could be proven whether or not that was even in the flight path. I live 2 miles from the airport and I see planes flying in the same spot going the same direction all the time. Only once did I notice the path had changed for all the planes, but it only lasted for a day or so.
@@Josh-yr7gdNot necessarily video. Burst photos possibly.
@@mattburgess5697 Not even. You could just casually be taking the picture and happen to press the shutter button just as the plane flew through the composition. Granted, a one in a million shot, but those things happen sometimes. Obviously, that wasn't the case in this instance, so the photo should definitely have gotten disqualified.
His wife be like: Let`s talk about the elephant in the room - the ears are on the wrong side.
And so are the eyes.
Rules sometimes have to be persnickety in order to prevent cheating. Some people may get disqualified who did not deserve it, but the integrity of the competition is preserved.
As a former newspaper photographer, I absolutely understand the first example. It was a PRESS photography competition. In my experience, many (I would hope most) publications have guidelines that say that their commitment to telling the truth includes not manipulating photos to clone something out, etc, because that’s not telling the whole truth. When I edit for a news publication, I do crop, white balance, tone/exposure, sharpening/clarity, and noise reduction, nothing else. For all other branches of photography, those incredible tools are fair game. For photojournalism, absolutely not.
Wait in the first example the real shot was on the right in colour, the submitted shot for the competition was on the left in B&W. cropped to hell to totally take it out of context, vignetting added, noise added and god knows what else?
Think of the thousands of photographers out there who never submit their images because they believe "the photo" needs submitting, not 1/8th of the photo after cropping!
Right Cirdon. What you do for your news editing is what I do and about my limitation. It is rare that I do not do something. Only fare that competition Rules are stuck to however when one cannot make even the simplest tweak such as a crop it makes it difficult.
Contrast? Or is that included in "tone?"
@@baobo67 Isn't the idea that winning the competition should be difficult? You say it's only fare[sic] that rules are stuck to but then appear to think it unfair when you can't make the 'simplest tweak'. A 'simple crop' can dramatically change the context and feel of an image. Those rules ought to make people work harder to become better photographers, better in-camera composition can remove the need for later cropping etc...
This is a great comment.
As for the anteater: if this was an exposure of several seconds (and it had to be), then no way that animal was completely frozen during that time, so that is a "dead" giveaway.
You can have one image with two exposure values, background and foreground. If you expose for the lighter background then the foreground will be under exposed, so you can fill in the difference with a Speedlight or strobe. The image in the foreground can be moving, but the short duration of the flash which can range from say 1/8000th to 1/20,000th of a second will freeze the motion giving a sharp image. Flash duration will differ between manufacturer and price, plus, the lower flash power settings will give a shorter flash duration. I'm 99% sure the image is a stuffed anteater, and the lighting isn't done well "in my opinion". It's all in the shadows. If you know what you are doing and have the patience that would make a cat bored, then it's possible. Not me for sure. 2 hours and I'd be done for sure.
@@jonolaity234 um hate to burst your bubble mate but if that had been the case then the photographer would have said so and it would have been legal.
@@bushmanphotos I never said that the photo was real. Its an obvious fake. I was trying to explain how he could have got the image if the anteater was real by freezing the movement using flash.
The fact that you can see very slight star trails in the image, but the anteater was perfectly still. Busted.
I'm glad they're harsh. Photography is not all about the perfect image, but the capture and the moment itself.
I couldn't agree more. If you don't draw the line at "No manipulation", where do you draw it? There's no definitive place to draw it after that. The competitions will start to become photoshop competitions.
Agreed. The art of photography is dying when you can photoshop it after.
Exactly! No manipulation means no manipulation! @@aarondavis8943
@@aarondavis8943 I'm appalled that the person in this video thinks manipulation is a spectrum.
Yes sir.
I disagree that simple removal of "meaningless" items from a frame is harsh, as you put it. If the photographer made the decision to remove even a single hair from an image because he believed it improved the composition of his image, then what's stopping others from doing the same thing with more "significant" parts of theirs? Rules are in place for a reason.
I feel the same way. The Photographer should clearly understand the rules. If the rules say, don't remove the trash. Then ..well - don't remove the trash. hopefully you notice it before you take your shot.
I never entered a photo comp or anything, but as an outsider I would probably say editing out a piece of litter is a very slippery slope if you allow it. Because then, where are the boundaries, size of the litter, amount etc. If others start doing it, it may soon become a requirement to have any chance at winning because if you don't, you'll have far less opportunities for good shots than someone who does do it.
I didn't understand the litter one. Why did he take out that particular trash bag when it appeared as though the rest of the shoreline was covered in litter too?
@@nickmaclachlan5178 The proper question is, why was he too lazy to go over and remove it before taking the shot, if he felt it were too large of trash and distracting?
You have to take the good with the bad and photographers should live by that saying.
@@xnitropunkx They know they'll be judged for the bad though. This is why you get dirty cheats.
so close to the edge it could have been cropped out?
It's in the name. It's no longer a "photograph" if changes are made. It becomes an "image".
Thank you for pointing out to the less than ethical out there that find this ok to do, that is until they lose a major competition to someone who didn't follow the rules they so nonchalantly thought irrelevant. They would be the loudest screaming how unfair.
@@datatwo7405 Yup. And Mr. RUclipsr here constantly defending them cheaters lol
This is the definition I came for.
I Said this at a local club once, they absolutely hated it, and some people took it quite personally.
Technically, if it comes from film it's a photograph, and if it comes from a sensor it's an image. But I completely agree with the sentiment.
Thomas, quite a number of people have discarded photography not because of digital manipulation, but because many photographers imply that an image is something that it is not. For instance, many beautiful wildlife images from Finland are enabled by baiting, whereas the photographer makes no mention of that, even in their web site overview. Many such examples. George Orwell still said it best - "In the age of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".
I saw a photo on Flickr with a hummingbird in flight with some drops of water in the air. Everyone was praising the photographer for his skill, timing, patience, etc. in this beautiful shot. The problem was that the hummingbird, including the very tips of the wings, were absolutely crisp, but the drops of water had motion blur. Those drops of water were NOT moving fast than the tips of hummingbird wings, so obviously photoshopped.
Indeed and those images with baited bears won awards in London Photographer of the Year, the same contest that disqualified the wolf and the anteater....
Clearly more people need to follow your lead and include QR codes with video evidence of the picture being shot 🤣
There is a Lightroom ambassador who did the exact same thing but it proved that his photo is a fake. It is a photo of a plane landing at LAX with the In-N-Out in the foreground. The video shows no clouds but his image shows clouds. The same exact cars were in both the video and photo, which meant that there were no clouds. The plane was also centered perfectly which probably dropped in also.
@@FelixCervantesthats the problem with digital photography. Everything you see on screen can be manipulated. Makes it tough for photojournalists and wildlife photographers to have any credibility. I wish we could be 100% sure but we simply cant. A digital photo is just numbers written to a file in the end of the day.
@@Xirpzy Although it is a matter of degree, manipulation has been going on since the dawn of photography. Slide and negative "sandwiching" added subjects to images under the enlarger. Filters, both on the camera and in the enlarger, strategic selection of films and photo paper dramatically altered color, contrast and appearance. Dodging and burning could cause objects to disappear, along with strategic cropping. Books were written on how to manipulate negatives and prints.
@@alansach8437 yes of course but with AI and photoshop its easier than ever. Even someone who is lacking skills can make something pretty convincing.
Qr codes take you to a nefarious website and malicious code is downloaded without you knowing. They just show a photo an now hacked you
If the rules say "don't clone/stamp/soften/change shapes" then it IS "don't clone/stamp/soften/change shapes", No discussion, no but-ing, no whingeing, no "in my book ... yada yada".
It's not your book, it's the host's book.
Nobody is forced to participate, but if one does, one has to play by the book.
I was so excited to enter a local photography competition. Rules were no layers, no stacking, no manipulation of photo other than sharpness. Some of the photographers that won should be shooting for Nat Geo if they didn't manipulate their photo. They had to have been touched up. No way they came straight out of camera raw .
There was an incident in the Hungarian Press Photo competition, where a photographer's work got through to the main competition, and one of his photos was rejected, causing disqualification. The reason? The software of the scanner he used to scan his negatives had an automatic dust removal feature, which accidentally removed a crack in a wall, which was considered altering the original image. He sent in a new scan, proving it wasn't affecting the image at all, but he was disqualified anyway.
The issue with the elephant is that his name was "Tim" and he was a very famous elephant in Kenya. He has subsequently died of natural causes. So a large number of photographers had taken his photo and knew about the ears. Most wildlife competitions these days ask for the raw file once you get to the final stages of judging. One of the images I entered into the Natural History Wildlife Photographer of the Year has made it into the top 100 out of 50,000 entries. Unfortunately, they want a Canon raw file and I automatically convert my images to DNG files. This is because it saves 30% hard drive space and when you take 10's of thousands of images per year that is a lot of HD space saved.
If you have the equipment, time and experience required to get that far in that competition, you should be able to afford a NAS and some 20TB hard drives. Moreover, Canon's compressed RAW format is remarkably compact. I can shoot 30,000 45MP RAW photos on a single chip (Canon R5, 1TB ProMaster chip). Your excuses may have been reasonable 5 years ago, but not today.
The scary part is that a person clever enough who possesses the right knowledge and tools can alter any photograph without being called out on it.
Not scary at all. In the near future, AI is going to analyze photos and tell us which ones are fakes. They'll calculate light / angle /refraction /reflection / saturation / geographic location / time of day / time of year / length of shadows / missing shadows / inappropriate shadows / impossible depth of field - and tell us in 3/4's of a second "REAL" or "FAKE."
No they can't. Ethical photography competitions have a simple rule: All finalists must submit the original RAW file for examination before final judging. That is the easiest way to spot fakes and manipulated images, and can't be thwarted.
@@pianopeterr Theoretically, a photograph can be taken of an image a photographer already produced using older, analogue technology.
It isn't just photography. We are entering a world where we will never be sure whether every aspect of our lives will be real or fake. Not good.
An old adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words" takes on a new meaning. It's easier to fool people with pictures than words, so no doubt fake pictures/video will be spreading like wildfire.
I agree!
For example, food.
Exactly! AI will be used nefariously as well as for good….its the bad we should be worried about, it will mess peoples heads up
just disconnect from internet and you will see real stuffs
breaking the rules is breaking the rules, HOPING to not get caught, IS STILL BREAKING THE RULES
That shot with the elephant. Surely the sky had some work done? I would have questions about that aspect 😂
I think that sky is one of luminars.
Replaced skies often look impressive, but rarely look good.
Work done on the sky? How about a totally different sky being pasted in. That's the norm for cheats.
The levels we now think of as "cheating" has shifted so much that I think 99.9% of people have no idea how much used to be considered perfectly normal. I'm a huge fan of Hurley,'s images from the Shackleton expedition - the story alone is worth reading, never mind the images - so was I stunned to discover just how often his iconic images were made up of 2 or more plates.
I had no idea the wildlife competions were so strict now: I entered a few many years ago and correcting levels was never forbidden.
Another cheater confesses. How does it feel?
@@Physics072 lol
Everyone when his wife chimes in "THANK YOU!!" lol
That elephant example is bonkers! gr8t vid
Yes! But I noticed the tusks..! And shit got so much weirder lol.
Yes I was screaming "look at the other ear!"
As a former press photographer, I'm very much used to the "no manipulation" rules. Regarding the very first image (boxer having his hand strapping done) it's unfortunate, but in my world I'd never have removed that foot if I was filing the picture, though I would like to think I'd have noticed and either got the person in the background to move or else changed my angle slightly to get the foot out of sight.
What about the extreme crop, vignetting, black and white edit, and all of that? To me those edits completely manipulated the feeling of the photo way more than removing a little background element. And I have no issue with either.
@@AnthonyHVids Extreme crops are OK, but it is up to each editor to judge that. Vignetting is usually not used. Black and white are OK because it is black and white, and "feeling" is not a part of press photography. The tools I've heard are OK to use to edit an image, are traditional dark room tools.
Sure, if you create art images: go nuts! Press and photo journalism is something else, and the journalistic community will rightly frown upon it and point it out.
@@SivertAlmvik But we all know photojournalists have been caught staging the entire photo before it is taken. Look at all the propaganda images coming from war zones that turn out to be staged.
@RockPolitics And they even used to composite by cutting an image out of one negative and placing it in another.
I feel if the photographer was not aware enough to direct the subject or change the angle to get rid of the distracting foot, it's simply just not as good a photography as it couldve been. And that's what its about in a contest. If you're not the best photographer in the bunch you shouldnt win. simple as that.
I think the judges overlooked the fact that the photographer removed Tarzan and Jane from atop the elephant and the rest of the herd being pursued by velociraptors and charging down a bevy of photographers and rampaging over copies of Chasing Awe by Gavin Hardcastle. (There's a link in the description.) : ) I think I've retouched this blurb a few times already.
Heheh.
I'm reminded of the woman who won the Countryfile photographic comp a few years ago with a shot of a harvest mouse sitting in a half-eaten apple. The scene was staged in her kitchen using several mice and an approved handler whilst using another photo as a backdrop. The judges allowed it. Insane.
Wildlife programmes commonly do this, possibly even Countryfile. We wouldn't complain about a photographer using models
What the contests need to sort out is what they are judging. If they are judging the beauty/impact of a final image (the photographer as artist perhaps) then anything should go. In today's world editing is very much a part of the photography process (and it was as well for many photographers in the past, witness Ansel Adams' dark room processing techniques). If the contest is to judge the photographer's ability to compose and capture in camera (a subset of photography skills) then almost all editing would disqualify an entry. Finally if it is the ability to capture reality (a photojournalism contest) then most editing should be disqualifying, although I'm on the fence about some tools, like denoise apps, which aim to return a raw file to what was actually there by taking out artifacts that were never there. Cropping in post vs. in camera should also be allowed in photojournalism contests, the photographer has to decide whether to trade some potential resolution for flexibility in cropping, by shooting larger than required, or being unable to zoom or move in closer.
You missed something: Luck.
It seems to me that photography contests reward luck over anything else. Shots of things that look fantastical just because the photographer was at the right place at the right time and had a camera with them. Rewarding luck should also be another category. Luck of getting born in a rich country or having acces to education or having good health or having money to buy gear and travel etc, etc. Luck is the number one factor rewarded in all photography contests.
I think the contests are quite clear on what they're judging, why do you feel they aren't?
You seem to be confused as to the meaning of 'Journalism'. Your personal interpretation of it's meaning has nothing to do with the reality though. Perhaps it's an area of photography you should stay clear of...
Seems clear to me - if you enter a competition without reading the rules and you get disqualified - tough.
If you don’t agree with the rules set by the organisers - don’t enter.
Can't imagine that glowing termite rock is long exposure, it would look like a child had scribbled all over it with a neon green felt tip given how much they'd be scurrying about😂
I don't particularly have an issue with minor "cleanup" on an image.. but yeah, some of these were egregious.. Swapping the ears on an elephant?? LMAO.
Dear friend. I have been following all your videos forever. I am no longer young, but I have been taking photos for 53 years for work. Events, or even fine art photography, of my little island which is Capri, in Italy. I don't even know how to drive anything a bicycle, but I'm fascinated by your old campers in the new one. I agree with every single sentence of your speech. And believe me after 40 years of darkroom I've understood something too, but there's always something to learn. Now I'm 68 years old, my passion has remained unchanged, and precisely for the sake of fairness, I won't even give you my site. One day I said to some young people, digital has helped a lot, but more to those who didn't have content. Then now AIIIIII, may God save me from these things, photography is something else, and you embody it just the way I like it. Sorry, I was too long. But a thought must be said in its entirety, otherwise what kind of thought is it. Greetings from Capri.
I too have spent many hours in the black and white darkroom. Many younger photographers might be surprised how manipulated the old film studio stars photos were altered. Parts were added and deleted with vibrating tables. One of the reason a lot of the images were taken on 8x10 film was it was easier to work on larger negatives.
The sky behind the elephant was changed as well. I believe that's a stock sky image and sky replacement was used.
For the second image, I think maybe a fair question that hints at why I think it was reasonable to disqualify the photograph is "Why didn't you clean up the litter if you didn't want it to be in your picture?"
I kind of agree with the rules. When taking a photo, I make sure there's no distracting things in the background and perhaps remove them for a second shot. Using spot-tool is simply "photoshopping" an image.
One of my favorite stories about photo manipulation is the Peter Lik picture of the moon with clouds behind it. Apparently he claims all his shots are strait out of camera and he charges a ridiculous amount of money for his shots.
I thought of the exact same shot when the airplane photo was mentioned. As with that image, what was worst about Lik's _Bella Luna_ wasn’t that it was a composite (although the fact that it was such an incompetent, obvious composite was certainly a factor), but that Lik accompanied it with an over-the-top story about how it had taken him years to figure out how to set up such a shot, and what a thrill it was to wait patiently out in the field and finally capture all the elements in a single in-camera exposure.
Oh, well, I guess Lik learned something - he now admits that he did a composite for his recent image of McWay Falls that features a spectacular sunset complete with the clearly-visible galactic core of the Milky Way. 😂
I find it so hard to believe that a stuffed anteater who belonged to a national park could be taken on random field trip
I don't think the actual anteater went on a field trip, I think they're saying a picture of the stuffed anteater was layered over the other picture. That's my understanding.
@@darlenedavis8690 lol if that’s what he said I’m an idiot 🤣🤣
"I think photography has been wrestling with a burden of telling the truth, which I don't think it was ever particularly good at. It is very tricky now to really, honestly call yourself a photographer because a lot of what I do doesn't adhere to the rules of photography". Nick Knight.
He admits he's not a photographer.
This is a very thought-provoking video. I've never thought of cropping as a variety of unethical image manipulation, but apparently some people would call it that. In the days of film and darkrooms, cropping via adjusting an enlarger was done all the time and nobody would have objected (or have been able to detect it, except in extreme cases).
It's one thing to crop or otherwise manipulate an image if one's goal is artistic photography. Nothing dishonest about that. Heck, oil painters move things around on their paintings to suit compositional goals.
But if one is a news photographer it should absolutely be as taken.
I agree, I don't think of cropping as altering the image, especially if it's just changing the aspect ratio - my camera doesn't have a 6x7 format for example. And in film we did it all the time, even with slides, using black electrical tape. I can understand the news/journalism restriction although, back in my day, when Rollei TLRs were the standard, cropping was normal practice.
it depends on what the purpose of your shot is. photojournalism? don't crop since that could take away context. if you're just having fun with it, cropping is no big deal.
I love the harsh rules as I think it forces digital-age photographers to actually photograph and win by the merit of their skill and experience behind the lens and not at the computer.
all professional photographers from the film era would be banned from competitions for "enhancing their images". Photoshop has been done from the beginning of photography! dodging and burning, compositioning, cloning, nothing new there!
When it comes to competition, I agree with the judges on cloning out a shoe or a piece of trash. As harmless as it may appear, it blurs the line between what is true and what is not. With AI, generative fill, and compositing images together there is literally no limit. Editing a photo this way shifts the work to art or story telling.
I'm not dismissing your view, but I am interested in knowing what truth was eliminated by the cloning of the trash on the ground. I should emphasize that I don't disagree with the competition's rules -- it's oftem better to be too rigorous than less.
It’s just once some thing is cloned out. You can no longer know if it was trash or significant part of the story.
@@markthompsonmedia Thanks. I guess I'm thinking more of the informational aspect of truth and you of authenticity. I readily admit that in photojournalism a good argument can be made for authenticity as the highest priority.
If competition entries required the unedited original file then the context of the changes could be judged as compositional or altered.
My two cents are that photo awards have no prestige anymore, because they're led by trends and are money makers. Look at the winners for most, they all look the same! Same lighting, compositions, poses the lot!
The bizarre thing about super strict rules about "manipulation" is that using clone tool to remove a few random but on the whole irrelevant details (such as a random foot, or litter etc) is much less of a manipulation of the real world than the presumably acceptable (or in any case impossible to prove) practice of staging photos. For nature photography and journalistic photography; I'd much rather have a snapshot of a real moment with a few details photoshopped out than a fake moment directed and staged by the photographer by using stuffed animals, or having actors pretend to be soldiers after the battle and after the battlefield has been tidied up and dressed by the photographer. That's what you actually got most of the time before digital photo manipulation; most of the most famous photos in history are staged, and a few are happy accidents of perfect snapshots that usually is taken out of context.
Disallowing cropping is even more ridiculous because every* camera crops the image somehow; so why is the camera crop more "valid" than cropping in the darkroom or photoshop? Also not allowing cropping after the photo is taken, effectively restricts the aspect ratio to whatever your camera sensor has (if a digital camera has a selector to change the aspect ratio; that's effectively exactly the same as cropping after the fact, because the whole sensor is still exposed, it's just choosing to discard some of the information afterwards), which is just a needless restriction on artistic freedom.
(*Even the so called 360 cameras that film a full spherical image also has cropping, but it has built in automatic manipulation to merge the multiple fish eye angles into one cohesive image)
Yeah restricting cropping is nonsense, photography is about searching and selecting what to show.
Oh and personally I use very often square format as it fits very well single and not long subjects and always have to crop top square as my camera can't.
Cropping is one thing but extending an acceptance of that to bit more innocent manipulation and then a bit more manipulation will lead to a quagmire and never-ending controversy. We already live in a post-truth world in text reporting. The properly done journalism gets drowned by a flood of "citizen journalists" with a wholesale manipulation of the facts. I'd like to see photo contests try to at least stem the tide for as long as they can. It will be harsh in individual cases but necessary for the field as a whole.
Don't let a camel take that first step onto a slippery slope, etc.
this is a good argument, but I also think that the plastic bag needed to stay to show how plastic has completely invaded our lives. No respite, even during celebrations.
@@greyecat Yes, but what if you wanted to have a certain crop, for example 1:1 and have some certain composition that fits that ratio?
Most cameras will shoot with 2:3 / 4:3 in RAW cause that's the usual sensor ratio and RAW takes the whole sensor. You can use another aspect ratio in many other cameras, but it's not RAW anymore.
Or you shoot both RAW and a cropped format at the same time, but how are you proving that it was like that and you didn't crop the raw?
@@SearchingVagabond-h4q Newspapers & magazines crop images all the time (used to, probably still do) to make them fit the available space. But for Press Photo COMPETITIONS you have to submit the full image.
I saw the title and thought "how does one cheat at photography the whole point is to get creative and bend the rules" and then I learned photography competitions are a thing
This is why I do wildlife photography for myself and the sense of personal achievement for getting an image I had in my head to getting it on camera. The "community" of photographers is really weird.
It's not weird at all to value the idea that photography should refect reality. If you want to manipulate your images that's totally fine, but it's getting away from the core essence of that photography is, and it's not "weird" to recognize that.
I'm just a beginner and start to know why some people have so many lenses with them. 2 bags is nothing and the gizmos just for basics. hope you are ready with everything just right trying to get "That Shot", the right moment. Wildlife photographers are a breed apart.
@@pauls5745 200-400 is my go to. Would love a 600mm prime lens but can't really justify the cost. But yeah, one all purpose lens and a macro is what I use mostly. I have 50mm prime for scenic shots. They do add up to a bag of gear fairly quickly. That 200-400 with three custom settings (single centre dot focus for birds standing still. Progressive tracking - where the focus shifts all over the dots - for birds flying, and one broader higher f-stop focal area) and shooting in raw (to save shots) covers 90% of what I do. Just because you can't carry lots of stuff in the bush.
@@imaxdigital7052 I understand how you could get that inference from my comment, but I meant more in regards to the bitchiness. I'm a "you do you" type person. There's no set of commandments for displaying images. If someone wants to portray their images in any way, that's cool with me. To me it's an art. Art tells stories. I do natural shots and I do edits to tell "a story" or direct to eye to the intended subject of the shot. Edits have a point for me, and to not just to blow out the saturation and "fake" a scene. Same reason black and white photography exists.
by weird you mean toxic?
Long exposures with a stuffed animal sure are a lot easier. Great idea - I'm off to my local museum to 'borrow' some.
😂
If your EXIF (or even just the circumstances of the photo (nighttime)) says multiple seconds exposure and there is an animal in there with every hair of its body tack sharp, well, then everyone should really understand that this was not a live animal.
Elephant's are beautiful and majestic creatures they don't need to be photoshopped to hide a torn up ear. That shows how long he's been living and the heart ships of life in the wild.
Excellent video Tom...about 20 years ago I had a photo returned from competition judges who said I had manipulated the sky too much.....I hadn't done anything to the sky, it was a vibrant blue via polarising filter....so I must have been guilty of manipulation by using a filter.....
Which brings up an interesting point. A lot of what can be done in a computer can also be done in the camera or under an enlarger. Let's face it, Ansel Adams would not have been able to enter many of these photo contests. His masterpieces did not come out of the camera looking like they do hanging on a gallery wall.
Couldn't you have provided the RAW file to prove your case?
well, im glad it wasnt a dark purple, to blue, to yellow, to orange and then RED sunset LOLOL. I laugh how people edit those, sorry, light waves dont do that. angle of sun = color from air particles, hence, day = blue skies, sunset = orange ish skies
I think it would be a good idea if the camera makers added a feature to digitally sign the raw files.
Isn't that sort of what Leica are doing with their latest camera? But all the others need to sign up to the same technology or it won't work.
100% agree, imo its the only way to ensure the rules are met.
This is a thing I wanted to start to work on over a year ago and I thought that there has to be a workforce doing it already.
Canon has this feature since at least 2009.
@@35mmMovieTrailersScans I use Canon and I've never seen such a feature. There's no Certification indicator in Lightroom.
So Claude Monet and Gustave Caillebotte are standing in the atelier at Giverny:
"Well Gustave, what do you think of my painting of the water lilies by the bridge? I'm thinking of entering it into the Salon this year."
"I'm not sure, Claude, looks to me like you've positioned some of those lily pads to make a more balanced composition!"
Rules are rules.
By the way, there is a term for manipulating a photograph: to Steve McCurry a scene/photograph. If caught, claiming to be a "visual story teller" rather than doing documentary photography is called "pulling a Steve McCurry".
Great content Thomas. I myself have started looking at images wondering if they are “AI”. It’s actually quite sad, in my opinion. Thanks for sharing!!
Yes, between CG/AI, the advertising industry psychologists, and the movie industry you can't trust anything you see now days.
totally agree, just posted something myself about this.
There is no way AI would generate a mirror with correct reflections in it. That last photographer was disqualified on a hunch.
I’ve caught a few AI images. I’ve also had a few people get right up in my face denying it, when you can clearly see defects.
Not being able to crop your wildlife photos seems a little absurd. Very rarely am I able to get close enough to my subject that I don't feel the need to crop
Exactly. And an APS-C sensor is a “crop” of a full-frame. So are they disqualified? But then there are medium-format cameras with an even larger sensor. That makes all full-frame models “cropped”. A telephoto lens can be thought of as providing a “crop” of the central portion of an image because it effectively magnifies. So if I start with a wide-angle shot and crop into an equivalent to a 300mm, that’s illegal. But someone using a 500mm is fine.
Cheat! 😂😂😂
@@billr3053 I agree, although to play devil's advocate I would say they're arguing that part of the skill of taking a great wildlife shot is being able to get close enough to not need cropping. Whether that's actually practical is open for debate.
The narrator: He only killed 5 children, its only a minor thing, he probably didn't read the rules...
loved this chat.
I mostly do astrophotography and specifically deepscapes since 2020 and the groups are rampant with AI and composites. For me the whole purpose of incorporating a landscape is planning around alignments and angles to show the stars/nebulae behind the veil of our limited sight but so many will move their tripod to take the stars or even use an entirely different lens to make the nebula seem much larger in frame. I don't call it cheating if they're honest but I just feel like it makes the shot feel hollow. You miss out on the best part for the photographer in planning and the best part for the viewer in the real view of the sky.
Recently there was a contributor to one of the Facebook groups who was banned for using AI to alter other peoples photos, not even come up with something new. Its amazing how bad this situation has gotten so fast.
That little bright dot on the sky is clearly a fake! ;)
Even before AI I got so tired of photos being shared by people on my Facebook feed “look at this beautiful shot of the Moon I got last night” etc when I could instantly tell it was a composite with various photoshop filters applied 😆
I'm sick of seeing milky way composites with identifiable landmarks that you know are impossible looking north. Unknowing viewers eat it up making the impossible seem possible. Either be upfront with everyone or don't post.
What is so exiting about astrophotography? It's just yellowish dots on a dark blue to almost black background.
@@xtra9996 besides the obvious Milky way, there are a number of soft smaller targets that you can plan around. Most people like to focus on loose ionised hydrogen gas which lights up a magenta colour and is found heavily in nebulas. I recently did a shot of a Thomas Dambo statue and managed to capture it while the Carina Nebula passed behind.
Btw many stars we see are blue supergiants, not all yellow.
Of course to see other galaxies and nebulas you do need to get to lower light pollution areas. Good luck
There is nothing more beautiful than capturing moments in its most natural form. It makes me sad to see this altered in the new digital world we have and are creating.
Zero sympathy or respect for any of the photographers and their fake/manipulated/altered photos you mention in this video. If you're in a competition play by the rules or be disqualified and perhaps humiliated. What you do with your private images is your business. But a contest at any level requires honesty.
I hope you do more of these videos. This is really enjoyable and interesting!
I think when entering any competition, it always pays to read and understand the rules.
As for AI in photography, my biggest fear is not about people using AI and passing an image off as real to win competitions. A far bigger fear for me, heading into an election year in the US and the UK are unethical, unscrupulous newspaper proprietors, with a political agenda, and unscrupulous news photographers and picture editors, also with political agendas, to use generative AI to manipulate an image of vote counting to show something that did not actually happen. The future of democracy is at stake here.
Well said photo!
AI will. Rule. Us.
That's why we should vote for Trump.
Yep we see a ton of AI and staged stuff already from both the ukraine and israel/hamas situations. Both sides using it which makes it difficult to know whats real or fake.
Also when journalists take dozens of pictures and use a particular expression to demean or enhance the candidate. Most often this was done to make one particular candidate look bad. This is blatant fraud and I have long since trusted journalism photo output. They don't manipulate the image but will often set up shots and fish for emotive negative/positive images. All you have to do is scan the output to note that this fraudulent practice has gone on for decades. For example, lets say a candidate is angry about something they will pick a photo that shows that, whether that is the case or not.
I felt sure when I saw your title that you were going to mention Kittiya Pawlowski. The woman famous for those fake snow leopard imaged that were all over the internet. After she got busted, she's doubled down even harder, further embellishing the story on her website (it's still up even now). Talking about all the great lengths she went to to get these photos that everyone now knows are fake.
I think in her case it was more plagiarism/theft than cheating. I don't think she entered them into any competition she just straight stole an image and composited it something else.
@@Foxystorm11111wasn't plagiarism nor theft. She just didn't disclose the photos as composites. She has the rights to use the snow leopard photos and edited them into her own landscape shots. She never entered them into any competition (like you said) and is not a journalist. You can debate if it's unethical to publish photos that she composited from photos she took herself and (licensed) photos she didn't take as if they were hers, of course. If you ask me, she should have disclosed her photos were composited, but I believe technically she has the rights to publish them like she did.
@@lvds5910 Though she _has_ entered at least one contest and won one contest based one a false photo. It was of a tree she didn't take. The snow leopard was taken from another professional photographer and placed onto the background. Look up Alpine Magazine or alpinemag and the proof is there. It's when photographers lie that it bugs me, not when they are up front with what they have done.
I only have limited experience in this area, but I do know that many photographers who worked for outlets such as National Geographic hold to a common standard that objects in the frame at the time of capture must remain in the frame for publication, so I agree with the rule, as long as it's stated as part of the context announcement. I've participated in photo contest judged by a NatGeo photographer who reiterated this same standard. I don't mind it, it encourages me to pay attention to composition when I have the time to do so, or it encourages me to not be too concerned about small details like a foot, telephone line, or trash when time is of the essence to make an image. Allow cloning and retouching and documentary style photo contests will eventually be dominated by artificially concocted yet "perfect" images.
Now, if a contest does not prohibit composited or cloned images, and the photographer states that the image is a manufactured composite, and the image looks great, I'm all for it. IT is unfortunate the AI imagery, like Photoshop before it, will make it harder for genuine images created by patience, diligence, timing, creativity, and just plain luck to be called into question.
That being said, I'd retouch and clone an image that isn't being used for a as a gift, for someone, or to hang on my own wall.
Had to laugh at the Very Large Earbud mime when you were talking about the elephant's ears.
For a Press photography competition, I absolutely agree that the removal of any object is unacceptable... even though the same change might be completely acceptable in other genres of photography. Tonal adjustments are fine (and probably necessary to make the captured image appear more like what the photographer saw in person).
but shouting "oi mate, move ya foot I'm trying to be artsy here" would be perfectly fine and not staged at all.... come on! :D
@MatthewGore I agree; not allowing cropping is ridiculous. And as for tonal adjustment, if the photo is to be printed (as opposed to being publishing online), then you probably MUST adjust the tonal range to ensure that it will print correctly.
@@mmitchellhouston
That's exactly what they will do if it won the competition without getting caught. Editors for a magazine WILL have to adjust the color so it prints accurately. How the color looks on a digital display and how it will come out on a printed page are two different things.
I can understand how it could be a type of image manipulation by cloning out eye sores, but its hypocritical at the same time when the publication is going to need to adjust the image for print. Gee, it's almost as if some of these rules don't make any sense. I realize it is for a level playing field, but slight color and exposure adjustments should be permissible because mirrorless cameras shoot with such a flat color profile in RAW that color needs to be brought in during post to recreate what you saw in person.
I like to make my photos look as natural as possible, but I still like to take it up a notch with some adjustments in LR to bring out more contrast, richer tonal range, and adjust things like shadows. Like a semi-HDR look, but without the grainy, over-saturated micro contrast that comes with it.
In my opinion, the worst ones on this list was the elephant, airplane, ant eater, and the wolf jumping over the gate.
Tonal adjustments wouldn't be necessary if the photograph was "Great". I've never understood why any manipulation is acceptable in photography comps... What if the photographer didn't see the foot, in the first example, isn't he then just "replicating what he saw" in that moment by removing that tiny bit? (This is a serious question, not trying to be a dick)
@@mmitchellhouston Cropping is standard darkroom practice. Crops to fill preset shapes (one column/two column etc) in newspaper layouts, crops to gain maximum impact. Crops, like dodging and burning are allowed in Press photography comps. However when I was a newspaper snapper, speed of delivery meant that once a football was cut out and 'pasted' near the goalkeeper's outstretched hands. The fact that the ball was hexagon shape didn't appear to matter! That image probably wasn't a prize-winning contender...
This topic is not going away. As editing using AI tools makes it very difficult to determine reality vs fake, competitions will have to restrict participants even more. Contests will need to determine the difference between untouched photos vs art. Submitting raw files for submission may help, kind of like submitting film negatives. I do believe simple editing like cropping or adjusting exposure should be allowed. Perhaps, submitting the raw file along with an edited jpeg would work?
It's funny how Natgeo disqualified those photographers for these manipulations where as a couple of months back Nat Geo actually awarded an Indian Photographer and uploaded his shot from their official Facebook page where the photographer had pasted a Butterfly on top of a Snake's head! I mean it clearly looked edited even to the naked eyes are Nat geo went ahead and awarded that photographer 😅
The first two I agree with you. However, fixing the elephant's ear is too much. It changes a lot that can be said about the animal's history, which isn't acceptable in photojournalism and some documentary photography. As an illustration, or fine art it would be OK. * Fun video!
In the elephant image, after carefully checking Tim's ears edges in many other pictures (Tim was an icon living in Amboseli NP), it seems clear to me that what the photographer did was exchange the position of the ears (left ear went to the animal's right side and viceversa), possibly to prevent the "ugly" parts from being revealed against the sky in the background. What a job!!!!
As controversial as it is for the contest. It's amazing work to swap it without anyone noticing at first.
I was thinking the same thing. Although i think he is cheating, he did a pretty decent job of it haha@@rooster68w
The sky was replaced too.
It definitely looks like the ears are swapped, but I’m wondering if they’ve actually just flipped the whole photo. I know the other example isn’t taken at the same time, but some of the markings on the tusks appear like they could have been swapped. If the whole image was mirrored though, why didn’t the photographer just say that
@@laurencemadill The photographer, Björn Persson, is Swedish and was called out for massive manipulation of this image. He admitted, but claimed artistic freedom.
My god, that black and white AI image just screams AI. Look at their eyes ffs. Especially the eye of the woman in back - it's nightmarish. The one in front has two massively differently sized irises, and one of her pupils is mostly missing.
I had a photo disqualified before, after winning first place in the Zoo's annual photo competition. It was a portrait of a Siberian Tiger, that I took at that zoo. The problem was, I must have taken it the season prior, and apparently that tiger was moved from that zoo before the timeframe of the contest started. They want the picture to be taken during the contest which runs all Summer, basically. I didn't have the date set on my camera, so the metadata was meaningless, (early digital camera, timeframe) I just picked one of my zoo shots and entered it. The zoo then gets publishing rights to your image, so they can have photos to use to advertising and zoo signage purposes for the next years. I didn't enter for the prizes either, because the winner gets a $10 gift card to Drug Mart, and a free round of golf at the local golf course. (and I've got a bad back so I couldn't use it). They get thousands of entrants. Once I realized that my shot didn't qualify, I bowed out gracefully, apologized, and congratulated the other winners. You should have seen the vitriol and hate in the comments section. It was insane, the attacks that came after that. People bashing my "photoshop" my "cheating", my "expensive camera" ect. The zoo was already using my photos on the signs around the zoo, from previous years I had won. I haven't been back to the zoo since. I was essentially donating all my work to the zoo for free, spending thousands of dollars on gear to do it, and all I got was hate for it. One guy said, "Well if I had a $1200 camera, I could win the competition too!!"...I didn't have the heart to tell him, $1200 is probably not even the tax I paid on the camera setup I was bringing to the zoo, haha.
Our local zoo has a similar "competition". When I read the conditions and prizes, I thought "Hey, this zoo just wants all those high quality images with commercial licenses for free" and never submitted anything. Main prize was around the same "value" as yours so I passed. Even as stock photo this would have been more interesting than a submission to such "competition".
@@buckturgidson9666 Yea, they definitely just want free photos of their Zoo. The prizes are donated even. But it was fun to enter, and it was cool to see my name on the winner's board for a few years. There is some advertising value, as you get some press coverage. Zoo photos aren't very saleable anyway. Most art buyers are going to want natural wildlife photos, though I have sold a couple zoo shots. I always disclose that it's a Zoo picture of a captive animal, even though my pictures look as they were taken in the wild.
Don't worry what others think, your intentions are good, and you got a good shot, that's something you need to treasure for the rest of your life, most people don't understand it.
Well done Tom. I had heard of several of the stories and the emphatic denials by the photographers, even after they get proven to be a fake.
I heard of a guy who made emphatic denials about doping for the Tour de France. I guess it happens in all areas.
thanks for the laughs. the trained wolf really got me, haha.
I kinda get "no cloning" rule as it makes everything eaiser or lets say black and white and what I mean by that is who would then judge if cloning out stuff is acceptable and how much. And at the same time the judges could face angry photographers if one image with cloning would be accepted and one from another photographer would be not.
If by mistake or lack or time your camera bag is visible in an image you have the option to crop or clone it out. Oddly to hide it by cropping would be acceptable but to hide it by cloning would not according to most nature/wildlife competition rules.
just like dash cams are needed when driving, for these competitions its needed to have a gopro recording what your shooting as proof because 11:00 would've made it easier for them to justify themselves
I think the elephant ear swap was done to make the dirt flow, if you follow the dirt lines up to the ear it draws your eyes to the body of the elephant and then the landscape behind it. It seems like a small thing to risk such a consequence but it's the small things that count.
I think that a good way to go for competitions would be to only allow a small percentage of an image to be "cleaned up" - something like a total of 3% or less of the total area within an image. So, the small edits of the removing a shoe, rubbish or dust spots are allowable, but large edits like the ear swap wouldn't be.
I recently gave a hypothetical example of extremes. If there is a Coke can in the corner of an image that is not part of the story of the image, on a plain paving slab, who cares that it is removed for tidiness, or indeed how it is removed? (exceptions of course for nature and photojournalism - I never did understand travel as an exception despite what I said in a comment above). If however an elephant takes up one third of the image (the resemblance to Tom's example is coincidental) then we would surely all object to it being removed by whatever means - unless it is stated to be a "creative" image. The threshold for editing for other types of photography probably lies somewhere between these two examples, but where?
I'm wondering if the phone image was disqualified, from their phone's automatic image processing. Many phones now use multiple images averaged together to reduce noise, when creating a single image.
as an amateur photographer myself.... I quit when editing tools were allowed. digital editing isn't photography, its digital editing. make classes, real photography, and digitally edited photography.
@Thomas Heaton on the first image it's not just the trash bag he removed. If you look on the left side of the frame, he removed or cropped out a 2nd boat and some other things on that side. Now I'm not sure if that's what he did or how you did it for the video, but if he did it, I can understand the disqualification. The elephant was too easy to spot, good on your wife :)
If the rules are there in a competition, you sign in to follow them.
If you want to sell prints, no rules apply.
It also depends on the narrative. If you sell to a news agency, you DO NOT alter your photo, like adding more smoking buildings to show a war zone as had happened. Or if you write an article about how you photographed lynx in a Swedish forrest but the photos you show is a forrest where you cloned in the lynx ... A notorious Swedish nature photographer that where often having seminars about his nature photography did that. In Sweden his name was for years used as a synonym for cheating in photography by cloning the photo.
i personally think cropping should never be banned in photo competitions. sometimes you take a bunch of pics and upon seeing them on a larger screen you notice how lovely the composition is, but it would be SO much better if you took the picture in just a bit. i think cropping is a good creative exercise in general
11:51 when the anteater gets in position you take 5-6 shots before checking how they turned out
This was a lot of fun. And it's why I've never entered a photography competition. Who'd want to be around any of those judges? I did once display one of my toned b&w photos of a lotus in Echo Park Lake. The other guys carefully explained to me like maybe I'd missed something important, or I'd farted , "We shoot color." They did. Their photos looked great, saturated, perfect, like a Fujicolor ad. I was just sharing an image, they turned me into a dangerous, but clueless, anarchist.
Okay. National Geographic. There's a photo that was in an issue in the 1990s, maybe early 2000s. Native people dancing, no body wearing any pants, all the men hanging out. But there was someone else's hand, a spear, etc, etc... strategically positioned to hide everybody's junk. About 8 sets all perfectly hidden by chance at the same time. You can't tell me that wasn't heavily photo shopped. I thought it was a masterpiece.
And the hired wolf jumping the fence? Give me a break. Another Nat Geo image from the early 2000s. I think the caption was, 'one of the last remaining fishermen on the Lee River in Guangxi who still fishes with cormorant birds.' I saw that image and felt like I would never be more than just another tourist. Then I realized I knew that man. I'd taken his photo in 1999. Yes he had a cormorant, but his business was posing all day for tourists. All the Nat Geo photog did was to ask him to turn around so the river would be in the background.
Does Nat Geo cheat? I'm sure they've always 'cheated. '
None of the cormorant fishermen in China actually fish anymore. They earn all of their income from modelling for tourists or photo tours.
GOLDEN RULE NEVER LOOK AT YOUR IMAGES UNTIL YOU GET HOME!
I love taking shots of star fields and adding them to boring night time backgrounds. The exposures are usually in the range of 20-30 seconds and yet in the anteater/ termite mound image, stars are clearly visible. If the image was also around 20-30 seconds, wouldn’t there be ghosting from the anteater moving in and out of frame wouldn’t its nose be blurry as it moved it around to pick off termites?
A flash is used to capture the foreground during the 30 seconds, while the rest of the 30 second exposure captures the sky and everything emitting light without lighting
This is much easier than having a light that emits just enough light over 30 seconds, and also keeps moving trees/grass clear
Now I know why I haven't won a photography competition yet 😁
This is what i hate about edited digital photos , they don't show the talent of a photographers they do only shows the talent of an editor . With film there is no cheating !
I do film photography, in fact, that's how I started. And I developed my own film and images using an enlarger. And there was editing done in the darkroom. It was more difficult to remove a spot or blemish, but it could be done. Stacking film images could also be done. So, yes, there is what you call 'cheating' with film. I went to digital photography with a film photographers background. I edit out spots. If an unflattering shadow falls across someone's face making the teeth look like they're missing, I fix the teeth. I photograph birds, and quite often there is a lot of empty space, because I have camera set to continuous AF and Tracking. I will crop the empty space out as it does nothing for the photo being left there.
No cheating with film ? O my... You have no idea !
Great topic Mr.Heaton. Too many photographers today are a bit overzealous with photo editing technology. It's as though photographers have become lackadaisical with their composition(s) because photo editing programs can fix everything, which in most cases it can. Don't get me wrong, I love Lightroom (and CaptureOne) for all of my photo editing; and aside from dust spot removal, some cropping, or even straightening, I do not add or deduct objects from my photographs. If its there, that because it was part of the overall composition. More time clicking the shutter button, less time clicking the keyboard.
You can't add or remove things from photographs, you can crop it out or hide it by under exposing a certain area but you can't clone it out. Only technical defects like dead pixel or dust can be cloned out.
We are entering an age where some cameras will clone things out as normal operation. We commonly see this where posts or railings are removed or smiles added into portraits etc by the camera's AI. Where we reward a photographers ability to manage a camera to get the best shot to record a view where do we draw lines?
@@redf7209yeah that's bullshit if I ever saw it, professional cameras are tools, not toys