Misrepresentation in Photo Contest

Kevin, we must have been typing at the same time.
Dream a little? Oh, I couldn't agree more - essential to me personally. But I guess not for a nature photo contest...
Best,
Nicki

Hi Nicki

I whole heartedly agree, rules are rules and I never was much of a gambler. I think the breaking of the rules is where the legitimate conversation of ethics takes place here. But not in the use of photoshop and darkroom techniques. And so many who started with digital overlook the manipulation that took place in chemicals.

Keniv I completely agree with everything that you have said.
By the way, I am sure that I remember hearing it said (can't remember where) that it is possible to permanently alter a RAW file. Does anyone know if this is true?
Best to all,
Nicki

I agree with Mike.....it would be nice if Maxis could answer as I for one would like to ask him; What were you thinking?!!! I have seen many great images from him.....so I do wonder like Mike as to the why???

Just another reason for Photographers to take it upon themselves to state no matter where the photo is shown whether or not the image has been manipulated beyound traditional practices

It is easier to instill that in a photographer at the beginning then the expell and denounce a photographer when it is discovered that they manipulate a photo for whatever reason.

We are too quick to judge as a society and denounce the person when it gets encourage to do the same in everyday life
Look deep at your own comments here and see how many times one is told that to make the imafge better they should clone or remove items or add wing tips and such

We should educate at the same time that if you choose to do so you should also state that you did

Judge others as you would judge yourselves

Alfred Forns said:

Hi Desmond There was only one that disappeared, Mike Tracy asked something about the release so I took the thread down and found direct link and confirmation from the site.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, Al ! I noticed the removal and so I thought no response was allowed to this thread


I still like what is said in this article:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/in...t-photography-vs-documentary-photojournalism-


So if you are to use your photo in a competition, you follow their rules. It's not really about if it's immoral to manipulate your images. It's your image, you decide what you use it for and make it accordingly.

The bottom line

You have a right to express yourself, no doubt about it. And you can alter your image in any way you choose. But if you want to sell your work in the editorial arena, you must understand the rules and know the expectations of your customer. By doing this, you’ll maintain your credibility and reputation. It is always best when the photographer, buyer and viewer all understand how an image was made. <O></O>
this is the last part from the naturescape article

could not agree more with the last line which so many here have a hard time agreeing to

I wonder about the images with location issues--I can imagine some confusion at Merritt Island where as far as I know, the causeway and the ratty looking beachish area after the marine patrol station are not in refuge bounds. I would also have to look up to figure out if Canaveral Seashore is considered part of the national wildlife refuge.

On the other hand if an image was taken at Ft Desoto there is no close call as to weather it is part of national refuge

Rocky Sharwell said:

I wonder about the images with location issues--I can imagine some confusion at Merritt Island where as far as I know, the causeway and the ratty looking beachish area after the marine patrol station are not in refuge bounds. I would also have to look up to figure out if Canaveral Seashore is considered part of the national wildlife refuge.

On the other hand if an image was taken at Ft Desoto there is no close call as to weather it is part of national refuge

Click to expand...

Rocky and anyone else that might be wondering, Merritt Island and Canaveral National Seashore are kind of a abnormality in that combined with the refuge portions under NASA control are all managed co-jointly. Of course you are not allowed on the closed to the public portions of the refuge under NASA control. If you look at the maps for MINWR and CANA you will see that the refuge boundary includes the seashore. Canaveral however is managed by National Park personnel and the other parts of the refuge are managed by USFWS. I once asked a National Park ranger at the seahsore its boundaries. I was told that the area immediately around the entrance station, the roads to the beach and the beach and its parking areas are in the control of NPS. The areas to the left and right of the entrance road are dealt with by refuge personnel (BTW hunting is allowed in these areas near the beach access).

Two links below for maps of both. Note that on the CANA map the green area is marked as seashore/refuge.

So, an image I took of say the scrub jays at the entrance station is, to me, seashore and not refuge - an image of them at scrub ridge trail is refuge. An image on the beach is seashore and an image on Bio Lab Road or from the seashore access road on either side is refuge.

As I understand it though, NASA owes all the property. That is why they were considering commercial launch platforms on refuge property a few years back.

http://www.nps.gov/cana/planyourvisit/upload/cana_map.pdf

http://library.fws.gov/Refuges/Merrittisland_map.pdf

BTW: I have gotten some excellent images at the "ratty looking beachish area after the marine patrol station" area you mention Rocky.

What John said.. if you are selling it as a FA print go for it, but most of the contests frown upon this.

I was really strict about the images NWPLI would send into NB for just such reasons. The last thing I wanted was to have to justify an entry.

Jason G. Harrison said:

After seeing Maxis reply to this matter on Naturescapes, and offer an image to show his side...many questions still remain. It was reported that 5 images were thought to have crossed the line. Maxis showed one image and what he did, but what about the other 4?

The part that really throws it for me is when they asked him for the original raw files and he would not comply. That action speaks volumes and I believe does the most harm to his reputation and sadly enough, casts a wide shadow across all photographers in general.

Click to expand...

As I said above, Maxis refusal to submit the RAW files as requested says it all. Period. Pretty much all of the big contest rules state that photographers will be required to submit the RAW files for images that have made it to the final judging. There simply is no defense.

Ed Erkes said:

2) I didn't quite understand the purpose of singling out the individual, unless it was to shame or embarass him. I think the message could have been delivered without identification of the individual. If we want to get into name-calling, I could name a couple prominent photographers on this forum and NSN that were deliberately breaking posted rules at North Chagrin Reservation last month. I'm much more concerned about violations that potentially harm the wildlife and end up affecting access to the area for other photographers.

Click to expand...

Mr. Erkes wrote me about the Chagrin incident a while back and I asked him why he did not walk into the visitor center and report the offending photographer whose name he knew. He said that he had thought about it but decided to do nothing.

If we cannot police ourselves who is going to? When I see someone breaking the rules I photograph them in the act if possible and report them to the proper authorities. If I judge it to be safe to do so I confront them on the spot. In my 27 years I have done this about four times. To me this pretty much belies the perception that nature photographers are as a whole a damned well behaved group.

Seeing someone break the rules and then doing nothing is to me unconscionable. And folks who do that should quit whining about it. If Mr. Erkes were so concerned about the birds and about photographic access why did he choose to remain quiet at the time?

As for "singling out Maxis" there are two issues:

#1: He was named in a public press release.
#2: Having often been the victim of assassination by innuendo, inference, and exaggeration I feel that a photographer who is accused in a public forum should be named by the accuser in cases where folks might be able to guess the photographer's identity. At least then he is free to defend himself.

Mike Tracy said:

The reason for this post though is that as much as we are criticizing him on this forum I don't think he is a member in good standing here and is no longer allowed to post. Shouldn't the owners make a exception and allow him to state his mindset at the time here on BPN ? I doubt it will change our attitudes and conclusions but it would be only fair to give him the opportunity.

Click to expand...

Hi Mike, Thanks for raising an excellent question. The problem is that Maxis lost the right to participate on BPN by acting in violation of the posted Guidelines and continuing to do so after he was asked to stop doing so. His response was to generate a massive spam attack against the site.

If you or anyone else would be kind enough to provide a link to his NatureScapes "defense" it would be greatly appreciated. I used quotation marks around the word defense because, as I stated above, his refusal to submit the required RAW files is indefensible. By doing so he not only indicted himself but he convicted himself as well.

Respectfully.

Arthur Morris said:

Seeing someone break the rules and then doing nothing is to me unconscionable. And folks who do that should quit whining about it. If Mr. Erkes were so concerned about the birds and about photographic access why did he choose to remain quiet at the time?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into an argument with Art about what I should or should not have done at North Chagrin. You can't win an argument with Mr Morris anyway (I've tried in the past). I chose not tell the park officials of the rules violation at North Chagrin at the time partly because I did not want to be seen as a "snitch" and have park personnel confront several individuals in front of a large group of other photographers. Instead I spoke to one photographer in person that day and several others the next day. Unfortunately the words became heated and had no positive effect at all on the situation. I admit I probably should have handled the situation differently, but find it strange that Art should call my behavior (not reporting the incident to officials) "unconscionable", yet he did not seem overly concerned about the rules violations in the first place. He even suggested a way to attract the ducks that did not technically break the rules (but, in my opinion was also unethical and disruptive to other photographers).
Oh. Oh. I've just started an argument. I'll go ahead and concede defeat.

john crookes said:

Just another reason for Photographers to take it upon themselves to state no matter where the photo is shown whether or not the image has been manipulated beyound traditional practices. It is easier to instill that in a photographer at the beginning then the expell and denounce a photographer when it is discovered that they manipulate a photo for whatever reason. We are too quick to judge as a society and denounce the person when it gets encourage to do the same in everyday life. Look deep at your own comments here and see how many times one is told that to make the imafge better they should clone or remove items or add wing tips and such. We should educate at the same time that if you choose to do so you should also state that you did.
Judge others as you would judge yourselves

Click to expand...

John, I agree 100% that folks need to let other folks and for editorial uses, let editors know the truth about all of their images. And we encourage folks to do just that here. As for the rest of your remarks, they make no sense to me. Maxis is an adult. Everyone who enters a contest needs to read and understand the rules before entering. It is not our job to tell folks to do that. It is simply common sense.

I encourage folks to improve their images via Clone Stamping, Quick Masking, Layer Masking and Patch Tooling every day but I assume that they will read and abide by the rules of any contest that they enter.

Artie
Here is the direct link to the Naturescapes "defense".

http://naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=165813

Nicki Gwynn Jones said:

Artie, thanks for the clarification on contest rules - I do appreciate that they might differ from one competition to another. Of course the fact that he would not reveal the RAW files does indeed speak volumes and Roman, of course I agree that to remove an entire bird and claim it as a minimal modification is clearly ludicrous. It is good to know (from Greg's post) that the purity of the RAW file is so highly prized in the big competitions. And I agree that this does cast all of us in a poor light. Best as always, Nicki

Click to expand...

Hi Nicki, #1: There some contests that have "anything goes" and or "digital creation" categories (but you do have to read the rules to find out about them...) And in some contest anything goes is the overall rule.

As for the purity of the RAW file comments I would need to take that judge to task for his lack of understanding of digital photography.... It is often correct technique to vastly over-expose a RAW file to produce a file of the highest quality. In the BBC contest cropping, levels, curves, and color adjustments are permitted.

OK....the main question here is to Ed....a bit off topic...you labeled it as "snitch" yet pretend to be concerned about the welfare of the wildlife....which one is it. To me snitch is cowardly (being from NJ)......telling authhorities in what you believe in....is honorable. Which one is it Ed?
I also did ask Maxis for a clarification on NSN....so far no response.

Lana Hays said:

Artie, Here is the direct link to the Naturescapes "defense". http://naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=165813

Click to expand...

Thanks Lana. I do not see any "defense" offered. In addition, I know of no National Park in in Florida where this image could have been created. Maybe Maxis would be glad to take a lie detector test and answer this question" "Maxis, was the image that you posted on NatureScapes in your defense created at Fort DeSoto County Park?

Does anyone have a link to the contest rules?

Artie
Here's the link to the contest rules:

http://refugeassociation.org/contest/2009ContestRules2.html