As one of the moderators, the title of this string (Sometimes I wonder about the screeners at railpictures.. ) makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up…

We have started by debating the reasons for a photo being rejected by another web site. So far we haven’t gone there much, instead looking at photo editing issues. When we discuss how another web site is run, we start to head down a slippery, rough, steep road…

Please be careful. I am comfortable with the discussion, but the title bothers me… no fouls, no violations, just be careful...

Thanks,

hmmm..interesting.
I highly doubt there is any way to detect it..
if you are good at editing, no one will ever notice it.

they (trains magazine) probably say that just to avoid any controversy..its much easier to say NO edits at all, rather than have to explain and defend what edits are allowed and what edits arent..which would cause endless arguements..

but really, its irrelevant..make your edits..if you are good enough at it, no one will even know.

Scot

But is it irrelevant? According to the terms of the TRAINS photo contest, editing a photo changes it to an illustration, so presumably, it ceases to be a photo. Therefore, entering an edited photo would be defrauding the contest and the other entrants. Even if the editing were so good that nobody could detect it, the logical motive would have been to improve the photo and thus increase the chances of winning.

If I were an entrant submitting an unedited photo, I would want to know how TRAINS could guarantee that none of the competing photos were edited.

RTK

Its irrelevant because its an irrelevant rule..
its totally unenforceable, and Trains can not guarentee none of the competing photos were edited..it cant be done.
therefore, its an irrelevant pointless rule.

and I didnt know Trains magazine got official authority to define what is a photograph and what isnt! ;)

Lets take polorization.

if you put a polorizing filter on your lens, you can make a blue sky darker than "reality"..that would be acceptable according to the rules.

but not using a polorizing filter, and instead darking the sky digitally, is NOT acceptable..the end result is the same.

a rule like that is stupid IMO..

you cant outlaw digital edits..its pointless to try.
its pointless to even talk about trying.

Digital maniluplation is just another photography skill..
is it "unfair" if one photographer knows how to use a 8X10 view camera and you dont? no.. but his photos are going so much sharper than yours! is that unfair?? no..

Is it unfair if one photographer knows how to use the zone system and alters the negative in developement? to CHANGE the negative after the photo is taken to improve contrast?
no digital technology is involved.. Ansel Adams invented the process and used it to great effect..the image is dramatically changed (improved) AFTER the photo is taken..is that unfair?? no..

is it unfair if one photographer knows how to improve photos in photoshop? no.. its all the same thing.

as long as scene content is not changed, IMO digital editing is the same thing as using a polorazing filter..so requiring "no edits at all" is going too far, its pointless and unnecessary.
and there is no way it can be enforced..

as I said, they only "require" that rule to avoid people complaning about it..and to avoid contoversary, like in this thread..

the edits will still be there in the contest, probably with every photo.. the only thing is that no one will admit they made them..the rule will be ignored because it should be..life goes on.

Scot

Scot, I don't disagree with your points on this matter. In fact, these are just the kind of things that I was wondering about in regard to the rule. To be fair, I have not seen the rule, only the reference to it in this thread. Perhaps it is stipulated in more detail in the actual contest rules. But if it is simply stated as has been described in a foregoing post, then I would like to see the TRAINS contest judges address the points that you have brought up here, so they can explain exactly where they draw the line.

Railpitchers is a competitor of mine, but even so I think they do a pretty good job of what they do.

It's a no-win situation. If you screen photos, then folks complain when they don't approve their photos. Heck, I was annoyed when they rejected one of mine, showing the #17 on a trestle, saying it was backlit. I thought it was a great shot.

But they have standards and they stick to them. That's only fair and you should respect that.

My site doesn't screen photos. Folks upload photos they think are worth viewing. That means no rejections, but it also means folks complain about too much junk.

So no matter which way you go, there's no pleasing everyone.

I'm currently working on my own approach to photo screening, and I think it will work OK, but I'm also certain some folks will grumble.

thanks Ron..

and really, I think the controversary is seriously overblown anyway..
99% of what makes a great photograph has to happen in the photographers head before the shutter button is pressed..
you still have to be a skilled photographer to take a great photo.
Photoshop wont improve a lousy image! ;)

but it can make a good image even better..
so can filters, dodging and burning in the darkroom, better quality lenses, etc etc..post-processing was going on long before digital cameras were invented! Trains magazine might as well ban filters on your lenses..
its no different than banning digital edits..both change the image.

actually, they should just require that everyone use a pin-hole camera with a sheet of B&W photopaper inside..thats the only thing that will really make it "fair"..
unless someone has a higher quality needle that someone else..
*sigh*..I guess life just isnt fair.

Scot

This "editing" stuff is a lot like defining pornography. What seems like a simple concept can become difficult when you try and define it on paper.

We (railroadforums.com) use the term "material edits" in our contest rules. You can adjust the image all you want, sharpness, contrast, dodge and burn, traditional darkroom type stuff. What you can't do is add or subtract elements from the image.

As an example, take a look at this photo:
http://www.railroadforums.com/photos/sh ... hoto/47369

It shows the 4449 meeting the Talgo on the drawbridge at Ballard as the Ballard Terminal's "little beaver" sits in the foreground.

Really neat photo, eh? Too bad it never happened. The elements are all real, and the BTRR was really there waiting, but the 4449/844 and Talgo didn't pass on the bridge. They were a few minutes apart.

That's the kind of editing they want to try and prevent. Yes, if you're dishonest, and good, you might fool them. Hopefully most folks are better than that.

I just looked up the rules for trhe Trains contest. You can't even crop the image, do color correction or anything. Good grief, that is harsh.

I just looked at the rules. I guess they can enforce the rule fairly because they will only accept raw files. They don't allow you to rename the file.

Here is the link to the rules:

http://www.trainsmag.com/trn/objects/pd ... t_2007.pdf

RTK

With all due respect to the participants, does a detailed discussion of photo contest rules and the pros and cons of image altering really belong on RyPN? Reading this thread, it looks like a carbon-copy of the exact same discussion on ObsCar, where rail photography is discussed and debated. What does this have to do with preservation?

Of course, if it bothers me, I don't have to read it......

Howard P.
Verichrome, CT

"To verify authenticity, only RAW images or unaltered JPEG images straight from the camera and not renamed will be considered"

wow..do they know anything about digital photography??
this is really sad..

I take a photo with my digital camera, I edit it for hours, removing birds from the sky, adding trees, fixing the color, density, whatever I feel like doing. save it as JPEG, keep the same file name it had, and submit it to the contest..even if I crop it, its a simple matter to resize it back to a "standard" format, so it "looks" original..They have NO way to verify if I did anything to it or not!! utterly pointless..

Scot

I don't know anything about digital photography. I assume that the RAW image is what the camera captures, but if it is no different than subsequent copies, I don't understand the need for the distinction, "RAW."

Are you saying that there is no digital finger print or verifiable record that separates the identity of the RAW image from subsequent copies?

RTK

You could just submit a slide to prove it's not digitally edited.
You could also burn slide film on a computer that exposes film.

Sort-of..except the camera wont capture a RAW unless you tell it to...
a RAW is an image format with NO processing by the camera at all,
and no JPEG compression..RAW images often look quite bad, because they are intended to be post-processed!
as opposed to many JPEGS, where the camera itself often applies all kinds of "improvements" to the image before you even see it..

RAW is the "pure image" if you will..not many people even bother to shoot raws...because letting the camera "fix" things makes it look better!
some people choose to fix the RAW themselves..because they think they can do a better job of it than their camera can..and they are right.
but letting the camera do is "allowed"..
but letting the photographer do it is NOT allowed..
again I must repeat..its pointless...



yes, that is what im saying..there is no way to tell a modified RAW or JPEG from an unmodified one.

Scot