For anyone interested in delving into this topic further, I found an excellent discussion going on here:

http://www.railpictures.net/forums/show ... php?t=5458

page 3 of that post really gets into the whole "trains contest" thing..

I agree, RYPN isnt really the logical place for a discussion about digital photo editing! ;)

I sense a lock coming on..which would be fine by me.

thanks,
Scot

Scotty,

This is not (so far) a discussion to be locked, I was commenting on the title, which suggested a flame of another web site. So far this discussion is mostly a good discussion of photo editing. As a moderator we need to steer away from the issues which lead to problems.

We want the discussions here to be open, and free, but there are limits, some hard, some soft. They are not always easy to define... it is really a hair on the back of the neck issue, and the moderators do talk, and discuss a topic.

Moderation is a lot like parenthood. We are always right, but not always correct, and always a bit confused...

Work with us.

Your friendly moderator,

I read page 3 of the thread on Railpictures.net, and thought John Ryan really stated the case well, confirming what Scot has mentioned about being handicapped by being forced to use raw files. Moreover, I believe John's speculation on institutional attitudes is accurate. I think his technical case is correct, and his position has to prevail in the end. The only question is how much resistance will build up and need to be overcome before photographic justice prevails. This should be really interesting to watch. I sense this could be quite a contest.

RTK

So what about editing outside of the camera?

There are two photos of 2100 in Railfan Mags this month, one in Trains one in Railroad & Railfan.

One shot shows her being pulled by diesels. The other shots shows her without the diesels and with a big plume of smoke, just outside of Stampede Tunnel.

Both shots are not edited, at least not in any way that affects what was and wasn't there. What you see is what the camera saw.

But which one accurately presents reality? The Stampede Tunnel photo, while a great photo, could make you think she ran the entire trip without any diesel helpers. That wasn't the case. The diesels were cut off to run and get a fresh crew.

Does the fact the diesels aren't in the photo make it an "illustration"?

This stuff isn't so easy, is it?

What does this have to do with preservation? Maybe more than you think...

The same exact questions can be asked of photos from 100 years ago. Is that smoke fake? Did they typically pull 100 car trains, or was that a special deal just for the photographer? Did the local's 4-4-0 always gleam in the sun, or was the shine and polish job just for that day?

Folks derive a lot of "facts" from studying vintage photos. Ever stop to consider how much of the photo is reality, and how much is "illustration"?

and the railroads themselves have been messing with reality for as long as railroads have existed..

check out this official LV publicity "photo" of the Black Diamond Express from well over a Century ago:



The photo of the train was added to a scenic painting.
and im also pretty sure the locomotive and the passenger cars are from two different photos..the perspective doesn't quite line up.
thats the 1890 edition of the Black Diamond Express.


Builders photos routinely had the background "whited" out..hey,thats not "real"!.. ;)
They even placed large white panels behind the locos, to help the artists later "white out" the whole thing..shocking! shouldnt be allowed! ;)




Scot

Yes but mabye they considered those illustrations, not photographs.

I just remembered this story I saw on the news a few weeks ago. A photographer from the Toledo Blade resigned after it was discovered that his images were digitally altered. I studied art, not journalism at school, so I don't know how all news publications are, but the Toledo Blade does not allow altered photos. In Trains, I can see how a digitally altered photo can be used as an illustration for Selected Railroad Reading, but to have a news photo touched up would lose integrity of the magazine.

Here's a link to the story:
http://wtol.com/Global/story.asp?s=6373584

I'd like to provide a statement made to another list by Kathi Kube, the managing editor of Trains with regard to this over-worn topic. I think it also pertains to the original posting here.

"In past contests, we didn't care if entrants adjusted the color balance or shadows (although in some cases, that actually hurt when the adjusted images were viewed on color-calibrated and maintained computer screens). All we asked was that the image be an accurate representation of the scene.

Last year we had several entrants who "altered reality" as (referring to name of another poster) put it ever so eloquently, but didn't state up-front that they had did so. Not just by adding raindrops and removing wires, and changing backgrounds too.

So we felt a need to pull back the bar a bit. A talented graphic designer can alter an image in a way that the change is almost impossible to discern. The best way we found we could weed out the images that presented a false reality was to require digital images to be presented as RAW files or unaltered JPEGS. So that's what we've done.

Will the rules change next year? Maybe. All I can address is this year. And all I'm going to addres in this forum----of the myriad of opinions and assumptions stated here----is why we tightened the requirements for digital shooters."

It should be noted that the winner of last years top prize had recently posted how he had altered his winning submission, causing all this controversy.

<wiseguy mode> So, precisely how do you tell if a JPG has been altered? What enables you to distinguish a jpg created by my camera from one created/altered in Photoshop? Wouldn't the same talented graphic designer also know the answer to that question, and be able to circumvent it?
</wiseguy mode>

My point is that if I'm an honest person, and not interested in cheating, all you need to do is tell me "you can't do digital editing". The 99% of folks who are honest simply will follow the rules and that's that.

If somebody is willing to cheat to win, then you've entered into a digital duel, trying to see if you can catch them while they try and beat the rules. Seems like you'll have an ever escalating challenge on your hands there.

Yeah but what if sombody in that 1% wins the contest?

Yes, that's the problem all right. My point is that I don't know how you can solve it. Maybe it's harder than I think to spoof an original jpg image. If not, then anyone who's willing to cheat will simply cheat a bit more and alter the jpg to look original.

How do you avoid that issue? I don't have an easy answer.

Another issue, which I noted earlier, is that "altered" images don't have to be done in photoshop. Look at the shot of the 2100 storming out of Stampede Tunnel in trains, without any diesels. Or so it appears...

Actually, the engine is stationary, and was pulled by diesels. They weren't edited out in Photoshop, it was done the old school way, by pulling a cut lever. The smoke is real too, the fire had just been relit after exiting the tunnel. But is it really that much different? It's more "illustration" than "documentary".

This stuff is harder than it looks.

Well we seem to have established the fact that there is no way to prove whether or not an image is RAW. Therefore the TRAINS contest rule that requires entrants submit only RAW images is unenforceable. I would like to see TRAINS answer the question as to how they intend to enforce the rule. A contest is flawed if it allows cheating.

Perhaps the rule is an over reaction to last year's contest. It sounds like TRAINS may have gotten some egg on their face when the winner publicly annouced that he added or removed content from the winning photo. If it is true that there is no way to determine whether an image is RAW, then the rule needs to go. Maybe they need a rule that the winner must certify that the image was not altered by adding or removing subject matter. That would prevent the winner from subsequently going public on having edited the photo content, and embarressing TRAINS in the process. Regarding the nomal photoshop processing of image characteristics, maybe they should just say yes to that.

Otherwise, the only solution to this conundrum is to have two photo contests, one for digital and one for film photography.

RTK

Or there is another solution, to not have photo contests at all.....

MX

Just a clarification..Ron, you have your terms a bit confused:



yes, you can tell if an image is a RAW, because the filename will be "imagename.raw"
as opposed to "imagename.jpg" or "imagename.gif"

RAW is an image format, like jpg, gif, bmp, etc.
what you mean to say is "If it is true that there is no way to determine whether an image is unmodified, then the rule needs to go."

it is true, and I agree the rule needs to go.

but "RAW" does not necessarily equal "unmodified."
you can take a RAW image from the camera, make a billion changes to it, and save it as a RAW again..it will still be a RAW image.
same as editing a JPG and saving it as a JPG, its still a JPG.
no one call tell if ANY image has been modified..(unless its done badly! ;)
but if its done well, and its subtle, like removing a bird from the sky,
there is no way anyone could ever tell..RAW or not..

RAW in the terms of this contest discussion means "an image format with no modifications made to it by the camera."

but you can edit a RAW after the photo is taken, same as a JPG.

Scot

Scot, Thanks for the clarification. So you can tell if the image is RAW by the filename, but you cannot tell whether it is the same RAW image that was captured by the camera, or if instead, it has been modified from the original RAW image that was captured by the camera. I understand.

So the bottom line is that the photo contest rule stipulates that the digital images must not be altered in any way, and the rule intends to verify compliance by futher stipulating (1) that digital submissions be RAW files, and (2) that the RAW files have not been renamed. However, there is no way to verify these two stipulations. Therefore, the stipulations will be of no use in the verification of compliance with the rule that bans any alteration of submissions.

This is amazing. In a photo contest, judgement must be applied to subtle degrees of beauty. Beauty can vary somewhat according to the eye of the beholder. It is quite subjective. Banning alteration may seem fair on the surface, but if it cannot be verified, it seems to me that it will acutally have the unintended consequence of opening up the door to widespread suspicion and doubt about the fairness of the contest outcome.

RTK