Re: Computers in competition

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:38:09 -0600
>From: P3D Marvin Jones  <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Computers in competition

>> >Quick question: do these competitions have different categories for photos
>> >employing any of the following:
>> > - color filters > - polarizing filters > - special effects filters
>> > - special processing > - multiple exposures > - tilt/shift lenses  
>> > - artificial lighting > - ?  > John R
>> 
>> Good point!  My first response was to say that it is not the same, but
>> after second thought I realize that it is very much the same.  I have been
>> using slide copying to alter the color balance, crop, enlarge or even copy
>> slides to a different base.  Very similar to using the computer for that. 

>I don't know that it is the same. The main point of the SCSC board meeting
>discussion was whether one started with a "real world" image or a totally
>computer-manufactured image, the idea being that when a Tony Alderson or a Dan
>Gilvezan or a Lincoln Kamm enters a computer-generated image its startling
>"foreign-ness" gives it an unfair advantage over a more "everyday" subject. A
>new category might help level the field....

As I had mentioned in private email to George, I can see the point of view 
that it would be reasonable to have a separate category for images that 
are *obviously* computer-generated or manipulated. This would allow the
images to compete with one another in "foreign-ness".

But it would be a real nuisance to try to administer a rule separating out
those images for which the use of a computer is not obvious. As I understand
it, the idea of holding competitions rather than exhibitions is to encourage
the production of more "appealing" stereo images, and if it is not yet possible
to make stereo photos more appealing by computer manipulation, the day is not
far off. (Advertisers already perform extensive digital manipulation of
photographs - for instance photos of human models are modified in many ways.)
It isn't even safe to say that "fully computer generated" images will be
readily distinguishable from natural photographs - I saw some computer
animations this summer in which I couldn't tell whether the human characters
were just superimposed real video, or computer generated. (And the distinction
is rather vague - computer creations are often based on the shape or motion
of real physical models.)

If people want to continue to have competitions, and yet they would like to
separate out natural images, perhaps they could have a wide-open category
that is judged (possibly establishing obviously-manipulated photos as a
separate category), then set up "natural photos" as an exhibition category
(no judging, no prizes). It would be like giving people who make cameras out
of oatmeal boxes a chance to show off their work without forcing it to compete
with technically superior works. ;-) I would imagine that most of the natural
photographers who like competition would enter in the "wide-open" category.

Personally, I've always been somewhat annoyed that in the local (2D)
photo contests I've seen, the "sunset" category is almost always won by
a photo taken with a color filter. It would be nice to have a category
where the only manipulations are choice of film and optics, aperture, and
shutter speed, but I don't see any way to administer it fairly as a 
competition.

With reference to Eric G's post on nature photography a few weeks ago, I 
think it would be good to encourage people who modify images by digital 
or other means to make a disclaimer to that effect - it may not affect the 
"artistic" value of the images, but I tend to absorb information as well, 
and if I am planning a vacation trip I don't want to start with the 
assumption that the Eiffel Tower is standing next to the Parthenon, or that 
there's a giant gorilla hanging on to the tip of the Empire State Building. 
:-)

John R


------------------------------