But it's okay if you use GIMP, right?

When your photo resembles a prog rock album cover, it's over-photoshopped.

The answer is none. None more photoshopping.

They didn't have photoshop in the 40's!!!

rocky_howard: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Uh...where do you think Photoshop got its name from? It's been done for decades.

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a disservice to those who work hard for their pure shots.

Exactly. Quality isn't defined by the final product, it's defined by how much work you did to get there. Which is of course why I refuse to use a keyboard and do all my data entry by manually triggering a sequence of bits to the serial port of my computer (which is itself built from boards with hand-etched tracings, which I created using a knife I forged myself in a furnace powered only by my sense of righteousness). Anything less would lead to low-quality text, that while indistinguishable from high-quality text, required much less work to create and therefore is not "pure" enough for my standards.

If you want to have a "waiting for good lighting conditions contest" go ahead. I'm sure there are some people who love the idea. But you don't get to redefine "photography".

You can't do an "Iran" level of photoshopping.

Iplaybass: Horsecrap. Pure horsecrap.

I'm afraid I have no "pure" horsecrap. As soon as it becomes available I mix it with grass clippings (from the lawn that I cut by hand, one blade at a time, using flint blades rendered from Chert nodules in the limestone deposition I've laying, grain-by-grain) and bake it into bricks.

Rezurok: Here's an explanation from somebody with too much time on their hands: Link

HOLY....FARK. I thought you were joking when you said too much time, but jesus, that guy is real life Photoshop CSI lol.

Too much photoshop? Nah, looks the same as it ever was.

Christian Bale: [i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x283]

Too much photoshop? Nah, looks the same as it ever was.



Green screen isn't Photoshop, exactly.

/not photoshopped

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

Do you mean to say that Photoshop wasn't a totally original idea and name? I always wondered where Photoshop got the inspiration for tools like "Filter" "Lens Flare" and "Magic Wand."

I used MS Paint.

Should I not have done that?

madgonad: I also think the runner-up's picture of the projects in Glasgow kind of sucked and should not have won. It looks like it was pulled out of someone's vacation photos.

It would take a sick, sick mind to have a holiday in Port Glasgow (which isn't the same as Glasgow, by the way).

Christian Bale: [i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x283]

Too much photoshop? Nah, looks the same as it ever was.

Is this what's left of Manhatten?

in my personal view, as long as you are not editing out, or adding in content, its ok. 50% of photography is what you shoot, and 50% how you process the image. Its been that was since Ansel Adams.

You can take a large-format camera, and go set up where Adams set up, wait for the exact same time if day and weather conditions, and the output image will likely not be as good as his, because of the magic he worked in the darkroom. darkroom = photoshop.

The guy who took this picture had his own system of developing film to get the tonal structure he wanted and then heavily manipulating light when he printed the photos, and he did pretty well as a photographer...both financially and with the critics besides. Maybe you've heard of him...Ansel Adams.

AverageAmericanGuy: Where one person spends a month of their lives staked out to capture the perfect shot with the sun in the right place in the sky and the weather just so, another will take a mediocre base image and dodge and burn until what he's looking for 'pops'. It's a disservice to those who work hard for their pure shots.

What about all the time invested in developing (haha) the digital skills needed? Isn't it doing a disservice to photographers who have taken that trouble to allow them to be trumped automatically by someone who just happened to be there when the sun was in a particular position?

rocky_howard: Now, Photoshop or no Photoshop, how did the former winner beat the new one? It's a much better photo in every sense of the word.

Disqualified Photo:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x283]

New Winner:

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 450x620]

Two words: Onion Titties.

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm against those things as well.

You're also against bathing. What's your point and why should anyone care?

I find it hilarious and sad that the winning photos from the competition were all about broken husks of formerly thriving civilization. Somebody needs a hug.

And no letting colour blind people look at it! They can't appreciate art like we can!!

If what you did could be duplicated in a dark room then it should be allowed. Anything beyond that should not be allowed.

There is clearly an acceptable level, as even your digital camera is "photoshoping" what it saves to produce a better photo (Unless your using a raw format). Most people would say that adjusting levels/colors across the whole image is also acceptable manipulation. Once you begin using tools to alter specific portions of the image, it becomes totally a matter of opinion on how much is acceptable. Without seeing a before and after picture, you can't really judge whether what was done is acceptable, and the article didn't have one.