Derp maybe mf should have done things legit. Period.

Rules are rules. Unfortunately he doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it is written in the rules of submission;.

he should of kept the award, he didnt add anything into the photo to make it any better.
its not like he added a monk into the shot.

Photographers have talent to find the light and capture it in amazing ways…if you don’t have that talent, you shouldn’t be allowed to ‘fake’ that talent w/ Photoshop! And as was said, rules are rules! 

I don’t know how many expensive daylilies I’ve purchased based on a picture in a catalog and after it bloomed didn’t look anything like the picture because the photo had been photoshopped to a different color and looks.

I have to laugh because when you go to his blog he says he only removed a plastic bag from the frame. Can no one else see that the colour and exposure have also been adjusted as well as other things? The guy is full of shit and excuses lol. Sore loser – Good on National Geographic for seeding out the weasel. You didn’t deserve to win. One of the other 22 thousand entries that was genuine did (and has) so HA.

With what I see as the heavy handed photoshopping that exist in our industry, this being a blatant example. I am happy to hear of the scrutiny that images go thru for this competition. Digital camera give us soo much information to work with IN camera that while post is needed we should not rely on the post to make the image. Massage it a little here and  little there but….this image has at a minimum, tone curves, temp, color balance, saturation, exposure, then of course there is the removal of information, What else, how many adjustment layers. I know that the technology is there… but we need to be able to create images that are real. not just magical.  

He also created even ripples around the boat. 

National Geo isn’t a glamour mag. Its stock in trade is accurate, true-to-life reportage. They were 100% right in throwing a flag on this one. The bag seems minor, but letting it pass would have been quite a step down a slippery slope.

So taking out the trash bag was the reason he lost a contest? Kind of lame considering MOST photographers use photoshop/lightroom etc to edit or enhance their images. You’re telling me everything in National Geographic is never edited or photoshopped? Ok sure. It took me forever to even SEE the damn bag. but if those are your rules and this minor thing in an image caused such an uproar for you do what you have to do. I just find it really unfortunate to the photographer who has to now deal with all of the BS due to Nat Geo’s decision.

If he just cropped  a little bit that will still make a good photo and he can add some light and colors correction. But that what makes the difference between real photographer and the one who count on photoshop.

Next time crop away!

 the photo he took made me to think for min but nice article thanks

So how do they know he didn’t just dodge it out?

Hi, this
Harry Fisch.

Let me
advance that I believe that the disqualification is by all means 100% right. My
mistake; I breached the rules. This said, and accepting that N.Geo is not a
flower catalogue (As Mark Said :-)) , they DO publish pictures that had
something removed, impressively photoshoped, artificially lighted, etc..
etc…  But NOT in their contests.

Again: should I have
been part of the jury, I would have acted exactly as they did:

My point is that the “right” or “wrong” is quite difficult
to mantain. And specially when this photojournalistic “Reality” is
false from the very beginning: What has been shown in my picture is a glimpse,
an instant of the rality. Not the reality itself…

Nothing more distant from
reality than my winner/loser picture with or without bag :-). Nothing is more
distant from reality than freezing 1/7th of life of the people in front of you
and claiming that this is “real”…

Is this “real” ? http://harryfisch.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/que-hacer-con-un-paraguas-en-el.html

Nothing has been taken out of the picture, but sharpening, dodging, color, nearly everything has beeen touched. Believe me, N.Geo would accept such a picture ,,, if it is not a contest.

And they are right. Both things are not the same.

Only being at Asi Gath (the place were this one was taken) sorrounded by mud,
garbage, cows, beggars, a crowd of disorganized pilgrims, flower saleman,
tourists, can you really understand that this “reality” is idillic
even comming out of the box (camera) as it is “produced” by the
photographer.
Garbage and mud. Poverty. Obscurity. And the beauty behind it… I love the
disorder of Varanasi
and enjoy reading between lines, faking the reallity with my personal
vision. I really do not need photoshop, I can do it (and I do it) easily,
everyday, with the sole help of my eyes, my mind and the camera…

I am not solely a travel
photographer, obseded with Travel photography http://harryfisch.photoshelter.com/ I come from a discipline and a way of doing
pictures were the artistic result counts and, pesonally, I could not care less
about using or not photoshop http://cargocollective.com/HarryFisch You will surely understand my minor
concern for “reality” in photography.

“Technical
Elaboration” ? “Colour adjustments” ? “Minor
sharpening” ?

What about
the election of the depth of field, high/low keys, artificial lighting, etc…

In
practice, believe me, I sincerely understand what National Geographic does and,
again, I would probably do the same in the same circumstances.
Also -don’t say this to anybody- this is not my prefered picture but it gives
me some clues on what the jury likes…

All this
said, should I have the choice, I wood choose to be the winner instead of the
loser….

Rules are made to be
followed. When you play a ruled game (i.e. a photographic contest) you
are dependent on the rules.

But braking rules, in this case -and from my very personal point of view- do
not imply an unethical action (Cheating, Faking,etc..) as the PS work did not
have the intention of changing the perception of reality from the viewer and,
most of all, this was not a photojournalistic picture
nor a real testimony. It was an artistic interpretation of a reality: a false
reality from the very beginning.

Regards :-)

Though it sounds a little harsh, i’m glad there is are still competitions around that haven’t just become awards of who can use Photoshop the best. I think allowing Photoshopped photos in competitions so takes the challenging element of photography away and if you’re not Photoshop-savvy, it gives your competition an advantage. Just my opinion though, of course.

IMO, the bag is a distraction, and I would not have selected the photo as a winner with it in place. The rules being what they are, however, he should have cropped off that edge to stay in compliance. 

It must have been a minor mistake on the photographer’s part. The image is still beautiful. I must say, that if there were no contest: should the photographer or viewer have cared that the bag was there? Would it have taken away from the power of the image if it was left alone in the first place? I think the image was just fine as is.  It’s a great lesson for all of us who “pixel-peep” over every aspect of an image, to not be so precious with what gets removed from the frame or not.