Now I am not against post processing, a little tweaking here and there or converting to a high definition photograph can bring the end results closer to what the photographer actually saw. As with this photo
|slight adjustment to increase vibrancy|
I am not even against complete alterations such as occur with composite photographic art. How could I be, when I am first and foremost a photographic design artist and secondly a photographer. However, I do not believe a photographer or photographic artist should pass off a photograph that has been digitally altered, even if they have done an nearly undetectable alteration, as a common photograph. Here is an example of one of my composite art pieces.
|Composite Photographic Art: includes three photographs and digitally painted aspects.|
|photo by Danny Beath, shared from telegraph.co.uk link above|
Not that I want to rob a well deserving photographer of greatly deserved praise, but I do wonder in this case if that praise is fully justified. I have no idea what the rules about altered photographs were for this contest or if there were even any such rules. I also can not say with 100% accuracy without seeing the full resolution file or the original image file if this has been altered. Considering the lighting on the poppy fields does not reflect the cloud cover and that there is edge discoloration lines where there shouldn't be, I can say that I am 99.9% sure that this photograph has not only been altered but that it is in reality a composite of two photographs taken at different times. In the photographers defense I will say that if it is as I believe both photographs were undoubtedly very good photos to begin with. I will also say that IF I am completely wrong the photographer has captured an amazing scene.
What do you think, is it real or is it altered?
Should altered photographs be entered in traditional photographic competitions without disclosure of alterations?