Does anyone have "show" experience?

[BlueCorn]

First off I'd like to mention that I'm very much an amateur photographer. I enjoy taking pictures and challenging myself to get better. After some prodding from my wife and mother-in-law I entered 4 shots in a local show. 3 out of 4 were accepted and are currently on display. I was happy about that.

What bothered me was when I went to the reception over the weekend and saw how the awards were handed out. Awards were given in 3 categories: black and white, color and "manipulated"

Of course the best of show was given to an extremely manipulated image. (Most of the images in that category were certainly artistic but I don't understand why they appeared in a photography show.)

What concerned me about the others were the amount of manipulation in the color and B&W categories. One B&W winner, for example, was a black and white study of a rustic cabin with blue windows. Apparently black and white and blue == black and white. Most of the color winners also appeared to be significantly re-touched. Because of the show guidelines, I limited all of my edits on entered shots to sharpening and minor color correction. In doing so, I apparently lessened my chances of collecting an award.

I guess why I'm rambling on is to ask a few questions:

1. Is what I'm describing pretty typical?
2. Was this just an isolated anomaly?
3. At what point does a print cease to be a photograph and become graphic art?

Thanks

 

[VoidRaven]

Beerguy, you bring up some interesting points. Many of which are reasons that, despite my overwhelming desire to enter local shows, I refuse to attempt to enter various photo contests/shows at local venues. I am being pressured to enter at least one, though, so we shall see.

With film, or at least when I used to shoot film, it was either you got the shot or you didn't. Pretty cut and dry though you could do some editing in the darkroom, especially with B&W. But the digital darkroom has drastically transformed the face of photography. Look at that one CNN photographer who got in trouble about a month ago...tossed his whole career down the tubes by heavily manipulating an image to make the scene more horrific than it was.

Point being, I agree with you. Especially in the case of the B&W photo. B&W means B&W. Not Sepia, not select color with most of the shot B&W....JUST B&W. Same for the rest.

Unfortunately I think that what you witnessed was fairly typical or is becomming more so. In my opinion, a print crosses the line between photo and graphic art when intense image editing occurs. i.e. drastic color changes (beyond levels or contrast as in the B&W example you mentioned) cutting and pasting elements from other images, etc. Standard techniques such as cropping, sharpening, *minor* color correction, etc I feel are OK (though it took me a while to get to that point).

 

[louist]

Doug, I think that's a pretty unusual case. If you enter in any competitions run by large respectable organisations/magazines/etc they almost always have photographers and experts on the judging panel (take "expert" however you like).

IMHO, this competition you entered isn't judged professionally, and their organisation is quite amateur.

Anyhow, don't ever feel disappointed when your photo doesn't get mentioned. Winning a photo/artistic competition requires as much luck as it does skill. Your style need to correspond to the "school of thoughts" of the judges else you don't even stand a chance. This is especially true when there are "experts" on the panel.

 

[BlueCorn]

Actually, one of the judges was a local "photoshop expert" but the other is a contributing editor for Outdoor Photographer.