Detroit News’ Celebrate Michigan Results

I have been watching the Celebrate Michigan photo contest since the beginning of May. I submitted a few photos early on and watched the progression and addition of photos.

I knew I most likely wouldn’t win, so when they released the winners I was content until I seen what they were. As I clicked the link to view the winner gallery. I was appaled to find that some of the winners were hardly photos at all, in my eyes.Most tone mapped/HDR images are in no way photos in my opinion, as they aren’t natural as the eye would see it. Many of these photos were manipulated in this way, or were photoshopped beyond realism (such as Kevin Cliffords photo, which is more like a painting, then a photo. How can drugged up colors like a purple river ever be acceptable?). In addition to this was a poorly created panorama that was partially underexposed, with seams and vignetting showing. I know photos don’t have to be masterpieces, but some of them don’t capture how the location would look in real life.

Phoographers such as Ryan Southen and Adrian Platts should have ranked higher then many of these photos. First, third, were good photos and are examples of what should have been seen in the winners gallery.

Am I just overreacting, or are fake images giving false impressions of Michigan?

4 Comments so far

  1. lee (unregistered) on May 29th, 2007 @ 12:23 am

    Yes, you’re over reacting. They’re no different than if you use a polarizing filter or a silver gel process. I love them. Welcome to the new world!

  2. Mollika* (unregistered) on May 29th, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

    I suppose even black and white pictures would give a false impression of the state as a viewer would see the state in color. Likewise doctored pictures with purple rivers also give a false impression. Photography has always been more than capturing life at face value, so while these pictures do not give an accurate portrayal of what one would see in Michigan, it does convey what one could interpret as the way Michigan impacts the artist. Either way, the art is beautiful, and perhaps categories of “non-doctored” and “doctored” pictures should be instated.

  3. max (unregistered) on May 29th, 2007 @ 1:21 pm

    i wouldn’t say a natural (as viewed in real life) photo is better or worse, just different. i’ll bet almost all photos taken these days are in some way “enhanced”. and i agree that B&W photos would fall into the “not as seen” catagory. and there should be seperate catagories for natural and touched up photos in a photography conest just as there are natural and supplemented catagories in body building contests (not that i’m into that stuff). and even though not nearly as good technically i still prefer hand drawn animation but have to accept the new world view.

  4. photographer (unregistered) on June 5th, 2007 @ 9:51 am

    As one of the eight finalists, it is interesting to see what you have to say. I did some slight exposure corrections (highlights/shadows) but my photo is all original. I didn’t even crop it.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.