.png)
Recently, a UK photographer lost a prestigious Landscape Photographer of the Year award - as well as $16,000 - because his image was apparently too digitally manipulated.
[caption id="attachment_13415" align="aligncenter" width="496"]
Lindisfarne Boats by David Byrne[/caption]
A fellow photographer took great lengths to identify the various inconsistencies with the photo (mostly, light source issues). The photographer admitted that he wasn't aware of the nature of the contest's rules, and from there, sides were chosen and the arguments grew.
The question that needs to be asked is not whether or not the photograph should have been disqualified, but how photo contests need to be fundamentally overhauled for the digital age. With young people learning image-editing software as early as elementary school, it is becoming easier and easier to composite two or more images into an authentic-looking photograph. Many photo contests, both online and in print, are often a bit laconic when it comes to the amount of post-processing that can be done to a submitted photo. Even if they are explicit about editing, it takes extensive analysis (as seen above) to screen for photos that might be disqualified.
[caption id="attachment_13595" align="aligncenter" width="560"]
Dissected London Night by Howard Kingsnorth, an example of extensive image editing[/caption]
My opinion on this is simple: clearly define your photo contest rules before pointing fingers and changing your results. Being vigilant in this regard is key; contest rules should reflect the ever-evolving improvements being made in photo manipulation software.