The problems with authentification of RAW start to get in the way when you use the full capabilities of modern sensors, like the 14.6 stop range of the Nikon D850. Here is an export of the SOOC RAW file…
Now, I remember seeing, that no more than 20% change was allowed for your competition. That would mean, were the subject matter appropriate, this kind of standard RAW processing, to cope with wide dynamic range, could well disqualify an image.
Excellent question. There are many parameters in many RAW converters. +20% exposure in C1 isn’t the same result as in PL. And are 20% the summary of all changes or each slider’s? And what if the result is a cropped image of 30% less area?
Thanks for the link
within the content rules I found only
Post processing of images is acceptable, provided such processing is not for the purposes of deceiving the viewer and/or misrepresenting nature.
With the exception of HDR, stitched panoramas, focus stacking, and in-camera multiple exposures, composited images are not permitted in any category. Sky swapping or removal of objects through cloning, for example, is not permitted.
For me the point 5. sounds like more than 20% especially in-camera multiple exposures
Have you seen the Intellectual Property Rights and Liability sections here?…
Basically, from my reading, they can use your image for whatever purpose they desire with no recompense and you are limited in how you can use it with other “third parties”
But there are always some who are happy just to get their 5 minutes of fame.
Besides the copyright problems, I don’t like anyone telling me how to photograph my subject or how to post process my photos. This competition would have to get by without my photos.
Well, a lot of questions and a lot of answers, most of which make sense
It is very common in nature photography contests to “limit” the amount of post-processing of an image, therefore the RAW file is usually requested. Just to compare with the jpeg that was entered in the competition. The kind and amount of processing allowed is usually stated in the requirements for participation.
Unfortunately, it is also very common in almost any contest that you hand over the copyright to the contest organizer, so you lose your copyright. This might be acceptable if you are a winner (and get a prize), but it often is a cheap way to collect images because all participants lose copyright, not only the winners.
That said, as already commented, high resolution will mean that you send in a jpeg image with the original number of pixels of the (cropped or not cropped) image, without downsizing. An image has no resolution unless printed, only a length x width number of pixels. sRGB is the safe colour space. If no maximum file size is indicated, you can use a 100% jpg quality. Otherwise you should stay within the limits of the file size by setting a lower jpeg quality.
The RAW issue is an interesting one. It sounds like you must assume you are obliged to capture RAW even if you normally work with JPGs.
Also there is no way for a human to see a RAW “image” without converting/developing it in some way. If you look at a RAW on screen it has been converted to a HDMI/VGA type stream to your monitor by something with it’s own rules.
If you “shoot in JPG” you are just asking the camera to do the developing of the RAW with whatever setting it has (i.e. you set) at that moment.
So nobody is ever going to see a RAW, even judges; only a developed version of some type.
I can set my R6 to give a very flat output (to JPG or monitor, etc) or highly saturated etc.
People rave about Fujifilm colour film simulations (they really are good!) - would they be disqualified for a competition?
How much is a little? 20%? but 20% of what. Seems like an unnecessary rabbit hole.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
32
It seems like many contests have not demanded any RAW at all because then they ought to have revealed the cheters.
I have seen these discussions over and over again and the last time I saw that at the biggest forum Fotosidan in Sweden they actually came up with a new stance. Earlier they had a concept called “ej manipulerad” (not manipulated) and that has been a disputed concept since long because “manipulated” is a generally semantically pretty “loaded” word.
From what I remembered they changed it to “not documentary” or so. I think that was a good decision because isn´t it what it really boils down to that the developed image shall look the same as the RAW when it is opened in a RAW-converter without any preset - or as the camera saw it with the cameras basic JPEG-rendering.
Personally, I consider since long all my images to be “manipulated” or “un-documentary” even if they might not really be, because I have always considered a few things hard to take in. Every JPEG today is manipulated really before I have done anything despite it comes out of the camera with a basic rendering a Japanese technician have made or out of a converter because there is always a stardard preset unless you disable it, which is an active action.
When I post process an image, I use exactly the same functions in my converter whether I stay inside the definition limits of Fotosidan´s definition for a “non-manipulated” image or if I don´t. It´s just a matter of “how much” or maybe “how” sometimes and I have since long felt that I personally don´t know where these limits are. As an example of some reasons a conversion to black and white is OK but if I add a brownish or sepia tone it is not. In my eye black and white is “not what ny camera saw”. That´s why I always consider my images to be “non documentary” despite most people would think they are. I have always found myself at an inclined plane here and I have never felt comfortable out there.
I also have found that I have really hard to understand these “puristic” nature photographs, that all the time, time after time gets upset when they have been fooled by some one who is going for the glory and the money by all means they have. Why not just demand a DNG RAW with the RAW-data and a baked in JPEG that looks exactly as the photographer wanted it developed in full size - problms solved. What had been the problem if they had? For me they have really asked to be cheated on.
We have had a couple of photographers in Sweden that have been very fond of cut and paste and cloning - not being open about it, pasting and cloning both whole animals and part of them and one even won contest in South-Africa with all the glory and money that gave. He made his name and platform despite all the criticism and is on with no projects as if nothing had happened but the first one that was caught is not forgiven till this day, so it seems to be normalizing after all.
The main entry date may have been 11th December but the OP has obviously got through the preliminary round(s) successfully. The competition organisers now want to see a full-size jpeg to check for quality for printing purposes and they want the RAW file to make sure no manipulation/cloning has been done. (beyond that which is allowed in the competition.) Bird Photographer of the Year is a very prestigious competition and I would be surprised if anything underhand like trying to obtain copyright is going on.
