Announcing the winners of the 2006 Photo Contest!!

Photo #2 was taken 2 seconds later at 8:52:07

Photo #3 was taken at 8:52:13 --- 6 seconds later

Photo #4 was taken at 8:52:16 ---- 3 seconds separating this one and the previous.

Photo #5 was taken at 8:52:18 ---- 2 seconds later. The first five photos were taken in an elapsed time of 13 seconds.

I actually liked this photo better than the one in question but as I mentioned I chose the other because of the uniqueness of the timing.

I am 66 years old and a retired bank executive. I am too old to begin lying about something so trivial as a photo posted on Dave's Garden. In addition, as a former banker, I don't like my integrity or credibility questioned.

It's a shame you entered the one you did...I think all the other shots are excellent.

Very nice photos linthicum. Deer frequently have multiple births around by me and evidently they do in your neck of the woods too. Twins are the norm it seems and triplets are no longer an infrequent sight. I liked the optical illusion of the fawn having 4 ears and all the legs and I liked the way the sun illuminated their ears. If I had taken that sequence of beautiful photos, that would have been the one I would have submitted too.

Thanks gardenpom and Equilibrium.

Equilibrium, in an earlier post today you asked about the Geese photo and perhaps getting a copy of that photo to use as wallpaper. It is my photo, also. And, it was not enhanced (at all) beyond minor cropping. I will d-mail a copy to you with a higher resolution and no copyright showing.

I just went back and looked, that is your photo! I meant to go and D-Mail the person who took it to ask if I could use it as desktop wallpaper and well... time slipped away from me. Very nice! This was a rough competition because there were so many good photos but both my husband and I particularly liked that photo of the geese in the mist as he referred to it. Thanks for the offer of no copyright. Odd as it may seem, I like the copyright because it tells me who took the photo. My current wallpaper is from another DG member named LindaTX8 of a wild looking bug that stares out at you from the screen and her watermark shows and my one son's computer has a snake from Sarahskeeper. My son isn't ready to change his desktop wallpaper just yet but I'd like a change so I'll take your high resolution image of your geese WITH the watermark so it shows on my screen who took it. I don't mind because it personalizes it for me. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the explanation linthicum, that was a very clever shot! I can now see where the legs and ears come from, I also think all 5 of your shots are great, it's a shame you couldn't have entered them all. I guess they all would have got winning votes.

I loved the autumn reflections photo too, picture perfect.

Please don't be too hard on anyone, it can be very difficult to know who people are in a 'blind' sense. I do hope you continue to wow everyone with your photos.

You are a very good sport, linthicum. I envy your rational perspective. This has been quite a good lesson in not jumping to conclusions. I'm glad this has been straightened out beyond a doubt. I would also have picked the one you did and the whole series is wonderful. You captured their grace and beauty. I admire your photography often. I am especially bad at things that move!! LOL. I might d-mail for help with that!

Linthicum, I have long been an admirer of your photographic eye, and I now admire your integrity as well. I am extremely happy to hear your excellent explanation of the oddities in your photo. 'Relieved' is a good way to express how I feel about it. Thank you for taking the high road on this.

(Without seeing the series, it is easy to see how such a misconception could occur)

The photos in the sequence look good and I have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The images -do- look astoundingly photoshopped, and you have a history of doing this:

http://davesgarden.com/forums/fp.php?pid=2676849
http://davesgarden.com/forums/fp.php?pid=2676858

So it is pretty easy to jump to a conclusion here, all things considered. I have no choice at this point, however, but to take you at your word, though, and I appreciate your taking the time to respond in trying to set the record straight.

Dave

Congrats everyone. All the pics were wonderful

Good, now we are all happy campers again lets discuss other things. Move on.

nap, I think we all feel a bit of the inequality of what we have to go on, lacation, camera, etc. I decided that if I couldn't compete with the fantastic vistas I see then I would choose what I thought to be my most artistic pictures. If I decided not to enter because I thought I may not win, and others did the same, there would hardly be a contest. I just hope I gave some entertainment by entering, and I think you have some very good pics you could have entered which I have seen on the photos forum. I would encourage you to join in next year too!

I quote nap on "After all, are we voting on the most appealing subject? Or the eye of the photographer? Or on one's "luck" at being in the right place at the right time?" I think all of these things can come together in a way which makes a photo appealing, again with some difference in personal taste.

"Or on whether one lives close to the ocean, or the mountains? My tiny garden can't compete with some of the lush, meandering vistas I've seen here" Again I neither live next to the ocean nor the mountains, but I do live in a country location. My garden isn't huge but isn't tiny either, but a flower can make a wonderful picture, a butterfly will land in a large or small garden. Then it's how we see it, how we capture it if we can, and that means spending time in the garden when the chances are there.

I'm not sure if the quality of camera here is making a lot of difference, some of the best quality pictures don't win. I would love to have a good lens to attach so I can take a wider variety of shots, but the 4x optical zoom I have give me a resonable zoom range, which I do without a tripod, a butterfly won't wait for you to set one up. I wondered if people thought my pic of a peacock butterfly was photoshopped, impossible as I have no advanced programmes, but the butterfly does appear to be floating on the picture. My Sony camera happens to love the colours of peacock butterflies, and I can take macro shots from 4", if good weather and with a lot of care i can do it from 2". My butterflies have got used to me, even newly hatched ones I could get 2" from them to take shots and they take no notice. I must have learnt how to approach them with care, last year was the first ime I tried it and I could only get to within 6". The same with dragonflies, the darters that we around this year I could get very close to their faces by starting at a distance and moving in very slowly.

Just to show you how a boring scene can be turned into an interesting shot when nature presents a beautiful sunset, my two scenic shots were taken from the bedroom window, I stood on the window board, one leg in and one on the window ledge outside fearing for my life! I thought if I couldn't compete with grand vistas then an artistic shot would at least give something for people to look at and ponder. My shot of a vibrant pink and blue sunset was as the camera took it on scene mode, zoomed in to the most colourful area then cropped, these sunset pics cannot be altered to make them better, they turn out brilliantly if you can keep the camera steady on zoom hanging out the window. The eye doesn't pick up the colour at a distance as a zoom camera does, but on the zoomed pic it is there. My other shot of a telephone post is out the same window, it is on the road side and cables always get in the way. The shrubbery at the bottom of the pic is the top of the hedge and trees around, the sunset was a mix of stripey pastels and it so well mimicked the crossing cables of the post. I sometimes take as many as 200 pics while the sun is setting, one after the other, so happen to get the occasional one which is maybe worthy of showing, but I think I have almost worn my battery out, I don't get the same shooting time now!

I hope I helped to make the contest interesting even if I didn't get a win. Here is the view taken today from the bedroom window from which I got my sunset pics, without standing in the window!

I just want to add that it may look like I have taken pics specifically for the competition. I never took one with this in mind, one forgets about competitions after the event and taking photos for me is purely for the enjoyment.

This is the full pic I cropped the telephone post from

The full pic the pink and blue sunset is from, although I had some more vibrant colours just before that it was too blurred when cropped closer.

I wonder if we might have more than one contest -- one for untouched photos (perhaps allowing cropping and other minor changes) and one for photoshopped photos? Then we can allow both perspectives on this issue. I personally can see the sense of both arguments. And I love beautiful photos regardless of whether they're touched up.

-- Vicky

The process of gardening is one of pruning, fertilizing, staking etc to create a visual effect that is desired. The art of photography is more than the mere capture of the image , it is the artful manipulation of a subject to create what is desired by the photographer. The idea of limiting the art form in a photograph in a contest for garden pictures seems strange to me. We certainly would encourage the gardener to manipulate the garden by weeding and watering and pruning etc. Would you wish to limit the only photographs taken with a pinhole camera to make it an even playing field? Or only allow pictures of roses that have not been fertilized or trees that have been left unpruned and gardens gone wild from the lack of weeding to be entered as fair. I think there is nothing wrong with someone using a point and shoot camera and someone else using a Leica with all the bells and whistles. I also think using a computer for various enhancements is fine. Progress. We all can choose the photograph which appeals to our individual taste as the winner. I would love to have the contest entries list what they have used in as enhancements, just as I am always interested to know how people achieve great healthy specimens of glorious plants. I feed Hydrangea to get great blue color. I would think it reasonable to enhance a color in a photograph in the same manner. Anyway, I don't have the technical knowledge to do anything fancy, but I am certainly not opposed to those who can and choose to use photo shop. I loved seeing the wide range of entries and hope that this remains a friendly, but diverse experience for all. I loved the winning photo soooooo much. Patti

Lithicum--Your photographic eye is amazing and I can only envy your ability to get such incredible shots. I would give anything to be able to do what you have done. I can't get a good picture of a butterfly or a bird, no matter how hard I try. I think I'll switch to trees!!

I would never be able to choose the better between the deer and the geese photos. They are really works of art. I'm sorry you had to endure the doubt and criticism, but glad you hung in there and proved your integrity. I hope to see lots more of your photos here on DG and in future contests.
Diane

linthicum I think your photos are outstanding. Sometimes some photos are so good, they seem almost too good to be true.

I have one of those freebee programs that crops, resizes, sharpens, and brightens images. Sometimes I use it, sometimes I don't...although I always resize to get it down to an acceptable size for DG or any other site I post on.

I'm gald you are fortunate enough to capture so many images of those wonderful deer to negate the criticism. You don't owe me an apology. I just hope you keep posting your wonderful images so that I can continue to enjoy them.

-Ron-

Linthicum - great job, great photos, great eye for beauty. You give the rest of us such inspiration and hope that we can do half as well as you've done. Cheers to you!

Wow, I always this site was so wonderful. After reading this, I am so disappointed. My grandfather is a professional photographer; my son-in-law makes his living manipulating photos for business cards. I am 63 and photography has been a huge hobby of mine since I was in my early teens. I have always used a manual 33mm until a few years ago when I got a digital and some photo editing software. I would like to point out a few things

!. The winning photo is perfectly flat - no dimension at all. Rather like a picture of a picture.

2. When film was the only medium photo editing was done routinely. Pictures were cropped, lightened or darkened, hues enhanced, etc. It is not a new procedure but rather something ALWAYS done until the one-hour drug store developing.

3. Blurring the background and sharpening the main subject is done in the CAMERA - digital or not. I was doing that 40 years ago.

5. Surely you have all seen the famous "staircase" etching that looks normal but when you begin to follow it, you realize it is an optical illusion

6. If the picture was photocopied, why would some parts be so absolutely perfect while others parts appear not quite right. When you are snapping pictures in a hurry that happens.

6. Dave, I am so crushed to see such a blatant accusation made with absolute NO proof. I am curious; how are deer supposed to stand? It is that the sand it not sinking down... perhaps it is hard sand.

7. I have love coming here but after reading the above comments, I am so disappointed. As I said, I have an extensive background in both photography and, by the way, earth science and back grounds. And just what does constitute photo editing? Does that mean no lightning, darkening, cropping? As I said, film has always been done that way. It has to do with how long you leave the negative is in chemical, they crop, they have to or it would be one long strip of various scenes.

8.Surely before making such a public accusation, you could have give linthicum a chance to prove her case.

I have read and re read your rules but I had a post that got me a warning. I didn't change a word but it was posted. Now I am sure that I have broken a dozen of them in this post but I feel it necessary to point out some things. I guess I will take the consequences. I hope they are taken as information and suggestions.

Sincerely,
MollieB

First I would like to say that I really enjoyed this years's competition, because I found it to be much more managable than last year's. More thought went into what people posted, so there was an excellent selection of good photos.
I was tickled pink that one of my photos made it into the group of 14 pics and I thank everybody who selected it.
I really liked all the pictures which Linthicum had entered ( and the bug on bud and the wonderful black kitty and and...) I almost voted as the #1 for the deer group, when I noticed the double ears and then started to count legs.
Now I use photoshop many times for minor editing, "unsharp mask" 2 or 3 pixels is a good tool to sharpen the subject up a bit. Sometimes I notice a distracting blotch in the background or on the pot, which I might erase.
I think I make a difference between what I would call a photo or a painting:
I don't mind correcting a photo, but at the end it is still the same subject just perhaps a bit cleaned up. But should one go through the trouble of truly altering the subject, adding backgrounds, removing/adding whole parts of the subject, then I would perhaps still enjoy the picture but now I would call it a painting, not a photo.
It was my PERCEPTION that the deer pic was a painting in my definition, although it was still pretty.
Having now read the background on the deer photo and looking at the other pics in that series, I probably would have voted #1 for one of the others in that group, they are beautiful.

Ursula

Folks, I do appreciate your supporting comments. However, as is always the case in controversy we can continue to dwell on the negative or use the experience as a means to further the positive. A cooling off period often does a lot of good. It has for me. But, admittedly the support has helped tremendously. As well as sorting out in life what is really important and what isn't.

Hopefully, much can be learned and remembered from this experience by all of us, especially jumping to conclusions. But you know, had I not had the other series of photos I would have had no real way to prove the validity of the photo. Although not a very good comparison, I guess that is why the legal system still puts away someone for years and then finds out years later, they were innocent.

I assume that very few members have taken photos with a 500mm lens. The sharpness is often lacking that you will achieve through a smaller lens. If there are some leaves, weeds or twigs between you and the subject, you will get a noticeable blurring effect on parts of the photo. If you have ever tried to take a photo through the bars at a zoo, you will know what I mean. This photo was truly lucky timing and it shows that just two seconds can make a difference.

I thoroughly enjoy posting photos here on Dave's Garden mainly for others to enjoy. Your enjoyment becomes my satisfaction. I am not a professional and am just trying to be better tomorrow than I was today.

I think enough has been said by everyone.

The end!

Might I ask how best of show was chosen? and a big congrats to all the winners!!

JoanMN, on Dec. 18 I asked why you weren't a finalist for Best of Show since you were the winner in the Scenic category. Instead, there were two entries with a tied number of votes for second place, and one of those was designated number two; the other, number three. The one who was listed as number three ended up as a finalist. I still don't understand this. Since there was a clear winner, why would the third place winner (who actually tied for second) become a finalist rather than the actual winner? I don't know why I'm the only one who seems to be bugged by this. Fair is fair, and this clearly wasn't. I can only guess that the computer broke the tie for second place, which caused a tie for number one...then broke the tie again and came up with number three as a finalist. Sorry, but this simply isn't equitable. This is the first merit-based contest I've ever seen where a first-place winner was taken out of the running for best in show.

I know Dave would like to get this tempest in cyberspace over and done with and out of his hair, and I'm sorry if I've restirred the pot; but I'd really like to know why this happened. And I think JoanMN deserves an answer.

It was a bug in the script. Next year I'll manually intervene if there is a tie again.

dave

Thanks, Dave. My last two cents (aren't ya glad?!:D )....There's nothing unfair about a tie, even for first place. You'd simply have two, maybe even three, vying for Best of Show from that category. The only tie breaker that would be necessary would be if there were a tie for B.O.S. Then, you would cast the tie-breaking vote. That would be equitable...and simple.

Congratulations, JoanMN.

Right.

In this case, I didn't know there had been a tie until after the BoS was started.

dave

Since there are no money prizes, why could there not be a tie for any position in any section? Then someone else would just be awarded third, or second, or whatever.

I've been visiting this site almost daily for 6 months!! I didn't know anything about a photo contest. Where was it posted?

I didn't get to vote - but I love them all. Well done everyone!

1Garden, yep, that's exactly what I meant...a tie for whatever position with everyone who placed first in the running for B.O.S.

Songs, the contest was announced in a thread in the Dave's Garden Forum. Sorry you missed it.

Just wanted to add that I think bbrookrd along with MollieB made valid points about the art and nature of photography,

Alterations, editing, and enhancements (or extra lighting and shading equipment) , whether facilitated 'in camera' before and while in the process of shooting the pics, or done later in your darkroom or at your computer with good software, can create the most beautiful and artistic pieces.

The 'set up' of photo opportunities, the actual 'click' of the camera, and the follow-up technical and creative process are all part of creating a photographic art piece.

Posting a pic that hasn't been editied and enhanced is something like serving a dinner with no salt and pepper and spices or sauce. Yes, there's a slim chance that it could be delicious but it's not likely, and it could be so much more delicious with some additional care and attention!

tabasco, very well said.

Well, I guess it is like a woman going to a beauty contest wearing no make up, while everyone else is wearing it. What chance would she have? And yet she may be very beautiful.
Maybe we should have two categories Natural and Enhanced.
Just a thought.
Josephine.

I agree with Tabasco.
There is no way that my cheap point & shoot, 4 Mega Pixel camera can produce images that can compete with the fancy new models. PhotoShop helps my basic shots compete.
I could not enter any image if Photoshop was banned.
Andy P

AndyP,

I repeat...you're a thinker