![]() |
| Richard Smallfield: Climbing Pakiri Hill |
I prepared six photos for the photo-story category. Then I reread the competition rules:
Entries ... must not have been manipulated in any way other than global colour and exposure adjustments considered standard in RAW processing. Focus and exposure stacking, HDR, and stitched panoramas are allowed, but discretion is expected.Since when have local adjustments, in particular in landscape photography, been unacceptable? Dodging and Burning in the darkroom, or Layer Masks in Photoshop, have always been part of doing a professional job.
I have never exhibited a print that has not had local adjustments, so am excluded from the competition: images such as Climbing Pakiri HIll would not be allowed, because each part of the image was subtly, but separately, adjusted.
Under the 'Landscape' heading, NZ Geographic states: 'The judges will be looking for attention to light and drama.'
If they want drama, then they are looking for an idealised image, not an authentic one. So why do they rule out local adjustments – when all the photographer is aiming for is to get the best out of the image?
In my prints I try to present an authentic account of the mood of the location. Local adjustments are generally subtle enough that even a trained eye might struggle to notice them. So even though I aim for an authentic result, I'm disqualified.
HDR (that mother of a million abominations) is allowed. In effect, it could be considered akin to local adjustment, as bracketed exposures are merged into the various parts of the dynamic (brightness) range of the final image.
I wouldn't mind betting that whoever wins will have made local adjustments, but kept quiet about it.
Surely what matters is authenticity, regardless of how it is achieved.
I hope that the organisers read this and consider amending the criteria next year.




