Winning 2012 National Geographic Pro Photo Contest with Fujifilm X-Pro1 Locked

Harry Fisch tells of his award winning photo taken with his Fujifilm X-Pro1

• Win then loose 2012 National Geographic Photo Award
  

In a sad twist he is disqualified because he moved a "plastic bag" out of the frame. If he had cropped it out he would have been fine. The rules are pretty strict.

I thought people may find it interesting as it is yet another example of the Fujfilm X-Pro1 with its remarkable X-Trans sensor reaching amazing heights in the photographic world.

Cheers

If it had been cropped, the composition would've been markedly worse.

Well that's gotta suck hard.

--
http://www.artbylukebennett.blogspot.co.uk/

good, glad he was caught out cheating

too many people cheating in the photographic world when there's really no need to

It was hardly cheating. He just hadn't read the rules properly. There was no deliberate intent to deceive.

I'm not a fan of lots of PP, I think a good photo shouldn't need tinkering with, but minor touch ups are fine, as long as the photo retains its original look and naturalism.

--
http://www.artbylukebennett.blogspot.co.uk/

For me croping is the same "cheating" as using clone stamp tool to remove details that don't affect reception of the picture at all.

--
www.epicure.pl | between the walls and pieces of plastic we breathe

So where do you draw the line with 'cheating'? Would a tiny bit of burning & shading be allowed? If not, almost all of Cartier Bresson's images would be cheats.

What if there had been a plastic bag in the background when da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. if he chose not to paint it, would he be cheating?

hardly cheating!! he digitally removed an object from the photo

so its ok by you to add/remove objects digitally and still call it a photograph? once you start doing that it becomes digital art, if your photographs an't good enough then cheat right?

it's cheating and he knew full well that he was cheating, he just didn't think he'd get caught

Cropping is allowed, apparently.

In words of National Geographic Senior Photo Editor, Monica C.Corocoran:

"..it is unfortunate you did not crop the bag out or just leave it in, as it really had no impact either way. But digitally removing anything from a photo is in direct violation of the contest and we must follow our own rules... "

I can totally understand the rules relating to pp'ing stuff out, that's a no brainer.

Cheers

he removed a large object from the photo, that's a bit more than correcting colours/light sharpness even.

you wanna play digital art with your camera knock yourself out but you should feel asamed to call it photography.

who cares what HCB did, head over to flickr and you'll find a 100 better photographers shooting street and documentary

yes and we all do that's why he's a cheat

I think this is the first time in a 25yr career with computers that I've ever written this:

LOL!

Austin101, get a grip of yourself.

The guy wasn't a cheat. There has to be intent to cheat; the guy clearly didn't realise his actions would earn him disqualification, otherwise he wouldn't have risked losing such a prestigious award over it.

Removing undesirable elements from photos has been done throughout the entire history of photography. Often it's just small things like removing red eye, zits, and errant hairs. However, if something like a plastic bag has blown into the frame of your photo that was otherwise just fine, I see no issue with removing that bag.

Of course what the guy should have done is literally gone and moved it physically, but I guess he didn't spot it at the time or something. Whatever the case, it's no biggie and for general photography it's just fine. Clearly the guy should have made himself more aware of the guidelines considering his intent to submit it as an entry into a competition, just like I'd familiarise myself with stock photo guidelines if submitting to those.

So yes, very unfortunate for him but there was no malice involved. Let's not get acidic with our comments on the matter.

From the sounds of the initial post, I inferred that he had moved a plastic bag out of the scene before taking the shot - not removed it in PP'ing. I can see that being a no-no.

--
You don't TAKE a photo, you MAKE a photo.

Yes, the OP was written VERY poorly.

--
DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinions and/or suggestions of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Calling somebody you don't know on a situation you don't seem to understand a cheater makes you look bad, not him. As does trashing HCB for that matter.  Cheating requires an intent to deceive. And since he's the one that sent in the original JPG file that contained the trash bag, he clearly wasn't trying to hide his removal of it. He just didn't know all the rules. Ignorance isn't cheating. Hell, he didn't have a RAW file as he was shooting JPG only, so if he wanted to try and cheat, he could have tried to send a supposedly "original JPG" that had the bag removed. He didn't. He sent it with the bag.

--
www.chris-sorensen.com

I'm saying, if you read his blog post (which it sounds like you haven't), it's incredibly obvious the intent to deceive was not there. Clearly had he read the rules properly he wouldn't have submitted the version with the bag removed.

And in a separate point, it's a far cry from some subtle, natural looking touch ups that don't in anyway change the feel or nature of a photo or its story, to that of digital art.

--
http://www.artbylukebennett.blogspot.co.uk/

oh yeah, the blog he wrote after being caught, no I've not read it and why would I waste my time reading a cheaters lame excuse, fact is that if the idiot does know that difference between photography and digital art then he shouldn't be entering photography competitions.

so I guess he's a cheat and a liar

So the guy's a cheat, a liar, AND and idiot? Harsh.

He didn't excuse himself. I think he wrote his blog to give others the benefit of his experience. Also, how could he write about being disqualified before it actually happened?

he removed an object out of the photo and added something in its place, the photo isn't real anymore, its not a photograph any longer.

I didn't trash HCB and have no idea why you added him to the conversation, oh I see you don't have an argument regarding the original topic so you figured you throw one in.

if you think that he could have sent in a doctored Jpeg and claimed it to be the original then you have no clue at all.