PDA

View Full Version : Definition: EI and Photo



Cindi_Delaney
03-31-2008, 02:20 PM
Okay I'm new to this so I need help with a definition.
I know EI stands for Electronic Imaging and the other competition is for photo.
Is there a point where it becomes one and not the other?

Keith_A_Howe
03-31-2008, 02:24 PM
The issue here is not whether it's one or the other but what you are wanting it judged for. Portrait open is judged for the actual image, and you have to have created the original image. EI is judged on the work that was done to the image. You do not have to be the original creator of the image, just have done the work.

Keith

Sandra_Pearce
03-31-2008, 02:25 PM
Cindi,

Not yet. You can enter EI in photography. I feel that with as much work that is done on an image they are all EI. Maybe there needs to be photography and painted art. I don't know the solution. I only enter my painted work in EI (was called ART TECH) because it has been taken way past a photograph. Competition will eventually catch up with digital art.

Sandra

Cindi_Delaney
03-31-2008, 02:26 PM
Thanks Keith.
As always you understand the most poorly written and obscure questions.

Cindi_Delaney
03-31-2008, 02:27 PM
That's because you Sandra are an honorable person. :D

Keith_A_Howe
03-31-2008, 02:34 PM
. I only enter my painted work in EI (was called ART TECH)


Sandra, that's not quite right. I can't speak for what they do in your state, but on the national level EI and Art Tech are/were two seperate competitions. I am a Master artist, which was earned through entering art tech competition. Art tech was traditional oils, pencils, dyes, chalks, etc applied to the surface of the print. EI originally was for video taping, then evolved be electronic enhancement of images.

Keith

Sandra_Pearce
03-31-2008, 02:41 PM
Keith,

We still call it Art Tech, I believe. I have only entered SEPPA two years and Nationals one. I am not an authority on this. I still believe that photography should be photography and EI is for the rest of the wild stuff. When I enter photography it is not painted things. I stand corrected.

Sandra

Keith_A_Howe
03-31-2008, 02:42 PM
Just to clarify this further, EI competition is judged by a panel of Master Artists and Masters of Electronic Imaging. Portrait Open is judged by a panel of Master Photographers. Wedding Albums are judged by M.Photog. who are working wedding photographers. Of course these panels are also affliate qualified jurors. I am of course talking about affliate judgings, at non affliate each organization can do what ever they want

Keith

Keith_A_Howe
03-31-2008, 02:45 PM
Keith,

We still call it Art Tech, I believe.

That's what I meant by your state may be different and there's where it gets confusing for people!

Keith

Michael_Barton
03-31-2008, 04:44 PM
The fact is that there is no way of "policing" Photoshop work or postproduction. Like it of dislike it know that most images out there are Photoshopped significantly for competition. Also know that images are constantly hit for things that are "easily fixed" in PS. By this, why would any competition open themselves up to scrutiny by not allowing the flood gates to be opened. Not to start another conversation, but isn't kind of like baseball? Who's on steriods, who's not? It's not a matter of who can afford them, but who can afford to get away with using them. Even in competitions where retouching is not allowed, how can we "know" that the images have not been touched. Does this not allow for scrutiny then for real images that are "larger than life" moments that just happened? I've seen that as well.

As an example, there was an image that was judged last Fall at our state convention. It was an image of a Blue Angels formation. It would have scored higher had a judge not pointed out that the Photoshop work was lacking because the smoke was ommited from the lead plane. Obviously, the plane was cut and pasted. It got beaten on. The, ah, problem is, well, the lead jet doesn't use smoke as it would cause accidents and certain death by loss of visibility. So, a straight out of camera image got hammered. Just an example of the obvious cynicism that has been caused by digital edited.

The way I see it is have fun, "shoot up", enter what you want. The scoring will sort it all out. Great work is still great work. I have entered heavily PSd images that have scored high in open. Digital art if you will. Remember that competition is not reality. If the judges are going to comment on things that are "easily fixed", I'm going to make sure I give them less to complain about. On top of it, anyone remember the darkroom? You know, when people used to "dodge", "burn", layer and minipulate their images? You know, spend 20 hours on one print? So, are we back to the dark ages of the 80's and 90's where we just shot 35mm and sent to the lab for them to fix our stuff without us knowing about it? Have any idea how much **** was actually done to our "straight out of camera" images when they went to the lab for printing? We are now in a time where once again we are responsible for our images.

Peter_Bauer
04-06-2008, 05:41 PM
Interesting discussion. But please keep in mind that a lot of very extreme manipulation was being done long before Photoshop. If you appreciate what John Paul Capinigro is doing on the computer, you might be amazed -- really that should be AMAZED -- at what Jerry Uelsmann was doing in the darkroom decades before digital:
http://www.uelsmann.net/
Yeah, that's all darkroom work. Really!

For me, manipulation (digital or darkroom or scissors and paste) falls into a few categories (in no judgmental order):
1. Image improvement. Dodging, burning, tonal and color adjustment, and even up to removing power lines or trash in a landscape or hiding a stain on a wedding dress.
2. Creation of art. Compositing, collages, fantasy scenes, etc.
3. Generation of new image. Seamlessly taking a couple shot in the city to a country background, greenscreening, and so on.
4. Fraud. Stalin-era removal of "non-persons" from official photos, adding clouds of smoke rising from Lebanon after an airstrike, a child's stuffed animal miraculously clean in the dusty remains of a bombed building, and so on.
(Any additional categories that didn't come to my mind this afternoon?)

Competition-wise, is there any real difference between categories 1 and 3? Can both be sold to the subjects within the images? Competition-wise, is there enough difference between 1/3 and 2 to make them mutually exclusive?

Food for thought -- or perhaps just a quick snack,
Pete

KirkDarling
04-06-2008, 06:15 PM
The issue here is not whether it's one or the other but what you are wanting it judged for. Portrait open is judged for the actual image, and you have to have created the original image. EI is judged on the work that was done to the image.

This seems clear-cut and unambiguous to me. I can see some things being competitive in both categories, but I would not have a problem deciding what I wanted a particular work judged for.

As Michael has well stated, "How real is it" is a horse that left the barn 100 years ago, died and turned to dust. Manipulation was common in photography from the beginning--manipulation in front of as well as behind the camera.

Even during the brief window from around 1965 to 1995--when color became king but retouching it was simply too hard and too expensive for most work, so we sang "sour grapes" with the retouching concept and claimed it had to be done in the camera--Michael points out that many photographers simply didn't know what the lab was doing to make their work acceptable.

So if I want work to be judged a portrait, I can enter it as such...and expect that because every aspect of the image--before the click and afterward--is now under my control, then every aspect will be judged.

Cheri_MacCallum
04-06-2008, 06:33 PM
Art tech was traditional oils, pencils, dyes, chalks, etc applied to the surface of the print.

Dont' forget neg retouching...that's mostly how I got my master artist.

Jack_Reznicki
04-06-2008, 08:37 PM
you might be amazed -- really that should be AMAZED -- at what Jerry Uelsmann was doing in the darkroom decades before digital:
http://www.uelsmann.net/
Yeah, that's all darkroom work. Really!

Hey Peter,

Great seeing you at PSW.
BTW, you can also see what Henry Peach Robinson did in the late 1800's.
Predates even Jerry.

Peter_Bauer
04-06-2008, 09:27 PM
Hey Peter,

Great seeing you at PSW.
BTW, you can also see what Henry Peach Robinson did in the late 1800's.
Predates even Jerry.

Indeed, it was great to see you, as always -- maybe in Las Vegas we'll find some more time to chat?

A Google search for Robinson produced quite a bit of great info -- thanks for the tip! "Fading Away" is really something.

Pete