THESE PHOTOGRAPHERS GOT CAUGHT CHEATING!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- 📷 Want to start taking photos that leave your friends and family speechless? Download our FREE cheat sheets: 👉 photographyexp...
Today, I'm going to share some juicy stories about pro photographers who got caught cheating in some of the world's biggest photography competitions.
Images like this, this and this… are FAKED.
These cheaters really peed people off. I mean, you spend hours, days, weeks, trying to get that one amazing shot, and then BAM, someone else swoops in and wins the big prize. Losing fairly is super frustrating. Never mind if they cheated!
The last cheater I’ll reveal at the end of this video cheated by being too real with his photo. Crazy stuff.
#photographytips #landscapephotography #photography
📷 Want to start taking photos that leave your friends and family speechless? Download our FREE cheat sheets: 👉 photographyexplained.com/cheatsheets/
do you guys have insta page?
Not yet. Really focusing on UA-cam at the moment. Thanks for asking though.
I got banned from a Swedish photo forum after I accused a famous photographer to not understanding photography and for doing more in post than in camera, 3 years later he was caught cheating with a "nature" photo, when that photo was proven to be a fake folk started to look into more of his photos and came to the same conclusion as me. But I did still think those images was great, I just wanted honesty and not that ant image should be forgotten or hidden, so the Faked Nikon photo is a "fake", but it still a good image if the creator had been honest.
I always try to get the best shot possible to avoid post-production. I posted a nice shot and proudly added "No post production" to the post. and of course, I created a sh!t storm of keyboard cowboys accusing me of being a liar. Finally, I deleted the post-production remark, and suddenly, all the negative comments subsided. There seems to be a large portion of society out looking to take their anger out on any random person for no real reason. I don't share my work as much as I used to because of this kinda crap.
Some of the genuine winners of past competitions have been bad enough, with judges awarding prizes for horrible HDR, etc.
Being a judge doesn't mean you are good at photography. Finish 3 or 4 courses and you become a judge. I became one, doing mediocre photography. The Sony and the AI competition is proof that judges really did not know how to judge winning images.
Cheaters should be blacklisted forever from photography contests.
Depending on the rules stated in the contests I don’t see anything wrong with any image. All images are worked on. JPEG’s are processed in the camera software and RAW images are always worked on or they are flat and lacking in color, contrast and even sharpness. Film was processed and then processed again when printed. Do I add things to my images, no. I do make adjustments and remove things like power lines, yes I do. I crop, adjust the exposure, contrast, brighten and darken, I use masks and layers and I sharpen the image. I’m just trying to I express myself as an artist that uses a camera. If you want to be just a machine operator that’s your choice too
Would love to see new competitions like Raw Shot Photography Competition. where you can only submit your show as your final shot without a single edit.
@alexnail runs a competition that only allows minimal editing.
@@Photography-Explained I assume there's more to it but if it is stated like this, "only minimal editing allowed" then it's a straight way towards calling someone a cheater. It's such an unclear description. What does it mean minimal? Where is the red line? Can settings only be modified up to 5% in Lightroom? Can only 2% of the image be AI generated? More precise descriptions of rules are needed to make sure there is no misunderstandings. Why not "no editing" instead of "minimal editing"?
I don't believe it was a competition, but my favorite blunder was when Natgeo published a photo of the milky way with like 5 dark horses of the galactic core in it.
That's a good idea for a follow up video. "Photography blunders..."
The wildlife guy--Rodriguez--was within the rules as you showed them.
In my opinion Sir, I think Photography Judges, a handful of them don't know the dynamics of Photography!
Especially the practical side of it...I wonder how intense are Photographers engaged about their works before a winning verdict can be reached?
Just an opinion good friends!😮
Ai should not be in photography category since no photon capture while making it. It should be something like Ai picture imagination contest. I am still beginner but in my understanding a photographer capture the light from an object while AI is pixel generated color. Yes there is editing but as far as increase and decrease from what have been captured. Ai can be another shape of imaging art: painting use paint, photography use photo, the use of ai can be aimaging for example.
Ken Wheeler aka the angry photographer aka some Greek sounding word, passes himself off as a great photographer and says that “nobody understands light like I do”. However very rarely shows anything he has photographed and when he does it is terrible. Actually got caught red handed trying to pass off someone else’s photographs as his own on his UA-cam channel. He has long since take the video down but absolutely did this proving that he is in fact The Awful Photographer
Ich glaube schon lange keinem Fotografen mehr, den ich nicht persönlich sehr gut kenne oder ich bei der Bilderstellung nicht dabei war.
Allzu viele lügen, dass sich die Balken biegen. Es ist keine Schande, seine Bilder zu bearbeiten aber dann sollte man es auch erklären.
Of course these are just the ones that were discovered.
The recent advances in AI have further blurred the line, and prompted even more hand wringing and tut tutting. Don't get me wrong. I prefer the actual craft of camera photography over AI generation. But it's a huge gray area and where does it begin and where does it end? AI is another tool on that very broad scale which began with developing techniques, to dodging and burning, to the zone system to finally ultra-sophisticated computers and algorithms that interpret and translate a bunch off zeros and ones into a file format that can be seen by the human eye. Every one of us uses some form of manipulation to improve our images. That is not cheating, it is using available tools. Set the rules for the arena and stick to the rules. If you don't like the rules, go to another arena. That's the only way to keep it creative and keep it fun.
I dont think it is a gray area at all. Photographers spend time, patience, technique, experience and have a lot of disappointment before delivering. Sitting behind a computer screen for an afternoon is BS.
A good excuse to go back to film. At least you have a physical negative to validate your print or scan.
So you do with digital, it’s called the camera raw file, it is generated in camera and contains serial number data etc.
If competitions required that the raw file (not a software generated raw) be submitted alongside the final edit they would be more able to determine if a phot was eligible to participate.
This is why diigital photo sucks
A good shot is a good shot.
We mix genuine images with AI like all the time. If the customer is happy, I am happy. That is commercial photography.
Contests are different but honestly… I don’t have time to participate and frankly don’t give a f*ck.
Videos like these are pathetic.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
In my country a guy won a big nature comp with a shot of a bird flying against the sky full of clouds. Thing is the bird and clouds were all in focus and he claimed it was shot with an 800mm lens. As soon as I saw that I smelt a rat. Heaps of other nature photographers thought the same because we all know its impossible to get a bird against the clouded sky all in focus with an 800mm. The judges still awarded the prize claiming they couldnt prove otherwise.
Maybe he took it in f/32 because at that time, the sun shone from the earth surface. 🤪
Unless I took the photograph, or one of my friends did, I always assume photographs posted online are fake. I've watched too many videos posted by "photographers" along the lines of "I took this amazing photograph, unfortunately, there's an ugly tree branch in the shot, so I went into Photoshop...." etc. AI and "advanced features" in Photoshop are ruining true photography. I say we all have to go back to 35mm film. At least if you fake it in the darkroom, you needed skill to do it, not just watching a "how to" video online and clicking a few buttons. Fake photographers so desperate for likes on Instagram etc, they lost track on what it means to be genuine. Social media. The cesspool of humanity.
Der gewöhnliche Bilderkonsument will sich keine Gedanken machen. Daumen hoch oder Daumen runter. Verständnis für den Bildinhalt ist ein rares Gut und besser wird es auch nicht mehr.
90% of “photographers” are actually “computographers” these days.
Submiting a photo that's not manipulated....not likely, as soon as you simply dodge or burn, the photo is tainted.
Just some constructive criticism, you have a tendency to start loud and higher pitched when you begin a sentence, but as you finish your point and get to the end, your tone and volume goes way down, making it hard to hear what the last couple of words were. "WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A PHOTOGRAPHER TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE, THIS TIME IN THE REALM OF wil..f...ftgh ..."
Appreciate the quality content here, just something to look out for I future videos 👍
We had these arguments 25 years ago when digital cameras came in. Eventually we will have image competitions not photography ones.
As a photographer of decades long experience and a social activist who runs a 501(c)3 that does Art Based Community development , one of my primary concerns is Artist's Rights. We live in a country (the USA) that has always been far behind the rest of the world in appreciating and protecting the rights of artists to control their own work. I have seen (used) Adobe AI assisted cropping tools in my photos and found them intrusive on my creative control and only marginally beneficial. I know that a lot of work, visual and literary has been "scraped up" and essentially used without consent or attribution for the profit of the "thieves." I do not care for this. At 76, i know that this will oputlive me. While I am sentient, I will rail against it.
I don't agree with such a strict judgements and calling all of it cheating. Cheating is playing against the rules. If the rules are not precisely describing what techniques can be used, what can or cannot be a subject of a photo then doing something that some people assumed but it was not stated is not cheating. I have nothing against using modern tools to help creating nicer, better images. In competitions it's all about defining criteria what is allowed and what is not. Just like in racing, we have categories, different requirements in F1, WRC, Nascar and so on. Outside competitions I don't see a reason for calling someone a cheater if he removed a branch from a photo or added a plane which was not there. If I want to place a nice photograph on my wall to please my eye, I don't really care if it's all "real" photo. It's a different story if it's supposed to document something, then it is cheating but otherwise? Using a modern camera can also be called cheating. They all have their algorithms for image processing, white balance, color grading etc. It's also ok to be a purist, to go after more traditional photography skill set and to have competitions in those categories. I admire athletes that compete in olympics, runners, cyclists etc. but it's not cheating if I drive my car to go to work while I could walk or cycle. It just gives me better results to drive.
Photographs are always a lie. Not a problem. The representation of the photo IS always a problem
The wolf shot is still awesome and no consideration is given for how much work went into it - I don’t believe it should be included in this list or disqualified in the first place.
AI gens should not be allowed in any comp as they are nit photographs.
Loved the video, thank you....Don't know what they are going to do with AI as it's here to stay, think we have to learn to live with it, the worst thing is peoples honesty, as all shots taken in raw require edits as we all know....great video Colin Devon UK.
Glad you enjoyed the video Colin. The crazy thing is that I’m sure you’ll be able to create RAW files with AI soon enough.
We have to admit that AI will get better and better and that it will get harder and harder to discover manipulation. I already discovered AI manipulated photos of so called historical black & white pictures.