How far to limit editing - rules in a competition

[AlanKlein]

I came across this competition for landscape photography where there were rules to how much editing you can do and the kind.  My own impression of the winners is that they're all unusual anyway and don't look like real scenes.  So I'm not sure what the point of the rules are?  What's your feelings on this whole matter?

 

Contest winners:  https://naturallandscapeawards.com/competition-results-2022/

Rules for editing: https://naturallandscapeawards.com/rules/

 

[movingfinger]

13 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

My own impression of the winners is that they're all unusual anyway and don't look like real scenes.  So I'm not sure what the point of the rules are? 

I agree on all counts. Also, how do they know if an unallowed type of editing was performed on a submitted image? Do they conduct some sort of in-depth analysis of the submitted digital file or do they simply trust that the submitter abided by the constraints? Possibly (and not unlikely) I am a simpleton but I can't distinguish between the samples of the unallowed edits and the winning photographs. Some of the winners are - to me - so peculiar (unique?, eerie?) that they don't even look like or resemble 'landscapes' of the sort I have ever encountered, whether with my own eyes or in photographs made in the days before digital capture and editing. That said, most of the winners are gorgeous and creative and definitely merit honor and recognition.

[Ken Katz]

The rules seems to make sense to me, though I don't personally have an issue trying to clone out electrical wires.  From their Terms & Conditions:

"RAW files must be available for verification in later stages of the competition"

There are additional instructions for verification of images shot on film or OOC jpeg.

 

[Tony Parsons]

'Natural' landscapes ? To me, some of them look like stills from Science Fiction B-movies.

[Ken Katz]

IMHO, some outstanding images, and I do not underestimate the time, patience, physical endurance, and photographic skill required to obtain many of these images.  I am not a fan of photos that look like paintings, or extreme abstractions, but the rules seem quite reasonable, so that what is awarded are not composites (except for night photos), or digital works of art.  The rules for enforcement, as I described above, also seem workable.  People's opinions and tastes can certainly differ.

[Robin Smith]

I generally think the photos do represent "natural" landscapes, so I can see why they do not fall foul of the rules. My bete noir is milky way/landscape composites and there is a typical example in one the winners. Seeing the milky way like that is completely unnatural, but I seem to be in a minority.