Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Well it is a technique. Like colour balancing a HST palette or sharpening/noise reduction, starless, etc...I wouldn't call it plagiarism. We all replicate what someone else started and put our twist on it. Maybe a lot of people are unhappy about the winning shot as it must come as a bit of a surprise but as Peter says, if creativity is the criteria for a winner then it does.
|
I agree. Nothing belongs to anyone else. The techniques we use regularly were someones idea once. I do however think that the competition should outline what is considered to be an astrophotograph.
My comment about the winning images in some categories was directed mainly toward the notion that I personally would not have picked several of the winners. I felt that within a few categories there were better images. An example of which was in the solar system section where there were many images of planets at high res with artistic flare demonstrated and yet a wide field image of a conjunction won. To me the image does not have impact or anything I would describe as being of winning value. Same as the galaxy category. I think Mark Hanson's image was spectacular and would have taken hours of collection and processing to produce. However, I am not one of the judges and they chose it. You have to expect that what should win the competition or category will not often be chosen because the judges see something else.