Vote for an Engadget photo contest winner!

Everybody knows that our vote for the Engadget photo contest is still on, right? We're gonna shut it down later this weekend, but for now you can put one in for your fav from our top ten picks below. They're competing for a D80, but four runners-up will get their pick of JVC noise canceling headphones, Samsung YP-UJ2 MP3 player, Xbox 360 wireless headset, or Samsung Trace. Don't forget to check out the gallery if you haven't already!

Poll closed!

Gallery: Engadget photo contest gallery!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Jason @ Feb 2nd 2007 6:30PM]

And half of these photo's a ripoff's of copyrighted photos. Come on now. How tacky.

[Will @ Feb 2nd 2007 6:49PM]

Agreed. I think there were some better entries that people talked about in the original thread. Beyond that seems there is a little too much photoshoping going on.

[jason @ Feb 2nd 2007 6:45PM]

Wow. Some great shots (some photoshopped images, some ripoffs) but some great shots.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Feb 2nd 2007 7:34PM]

iPOD killer!

http://www.engadget.com/photos/engadget-photo-contest-gallery/149004/

[Z @ Feb 2nd 2007 7:40PM]

They need to tighten down the rules. Photos with Photoshop effects should not be mixed in with others that don't have effects, otherwise, one person has an unfair advantage over the other, and then you're judging one person's work based solely on their photographic skills alone, while you judge another person's work based on that plus a number of additional skills. And that doesn't level the playing field.

In fact, they should have four categories:

- Posed shots with people, animals and/or objects (with Photoshop effects); like Kurt Heumiller's photo
- Posed shots with people, animals and/or objects (no Photoshop effects); like David Browning's photo (Paul Weaver's photo might fall under this category, as well)
- Natural shots (no posing, but with Photoshop effects); I don't think there's an example of this here.
- Natural shots (no posing or Photoshop effects); like Brad Saksons' photo

That way, we would know what skills were involved in the creation of the photos, and the competition would be categorized and judged fairly based on similar skill sets.


But in the meantime, good luck to all the contestants!

[Tom @ Feb 2nd 2007 8:15PM]

Is this a photography contest or a photoshop contest??? Photoshop is NOT Photography. Let's see any of these entrants hold their own on an 8x10 view camera.

[Keaton @ Feb 2nd 2007 8:53PM]

I have to agree with all the posts above... I'm not voting on any of them... There are very few good "photographs" in this contest... I mean like 90% of them are computer art... and they are not even very good! A lot of them even have terrible compositions! Jeez Engadget... You could have choose some better pictures...

[Aaron @ Feb 2nd 2007 8:59PM]

One of my close friends is an undergrad for Photojournalism and he uses Photoshop for every single photo he takes. Whenever he gets a photo he adjusts the hue and contrast to bring out certain colors and add depth. Sometimes, no matter how good a photographer, the light just isn't there. You also have to add in that in photojournalism, you can't always pick your shots.

A good example is the fight he witnessed in New Orleans. You can't pick the fight, you can't pick your lighting and you don't have time to set up your camera. Photoshop cannot be banned completely, otherwise photographers would never make deadlines or loose some beautiful pictures.

[Tom @ Feb 2nd 2007 9:18PM]

Photoshop corrections (i.e. same corrections available in a pro color darkroom lab) are of course going to be used frequently and legitimately in digital photography. It's an entirely different thing when elements are added, removed, or changed outright via photoshop. It becomes digital art, rather than photography. If your photojournalist friend were to ever photoshop an image beyond standard tonality and hue corrections, he'd be fired without question in an instant. That crap doesn't stand on its' own in the professional real-world - ESPECIALLY photojournalism and documentary work.

[Echo_ @ Feb 2nd 2007 9:13PM]

This is what happens when you let a gadget blog decide on artistic photoes... Noisy, poorly framed, gimmicky pictures.

[Mark @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:05PM]

Using photoshop to adjust contrast/brightness or adjust hue/saturation or remove little spots (i.e. a night scene has a dead pixel) is OK. But anything beyond that should be called a photoshop contest rather than a photography contest. This is a "gadget" "photography" contest and should have been focused on just that. Photography contests should judge a person's ability to take creative photos, not their ability to manipulate photos in Photoshop.

[Adam @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:27PM]

Ok i am a sore loser, who chose the top 10? how can an edited photo of the Eiffel tower with an intel processor thrown in the middle be in it, a whole bunch of nabazatg's at a booth in a trade show, or a Nikon floating in front of a guys face? well enough of my ranting. Go Paul Weaver it looks be a real photo.

My entry, a Radio Shack ILLUMA STORM and my fingers.
http://www.engadget.com/photos/engadget-photo-contest-gallery/148993/

[Nick @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:32PM]

I voted for Paul Weaver.

Anyway, this was my entry.
http://www.engadget.com/gallery/engadget-photo-contest-gallery/149050/

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:28AM]

Your entry is better than most of the top 10.

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:27AM]

Come the hell on guys, I cannot believe Kurt Heumiller's photo isn't winning. It's clearly the best by far: http://www.engadget.com/photos/engadget-photo-contest-gallery/149034/

[SFeric @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:57AM]

I voted for Whiting. Beautiful photograph channeling DaVinci and making a statement about how our gadgets reveal us. You could have a whole school of psychoanalysis based on how people express themselves in gadget selection!

Browning photo, funny and wonderful - my first choice until I saw Whiting. And Weaver, another beautiful photograph with meaning.

Looks like Carlos Lopez will take the prize, excellent commercial photography. He should definitely work for Madison Ave. But I agree with the critics that say this should be a photography contest, not a photoshop contest. And I think (of the top 10 chosen by editors) than Whiting, Browning, and Weaver are photographers first, and also have artistic (as opposed to solely commercial) merit. Great contest! And yes a lot of photos deserved to be top 10 that didn't even get in. I agree, break it up into categories so everyone can be judged according to their aim. Thanks Engadget!

[Troy Hostetler @ Feb 3rd 2007 8:14AM]

Every picture you see in print today is “photoshopped” 100%. With old school it’s done in the dark room, now with PhotoShop. You can discount it or limit it’s use. It’s a tool the artist can use. Some have real talents with PhotoShop some with their eye, but you can’t ban it or make it a separate category. You can only judge the end product. This is not about “if” an photo is manipulated it’s about the end product. The days of not “doctoring” a image went away with the first home dark room. I don’t see this an issue. The point is the end result. You like the image or you don’t, someone has better computer skills or photography skills or best of all a combination of both. I voted for Scott Whiting as I think it’s a very creative image, I’m not considering the process used to make this picture, but the picture that he submitted. My two pence.

[mdwsta4 @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:41PM]

i suppose i'm salty because my picture didn't even make the gallery, but it was better than at least half those photos.
i thought part of the original rules were very little photoshop? some of the pictures are extremely photoshopped as others have mentioned. others are just pitiful pictures. what, did you guys just pick the first 100 entries you received and called that a gallery?
i guess i shouldn't expect much for a photography contest on a tech website. any other amateur/pro photographer would agree with me on most of these photos. i'm definitely disappointed.

[PEZ @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:12PM]

I tried to vote for the peter pan peanut butter pic, but Aaron P dosnt seem to show up. I see an Aaron R, though.

[Aaron @ Feb 3rd 2007 3:11PM]

Hey PEZ, thanks for the attempt to vote but my peanut butter one didn't make the top 10. I spent almost 3 hours setting that one up with foam core for reflections and a halogen work light with parchment paper over the top for diffusion. I was focusing on making a good PHOTO with the limited resources I had. I was bummed (as many were) to see so many heavily composited images in the top 10. I really put a lot of time in with my $200 point-and-shoot to produce a well lit and balanced image in an attempt to win a DSLR... oh well, I'll just keeping dropping money in my piggy bank in the hopes that one day I can afford one. I voted for Paul Weaver since I think his photo best captures the spirit of the contest (or what I originally thought the contest was about).

[Nogami @ Feb 3rd 2007 11:16AM]

I thought that Juan Carlos Lopez had the best product shot, and I liked the idea behind Scott Whiting's photo at the bottom (although I would've preferred a girl instead of a guy :P).

But I didn't vote for the same reason as other people have mentioned - there are very different styles and subjects in these photos, and just saying "pick the best" doesn't give me enough direction to vote.

[Alexander @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:24PM]

Juan Carlos Lopez, the sony ericsson falling into he water with the water wallpaper is so cool

[Scott Whiting @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:48PM]

First of all, I would just like to say thank-you to everyone who has voted for my photograph. I really appreciate the support.

What I want to comment on though is the “photograph vs. digital art” debate that is occurring. I will limit my analysis to my own submission, “Contemporary Vitruvian Man.”

As stated in the original contest post, “Slightly photoshopped images are ok, but the source image(s) must be yours, but judging will be about the merit of the photo, and not of your ability to manipulate it." I believe that both the letter and the spirit of this rule was not to ban any use of Photoshop, but to prevent people from submitting images that can not exist in reality. With digital images, there is no “wet” darkroom to work in, so Photoshop, or a similar program, becomes the digital darkroom.

No one would accuse Ansel Adams of “faking” his photographs simply because he used every talent at his disposal and chemical in his darkroom to make his work look its absolute best when printed from his original negatives. The same approach would apply to this contest. No one would realistically expect that your contest-level submission would be the raw negative or digital file taken straight from your camera. This was not a photojournalism contest, it was a photography contest.

I used Photoshop to make standard adjustments to my submission that can be performed in a wet darkroom. Rebalancing colour, adjusting contrast, dodging and burning shadows and highlights (those terms are even taken from wet darkrooms where the techniques originated). What I did not do is “create” anything. Each of the seven display devices were physically positioned on the bookcase where they appeared in the final shot. All images on the devices were displayed “as is” and not added later. All I had to do was stand behind them when the shutter was tripped.

I expected that there would be some doubt as to the legitimacy of the shot when I was planning it, so I took additional shots of the set-up as support. You can see an unedited version of the set-up without me behind it here (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/378435541_68f8cd605b_o.jpg).

There is a black sheet taped to the wall, fingerprints on the bottom laptop’s screen that I neglected to clean, and some books used to finesse the final positioning of one laptop and the PSP. All I did was black-out the book spines in the final shot and removed the tiny “pause” icon on the portable DVD’s display.

Photoshop is a powerful tool, but simply because a photograph seems impossible without it does not mean that is was. It may simply have been difficult.

[Tom @ Feb 3rd 2007 3:07PM]

Ansel Adams didn't create new elements in his images - his images WERE straight from the negative, using only burning and dodging in the darkroom. No cropping, even. He only used graded paper as well, meaning split filter printing wasn't even an option for him. He also initiated the f/64 club - a group of photographers who ONLY shot their images at f/64, for maximum depth of field, and leaving the photographer to deal with things as not only extraordinarily long exposure times, but also reticulation failure at the extreme shutter speeds. This group was and still is strongly dedicated to unaltered prints produced from a view camera. So, please... don't EVER compare digital -artwork- (read, not straight photography) to Ansel Adams.

I shoot digital and I shoot film (35mm, 120mm, 4x5", 5x7"), and hold both formats in high regard for professionalism and quality. I tend to hold digital photo manipulation in a different regard though - not in a negative connotation, but merely as a different medium altogether. I do not consider digital manipulation to be "photography", even though it uses elements of photography. Painting uses elements of drawing, but a painting is by no means a drawing.

Your photograph is well conceived and well shot. After seeing your setup, I can clearly see that you didn't stretch the "slightly photoshopped" aspect of the rules. Some of the other entrants, however, certainly have. Good luck.

[Brad C @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:17PM]

Is this a joke?

I voted for Paul, at least his is 'good'.

[PEZ @ Feb 3rd 2007 10:14PM]

Wow, yours didnt make it, and it seemed to have more personality.

Life is f*cked.