The winning Architecture photos

All 3 winning photos, even though are excellent, are too similar in terms of the look and feel they project. The choice could have been a bit more versatile. Since two out of three photos are obviously processed to a great extent (which I have no problem with - I do enhance most of my photos as well) it might give an impression for future submitters (e.g. September contest) that this is what the winning photography is all about. And, in my opinion, it's not.

Congrats to the winners!

The 3rd place winner's pic is my favorite of the bunch.

The lighting and muted tones make the modern architecture of the plaza's colonnade look as ancient as the original building. It's surreal and great. The clouds too had a perfect pattern effect.

These photos could have been taken by the same photographer and that says a lot about the judging and the photos themselves. I don't sense subtlety in the processing at all so I don't agree with the judge's comments and as YR said, I hope the future entries won't mimick this style in the hopes of making "winning photography". Offer a new perspective!

Don't worry about mimickry, folks ... We now have run 13 of these contests, and entrants do NOT try to mimic a photo style that has won previous contests -- unless it's better composition or angle. If you look back over the 130 photos that have placed in the Top 10, there is a huge variety of styles and perspectives -- and a variety of judges' tastes. Not to worry. Our RAW Dawgs are too sophisticated and independent for mere mimickry.

I have to say, that the winner here was also the one I selected. I think it is amazing. I will also add that almost all of the entries were beautiful.

Well BIG thanks to Bruno for choosing my Paramount photo as the winner. It is one of my favorite captures of the year so far.

Should this be called the 'Making Architecture Look Dramatic Using Adobe Photoshop' contest' ?!

congratulations to the winners.

I find it interesting that two of the three shots are shot on serious equipment (a 17mm TS? & a 1Ds MkIII) and the third is with a fisheye. Two are seriously processed (a bit "super real" in my humble opinion).

Granted I haven't seen the other entries and the overall winner is very nice. Still, it would benefit the less technical computer users to modify the rules to discourage extensive retouching. The underlying question is when does a photo become a photo-illustration ala the NY Times and Edgar Martins. After all, this is part of the Globe (and NYT).

Why do people complain so much about post processing? It's ludicrous and petty. Photoshop is the new darkroom ... get over it. I can see the everyday world in all it's everyday glory ... show me something that pops ... put your own slant on an image ... it's all good.

At the end of the day we're all trying to create art.. and if everyone did things the same it would get pretty boring. You wanna be a purist, bust out your old wooden camera, Ansel Adams, take your photos, and then compare yourself to other purists.

Personally I think it must have been tough to choose ... good job Bruno. Glad this month I at least got into the top 10. =)

Congrats to the winner, but I have to agree with YR.....they are all extremely similar but I guess that should've been expected when 10% of the finalist photos were all of the Zakim bridge!

Hi folks,

My name is Yez and I came in second place. Congrats to everyone who entered.

I disagree with the comment that the top 3 photos look the same. In fact, they are dramatically different. Nevertheless, this is subjective and you're entitled to your opinion.

Regarding the comments that one must have extreme technical knowledge to win this contest -- I think that's off base. I use photomatix and photoshop elements, 2 basic photo editing programs. I don't have the technical knowledge with full photoshop, lightroom, or aperture. I am proud of my photo. I spent a lot of time trying to get the perfect angle for this shot and then I uploaded the images into photomatix and photoshop elements for some very basic editing. In fact, I am still using a good starter camera, a Nikon D60.

I understand that we all think our photos are wonderful - and they are. However, putting down the winners is not necessary.

Until we meet again next month.

These top 10 were awesome. Basic praise but it's true! This was my favorite contest thus far! Again, I love learning from seeing what other people are doing. Taking the photo AND what to do with post processing. It's all pretty great.

Thanks guys!

To the top 3, and the top 10, congratulations! Your photos were all wonderful.

I made it to the top 50 and was proud & intimidated to be pitted against you all, and to be pitted against the others in the top 50. Everyone had great submissions. Thank you for pushing me to try harder!

congrats to all. nicely shot and processed all around.

now on to "Jobs"

"I am usually against the various treatments that are available in Photoshop."

I am not, but when it is done it should be done right. and none of these are.

The 3rd place has done a decent job with HDR, but am I the only one that's sick of this trend? HDR is the equivalent of bedazzling jeans and hopefully fade away as quickly.

to J: This proves that great equipment doesn't automatically create great shots. Neither does Photoshop.

Congratulations to all of the winners and everyone who submitted a photo. The top three are indeed excellent. I am not a big fan of major post processing because at this stage of my development I try to come as close to the actual as I can. Post processed work can be beautiful and interesting and I am sure it is a kick for those doing the creating.

My suggestion for Teresa is to run a contest now and again on a given topic with entries that are organic, no post processing, and taken within the month of the contest.

My best to the winners again.

Regarding the winning photo, let's see...
Canon 5D Mark II: $2,699
17mm TS-E lens: $2,499

The average person simply can't afford to make these kinds of photos.

I disagree, Richard. The second one is with a Nikon D60 which is about a $600 camera. Also, have a look at the Nikon D5000. It is definitely still pricey at $800 but the quality for the money is phenomenal, and it is only a few hundred more than a point and shoot, and you'll never have to buy a Sears Portrait Studio portrait again.

The quality of the third, I think, has a lot more to do with post-processing and skill with photoshop, as well as choosing an interesting angle and time of day, than the camera.

Fantastic shots :o) I absolutely LOVE the second photo!

Thanks to all who liked my photo. With regards to my processing and the processing of others photos: Unless I am doing editorial photography I consider my work Fine Art photography, and in fact, architectural photography also falls into fine art. Lots of my work has minimal processing, but there is a lot that is also HDR, or overly dodged and burned/contrasty. That is part of my style, one which lots of people like.

Photography is a purely subjective art, and it was this particular judge's opinion on what he felt were the 3 strongest architectural photographs. Architectural Photography, like all photography, is more then just the processing; you must take into account the composition of the scene at hand, and the other two winners had very strong composition (in my opinion).

With regards to the person who mentioned the NY Times scandal: That photo was digitally manipulated to the point that things were digitally taken out of the photo and replaced with something else. Everything that is in the three winning photos were there at the time of capture.

With regards to the person who felt the need to list the price of the equipment that I used, I will simply say that one was a Christmas gift and the other was a rental. You can not start knocking people who have more expensive things at their disposal. It's the photographer and their eye, not the camera, that makes the photo. I spend just as much time shooting with my Holga and my Canon AE-1 as I do with my 5D Mark II.

There have been many months with this contest that I haven't agreed with the judge's final selections, but like I said before, it's a subjective art, and it's up to one judge, and that was what he/she liked and felt strongly about.

Thank you, Teresa, for running this contest, and keep it up. It's a great thing for us amateurs who are looking to make it in the world of photography.

Let's turn all this negativity into positives; there are way too many other things happening in this world that are a lot more important than a photography contest that need the negative attention.

Jeff

Guys, this is not the first and only contest that RAW has ever run! Please don't draw broad conclusions based on the results of one competition.

Believe me, RAW's amateur photographers are not going to start layering filters and effects onto their photos or run out and buy really expensive cameras; the results of many of the past contests prove you don't have to.

The very first contest we ran was won by a guy who took the photo with a cell phone camera. The First Place winner in July was taken with a Nikon D50, 1995 model that you probably can't buy in retail stores anymore. A Nikon D40, about $500, took the May winning shot. (And Second Place was taken with a Canon PowerShot G9, an advanced point-and-shoot that costs less than $500.)

It's the skill of the photographer and the judgment of the various judges that determine the winners. If you're lucky enough to have more advanced equipment, good for you. It's not going to make you compose your shots well or find that dramatic angle or use light effectively or just capture that special moment.

Hello and congrats to the top 3 winners and top 10 finalists!!!
I just wanted to say I LOVE the competition and would cry if they canceled it! I love following all the photographs on Flickr then seeing the 50 cut and then the finalist and 10. I want to say I love HDR and maybe that isn't some people's preference, but also do realize that every month is a different judge so that there isn't a one style that is ALWAYS picked.
Some people specialize in a certain area and good for them that is what makes them special! Thank you RAW and Teresa for hosting a fun competition and let's appreciate it and the artist who provide us with their works of art!

I had a long post written, but instead of turning this into something it shouldn't be, I'll congratulate the winners and tell Teresa to keep on doin' what you're doin'.

While I like Brad's spirit in simply boiling it down to congratulating the winners and acknowledging the fine work that Teresa and Co. are doing with RAW, in general, I do also enjoy a good debate, especially if it is in the arena of photography.

Jeff is certainly correct that photography is totally subjective. No one can argue that. Really, the only bad photograph is the one that is not shared. With that said, I do not see any legitimate reason to enforce diversity in the type of architectural shots that won. Architecture is architecture and, while all three winning shots do share some similarities in terms of the proximity to each other, they each show uniqueness in terms of the photographer's vision.

My favorite response in this thread is the one that bases image quality on the equipment used and the costs associated. Again, to echo Jeff, it is the photographer and his/her eye that makes the shot. You should certainly not use your equipment as a crutch or a handicap that prevents you from taking beautiful photos; otherwise you are simply devaluing yourself and any other photographer who uses similar equipment. Some of my favorite shots that I've taken were with my old-school Canon Powershot S30 and SD870.

As a die-hard HDR photographer, I totally disagree that processing a shot cheapens the results or makes it any less of a photograph. I find it hard to believe that classic photographers like Ansel Adams wouldn't be all over such contemporary processing techniques had he been alive right now with all of these fantastic utilities at his disposal. Can't you argue that his use of dodging/burning was akin to an old-school Photoshop? It wouldn't be a stretch.

Bottom line - all three winners are quality shots. They are pretty much all mutually exclusive of each other and once you get past the actual proximity of the architecture captured, you can clearly see how unique each photographer's vision is in their final products.

Congratulations, again, to the winners and kudos to Teresa. I look forward to seeing what the future winners have in store, and contributing to any accompanying debates. :)

(Ed. Note: Brian is a past RAW Photographer of the Week.)

I think the folks complaining need to take a hard look in the mirror and at their own photography. All three shots are striking compositions and while you may not agree on the post-processing, you weren't the judge. The judge selected photos that fit the theme as he saw it. A single-judged competition is subjective and chances are you won't agree 100% with the selections. Personally, I don't love the processing on any of the three shots, but if I were the judge, based on the composition alone they all deserve what they got. They are three of the best composed shots of all the entries since this competition started last year.

My advice to Teresa is to keep the rule of shooting the theme during the month. Over time, the images will get better and so will the photographers participating. I would also like to see past contest winners as judges (since I know Jeff likes my photos)...

I think it is wonderful that so many people are participating in this discussion of the nature of photography. Obviously the rules of the contest are the rules of the contest, but just as a for instance - could these images be run in a magazine such as National Geograhic as a photograph? (I'm guessing #2 could.)

When is the "fine-art" a photo-illustration as opposed to a photograph? The contest is called "RAW." Were extraneous items cloned out or reflections changed (and I'm not picking on one photo or the other - just a general thought)?

50% of your income or less coming from photography is a bizarre way of defining "amateur." How about "not a member of a professional photographers association" and "not offering paid photography services." I say use Reuters rules and be done with it. Otherwise you're all over the place and a lot of the final outcome can be swayed by the post-processing (and I'm not talking about dodging and burning or even spot removal).

I agree with people who say they all look similar. There's no real variation on perspective. Sure, they are good shots, but I don't feel anything. The picture that place # 6 evoked more emotion and had unique perspective.

I was also really distracted by the bright flash in the upper left quadrant of the 2nd place winner. Was anyone else?

I'm not trying to be negative for the sake of being negative, but I think these contests and open forums are good place to challenge the reasons people appreciate a photograph. I'm of the school that the photograph should tell me a story about the photographer as well as the subject. These are lovely pictures, but do little else for me.

Hello all, my name is Jack (third place winner).

First, I’d like to congratulate the other two winners. I think their work and that of the other finalists plus the other 40 photos were all great shots. There's a lot of technique, composition, and digital darkroom work that went into these photos. I read most of the comments and I'm in agreement with most of them.

My comment has mostly to do with Photography as an art; photography as being able to capture a moment even if it means waiting for the right moments, the right lighting, the right shadows and composition. That's photography. If we can't capture it naturally then we have to catch it using other methods i.e. artificial lighting, filters, reflections and yes - digital enhancements. Photography is art, photography is seeing …photography is not snapshots or equipment whether its enhanced by computers, digital or film.

You catch the good photographs by going after them and / or creating them; they don't generally come to you or create themselves.

I think RAW and other photography contests are a great learning tool to help understand what's behind a good or great photograph. The rewards of photography come from working it; it's worth it, even if you don't win. OK, let's move onto JOBS.

I'm not sure I can do this or not and I'm not endorsing anyone for pay here ... but I just thought it would be good for people to know that there are GREAT sites out there that are pretty cheap to TEACH you how to use Photoshop / Elements / Lightroom / Aperture at your own pace .... I subscribe to one for $25 bucks at month and it's great ... It is truly a fantastic resource for aspiring photographers. Do a search for online Photoshop training ... I like Lynda but Kelby is okay, too.

BTW I was the 7th place finisher this month ... so many Christian Science Center photos in this contest! I also wanted to say that when I shoot a photo, I shoot it with my post-processing already sort of figured out in my head ... it's part of my process. Just like choosing a filter and ISO or an aperture ... I know beforehand where I want to go with my image and I just hope I make the right choices before hitting that shutter release.

Where is the third place in boston located exactly??

The 3rd pic is the Christian Science Church ... I agree it is all about post-processing. i like the 2nd pic the most because it has an interesting composition using a wide-angle lens ... What's so special about the 1st and 3rd? Just PHOTOSHOP! I'm very disappointed.

This should be reclassified as a "Graphic Design" contest. The angles and subject matter are the only authentic pieces of these shots. The rest is simply computer enhancement which is so over-manipulative that I do not consider it photography, rather, graphic design.

I don't think photoshop had anything to do with the third image ... Looks like images were merged into an HDR using Photomatix, not Photoshop. Both the first image and the third are composed very nicely. The sense of perspective in both work well, with the converging lines really leading the eye.

To anonymous: While I don't want to get into defending what I did or how exactly I achieved it because like I said before it's the judge's opinion that mattered most, there is very little photoshop in this image, it is a 9 exposure HDR image, and after HDR Lightroom was used for white balance some some dodge/burn/HSL balancing, that's it.

Ready for more comments? I am not normally a fan of HDR, but I love the winning photo. This photo works for me and I'm not really sure why. I believe the subject matter, an old theater offset with the newer architecture, lends itself to this type of processing and treatment.

As for #3, while I think this is very well composed, for some reason the photo leaves me with a sense of unease. For me, the processing does not work (or maybe it does, because it makes me feel something).

As for Richard's comment that the average person cannot compete unless they have the best equipment, well that is just crazy. I am definitely an amateur but several months ago, I treated myself to the Canon 5d Mark II as a retirement present to myself. I haven't made the top ten with any photo taken from that camera, but in May my photo placed third. It was taken with my Rebel xti. And yes, I think my favorite shots have been taken with the Rebel.

I love this contest and I love to see what everyone does each month. It's crazy to complain. Constructive critisicm is good and at least for me, very welcome. I think most of us all want to become better at this and entering the monthly RAW contests help us in that way. I think the fact that there is a new judge every month also helps. You really don't know what type of photography each judge likes from month to month. I enter a photo I like and if it does well, great. If not, that's okay too. I don't think many of us are in this for those whopping big prizes!

Teresa, keep up the good work. I think most of us appreciate this contest and all the work you do to make it happen.

You can do a 9 exposure HDR? I thought it could only be done with about 3 images. How cool, now I will have to go play!

This is what I like about the contest, it is a way to learn new things...

I don't know what HSL balancing is, but google will fix that for me.

Yikes. I like a good debate, usually more than most. But people are arguing as if photography is black and white. (and I'm not making/using a metaphor here.) It's subjective and not only that it's judged by ONE person. Bitch at them if you're really that insulted by their choices, but in reality, all the negativity has led me farther and farther from this site and competition. It's not as if the rules are not clearly stated. Many before me have suggested this and I will repeat it for them... go to www.jpgmag.com

Again I'll say I was totally impressed with this month's competition. I've never seen buildings look as interesting. Just when I thought my composition was getting up there, I see pictures like these! Well done!!

Oh and you people with sick equipment, good for you, I'm jealous and saving up to buy the same stuff. Good for you.

Bring on the jobs! RAW was right it's hard to shoot people, equipment cant do it all. This month will show that.

Happy shooting!!

I have to agree with Katie here. Photography can be lots of things - artistic, documentary, journalistic, commercial, abstract, scientific - need I go on? And the kind of processing that you use (or don't use) depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve.

There is no such thing as no post-processing. If you shoot JPEG, you are letting your camera make all your post-processing decisions for you, that's all. There is nothing 'natural' about it. The camera is a tool, and Photoshop is just another tool that enables the photographer to take more creative control of the final image. It is worth remembering that there are many kinds of truth too, especially in art.

The winning shots are very interesting. As some have pointed out, they have their similarities (they are all wide angle shots of buildings), but for me, it is their differences that are most compelling. 2 and 3 are taken from just about the same spot, yet they could not be more contrasting in mood. 2 is dynamic and exuberant and positively revels in the distortions produced by the superwide angle. 3 is soft and gentle, yet as Linda points out, slightly disturbing. I think it is the way the wind is ruffling the water - doesn't it make you shiver slightly?

I really enjoy these discussions. Anything that gets us talking about photography is great.

Jeanette, the number of exposures that you use in an HDR is up to the photographer based on the scene. Basically you should use as many images as it takes to take in the full dynamic range of the image ... no more.

A normal DSLR has a dynamic range of about 300:1 or 6-8EV. The human eye has a dynamic range of 1,000,000:1 or 20 EV. HDR attempts to make up for this difference by capturing a greater dynamic range ... you take multiple photos at different EVs and merge them. So depending on your EV increments, it may be 2 or 3 images for a low contrast scene (think cloudy day) and many more for a high contrast scene ... Bright sun with shadowy areas.

My image (#7 this month) was a five-exposure HDR taken at 1 EV increments (or spacing). So -2, -1, 0, +1 +2 EV respectively. I may have been able to get close to the same result using 3 images at 2 EV spacing...-2, 0, +2 ... It's also important to remember that using too many images can cause noise.

HDR imaging is full of choices and really is an art in itself .... I also think people get confused ... it's not the HDR look they don't like; it's the tone mapping post-processing look they don't like ... and there are so many tone mapping choices you can make to tone down or turn up that "HDR look". So when people say they don't like an HDR image, what they are really saying is they don't like the photog's tone mapping choices.

It's an interesting discussion and I agree and disagree with various points. But mostly as a first-time entrant I was grateful and surprised to be included in the top 50 and interested to see which images the judge would pick. Congratulations to the winners. I'm looking forward to participating again!

I love this thread. I agree that Ansel Adams' dodging/burning could be viewed as old school Photoshop but if we took all post-processing off of the winning shot, would it still have won? As 'J' asked- When is the "fine-art" a photo-illustration as opposed to a photograph? I think RAW should do a contest restricting post-processing and see what happens.

I don't know about you, P, but when I take a photo, I take it with post processing in mind ... making the initial exposure and post processing are not separate things, at least for me. It seems to me that you think people take photos, and then say, "oops -- better get this into Photoshop and fix it" and then win a contest. Personally I don't think that's really the case.

Photo 1 is composed wonderfully, but over-saturated in my opinion. The colors don't look realistic.

Photo 3 is composed wonderfully as well, but the shadows/highlights were taken way too far. It looks like a drawing almost.