Reshoothing somebody else's photo is common practice among the crowds that sweep through any tourist site, and I do not see any problem with this, except when a photo like this wins a competition, but then the problem is also on the side of the judges.
As to photoshopping, it is difficult to define how far you can push, but personally I am more OK with somebody subtracting information from a photo (by dodging or burning in particular), rather than making a collage without mentioning it. After all, there are separate competitions for these made up images, aren't they?

I don't find it right or wrong, but the competition is of course free to set it's own rules. As it happens I like the rules, though.

If the photo broke the rules, it's fine to not award the prize.

I will say however, that if I took "the shot of a lifetime" and it was blighted in some way, say a Coke can on an otherwise pristine beach, then I'd probably fire up Photoshop too.

Boats at Lindisfarne is close to the British equivelent of Yosemite Valley from Tunnel View.
For it to win it had to be spectacular.

Adding in clouds as been done since before panchromatic film.
However if the competition rules demanded minimal manipulation, forfeiture seems correct.

No, you are right to fire a warning flare about this issue and it is a big deal. In this new age of "fantasy photoshop"....that is where anything goes. This is a much bigger problem. So much of what is hitting the market is often composite images that claim to be original photography...and are really only fantasy landscapes or other images.

The digital darkroom was intended to do like a wet lab...all of the normal printing functions. From burning and dodging, contrast control, to color hue, and spotting.

What came from this was really a form of illustration what many gallery owners call "fantasy" image art. So stripping this guy of his prize is proper.

We see so much now where entire sections of images are cut and pasted together. In the digital art world...you grab a sky from one source, then add a famous second image from another, then add a digitally painted blending or even third image section... and now your a digital painter.

Again this is why film is like a zinc etching plate...once you shoot it the actual art captured can not be altered...only printed. A digital image is never fixed or final.

He broke the rules. That's the only issue, here. If you enter a competition, play by the rules.

I hate photoshop.

The problem with Photoshopping here is that we can see that, like plastic surgery, it's addictive. You start off hoping for a little tweak and end up looking like the Bride Of Wildenstein.

I wasn't that impressed with the image he ended up with. Looks like many of the "popular" landscape images in the photo.net galleries. That "look" seems to be extremely popular right now.

Well, that's really the point, isn't it? It was totally generic. The most classic sign of this was that he simply took someone else's image and 'improved' it by more retouching; that is not artistry, that is simply operating machinery.

People have been printing in skies since the glass plate and albumen days. It was not even uncommon back then - it was basically expected.

In any event, the photographer broke the rules, and they apologized for it, so whatevs.

That's actually a kind of funny way to look at things. Early photographers were very much about showing how photographs could be altered by the photographer as a way to prove that photography could be art. Straight photography was not considered art, no matter how well done, it was simply a mechanical/chemical process that made a scientific representation of a scene. No art in that!

Numerous ways exist to create composites in register on film using grads, splitzers or other cut-outs and multiple exposures. What's more, once shot, slides can be sandwiched and duped for more creative freedom. Each of these actions deliver a frame on film that could be mistaken for representing something that actually occured in front of a camera but in reality didn't. So all in all, there's no intrinsic superiority of film when it comes to portraying the truth..

Tim Parkin: I'll have him on my team. But that's what drove my mother back to Australia from the UK: every bloody inch of England is so well known and charted and loved. David Byrne never stood a chance. The flat plain and the dead gum tree my mother hankered for would not have been photographed in the first place.

It's not a photojournalism award, so rules is rules. To the extent that this sort of thing occurs frequently, it heightens awareness and will result in self-correction.

As to journalism, I think there is a valid argument that photos should all be on film for verifiability.

OT: I much prefer the current winner to the former one.

Well, rules aside, the picture also stumbles over being a blatant copy/slick homage of another, well published photograph. If the jury was too incompetent in the field of UK landscape photography to know the photograph imitated, they should at the very least have read up all about the winner-to-be (in particular his own site) before publishing their decision.

You see this Lindisfarne shot time and time again in camera clubs up and down the UK.
In the club that I attended the folks swapped skies with each other all the time.
I even seen "street" shots populated by people taken from other photographs.
Most of the competition entries were composites of two or sometimes more different pictures.
Hardly anyone went out and took a straight shot and submitted it...that was regarded as very out of touch.

In the good old days, photogs merely moved dead bodies into more interesting positions.

What annoys me regarding this is the affect it appears to have on the perception of any shot captured digitally or that has passed through Photoshop ( or similar.) The idea that film is sacrosanct and digital is always a falsehood.

The image is and always has been under the control of the photographer, if he or she wishes to add/subtract or change elements then the only thing that has ever stopped them is their skill ( in the darkroom or in their chosen software) and their desire to produce an unaltered image or one that has been retouched in some way.

I've never been a member of a camera club but am surprised by reports of frequent 'swapping' of image elements. Personally I don't care if people wish to do this but would prefer the honest approach of being open about the composite nature of an altered picture.

To be clear, I now shoot exclusively digital. Which is no doubt why I get tetchy when sentiments such as some of those that have been posted are expressed. For me digital is convenient but not a reason or excuse to 'build' an image from several frames. Perhaps what you choose to photograph may determine whether you go down this route but if it's to deceive in some way I don't understand how a photographer could get any sense of accomplishment or joy from viewing that image...I think I'd only get a sense that I could have done better.

Perhaps I'm showing my naivety?!

Her position isn't particularly interesting:


Those clouds on the other hand...

Okay, nothing to see here... move on folks, but...

Indeed highly personal: photoshop or not - the images are overworked to the point of being illustrations/drawings rather than anything remotely close to "I was there and saw the billowing clouds". I could say less than nice things about these "photographs" but I refrain from doing so.

"Road to Nowhere" is one of my favorite songs of all time, perhaps David Byrne ought to stick to music.

Edit: sorry, that's just a joke too stupid..

Photoshop is a tool like burning/dodging, retouching with pencil or using development with reels. You can do it with skill or with less skill... usually images out of camera with digital or film/negative are a bore...

Rules aside, my own personal line-in-the-sand is "adding" stuff that wasn't there in the first place. Taking away blemishes, enhancing clouds, darkening skies, all are good in my book.