It does look a little PS'd to me, if nothing but to bump up the saturation of the colors. Technically, they could do the same thing with a host of other software, and still be able to claim it wasn't PS'd.

if you push contrast and saturation to the maximum directly in camera and also apply some "effects" - e.g. olympus calls it "vivid" - you may obtain something similar; although it seems a bit extreme in this case

however it's difficult to draw a fine line: using extreme camera settings is a form of manipulation itself in my opinion, not very different from doing it in postprocessing

Yep been Photoshopped to hell and back. For one thing it doesn't even look like the correct sky (and there's a funny halo round the horizon line). Who are the judges, have they ever held camera?
I can only see that it was saved from PSCS4 in the file info, they've deleted the paths etc..

+1

I can only see that it was saved from PSCS4 in the file info, they've deleted the paths etc..

This isn't the original image, I downsized it in PSP X to post here.  I don't have Irfanview here to see all the EXIF file details.  For what I can see in "properties", it was taken with a Canon XTi, ISO200, f/14, 1/320s, no exposure compensation

I agree there is a thin line between bumping colors or contrast and a more radical effect such as HDR (the halo in the horizon made me think of HDR or a similar technique), but exactly because it looked overdone to me I sent the organization an email.

I don't know who the judges are, nor I know what exactly were the rules for the color vs digital manipulation classification, but there was an HDR in the latter.  They said in their reply that "the technical judges did not see any trace of digital manipulation", therefore my questioning it here.

I agree this one looks pretty shopped, at a minimum the burned in the bottom right corner, either that or had a lens with vignetting in three corners but not the other.

Regarding the sky however, you can use a neutral density gradient filter on the lens to keep the sky from blowing out.  Usually that results in a fairly straight line at the horizon though, and this one looks a bit wobbly.

Pretty difficult to decide from a reduced size copy on the monitor but simple enough, the judges can just ask for the original image and it's a done deal. If it looks anything close to this, fine, if the person added clouds or other features, they get the bump.

The term "photoshopped" is so generic that it doesn't mean anything to most people, because they don't have a clue what it means.

If the person is allowed to do contrast, levels, saturation, and adjustments with masks or layers, that's not "shopped" it's just editing and adjusting. If they add elements, alter or remove things, then it's Photoshopped. Otherwise we'd have to submit images straight out of camera?

All they need is the original and it's easy.

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted the reported claim from the photographer that it was not photoshopped to mean that it was straight from the camera.

As I said,, I don't know what were the contest rules and I agree it should not restrict images to "straight from the camera", but I think there should be a limit to alterations, therefore my questioning.This looks TOO MUCH altered to me, not just an adjustment.

I didn't even use the term "photoshopped" in my email, but "heavily manipulated". This could be inside their level of tolerance, but I was surprised wirh the reply that it had not been altered.

I would have to get them at the office.  One of them is the one I voted for, the Salar de Uyuni at sunset.

Technically you can do an awful lot in Lightroom these days.  So if you enhance colors and dodge/burn in the develeopment stage is that considered manipulation?