[Ash]

No, I haven't. Given some of the comments I'm reading here, there isn't much point in it for me. 'The Judges' who like the photo and presumably voted it in, commented, and were apparently over-ruled by 'the judges' who voted No and, from some of what I'm reading, didn't have the balls to say why. I believe that judging panel ought to be rethought, guidelines given, and those who cannot follow those guidelines, booted out.

Photography is such that what pleases you will not impress others, and if taken to heart the disappointment leads to a cause for self-vindication of your personally-prized work.

I have suggested a number of times in the past that at least all 'no' votes require a constructive comment (or at least clear reason) why the image is voted such. It is up to Adam to institute. In fact, seeing as though so much noise is being made about it, but nothing yet done, I'll just suggest it myself: PEG voting feedback

Interestingly, PPG does not offer a feedback service, and with that there are far few expressions of disappointment in the process...

I put the first rejection up in the critique section back when I still thought I cared. While the people who commented had valid points about the photo, it was clear to me that what pleases one, doesn't please all. What pleases many, will not please the other few (that was clear all along).

Then Jeff there is little point in making noise about this at all. There is no compulsion to participate, you know what to do if you dislike the process.

So I'll let the 'experts' tell me.. a recent photo...

Does it have a chance? or is somebody going to cry because the house is in the center of the photo?

No comments from me (I'm not an 'expert' by any means), but are you going to cry if this image is also rejected?

---

Last edited by Ash; 01-20-2011 at 05:42 PM.

[JeffJS]

I'm getting the notion that Jeff you want to convey a sense of victimisation in the things that don't go your way. Photography is such that what pleases you will not impress others, and if taken to heart the disappointment leads to a cause for self-vindication of your personally-prized work.

I have suggested a number of times in the past that at least all 'no' votes require a constructive comment (or at least clear reason) why the image is voted such. It is up to Adam to institute. In fact, seeing as though so much noise is being made about it, but nothing yet done, I'll just suggest it myself: PEG voting feedback

Interestingly, PPG does not offer a feedback service, and with that there are far few expressions of disappointment in the process...



Then Jeff there is little point in making noise about this at all. There is no compulsion to participate, you know what to do if you dislike the process.



No comments from me (I'm not an 'expert' by any means), but are you going to cry if this image is also rejected?

You want to go there. Ok. While you Say you're not an Expert, you certainly paint yourself to be one. If you Have no comments about the photo, you are more than welcome to ignore it. As for your comment in the first paragraph, you are dead ass wrong.

[atupdate]

So I'll let the 'experts' tell me.. a recent photo...

Does it have a chance? or is somebody going to cry because the house is in the center of the photo?

From my experience, I would guess that it would get rejected. I think it would receive a "snap shoot" comment like the image that started me thinking about starting this thread.



Tim

[thoughton]

Whilst I don't see any crooked horizon here, the sky highlights are a definite distraction.
I have also seen PPG Premiere Collection images that I wonder how they even made the straight PPG gallery, but yes, such is life and our diversity of opinion.

I don't disagree that the sky has highlights. I do however disagree that those highlights are clipped. In fact I know they aren't

I guess that's my gripe really, getting feedback is great, and on the whole the comments seem perfectly valid. However there does seem to be at least a proportion of comments where we wonder if the reviewer was looking at the same photo!

[jheu02]

OK. Let's tone it down you two. Jeff, though you say that the PEG doesn't matter to you, by how heated up you're getting you show otherwise. Ash, comments about crying are completely inappropriate.

There is definitely a sense of pride in one's work, which can cloud critical viewing and cause some resentment, been there...had it happen. My take on this thread, the PEG, judging, etc is this for what it's worth:

Though constructive comments are great whether the photo is accepted or rejected, I think many of us are seeing inconsistencies in these comments, thus leading to much confusion. I'll only speak of my experience posted earlier: a photo was rejected with the comments about it's size being too small (my dumb upload error) and a diagonal line (part of the leaf curl) which seemed distracting, otherwise it was an "easy in." When I corrected the size and burned in the diagonal so it was barely noticeable and resubmitted, a new slew of "problems" were listed and it was rejected again. I find that kind of inconsistency unacceptable personally, because it then becomes an exercise in futility.

I also think that Post Processing has become a bit too important. What do I mean? I feel the judges a getting a little nitpicky about things to do to the photos just because there's software out there that can change things. What ever happened to capturing a scene as it is and not cloning out this/that, straighten this, crop that... I'm not saying taking time with "developing" a photo isn't important, and I'll agree that straight horizons and such should be taken care of before ever submitting, but seriously... comments like "the leaf could be greener" just seem silly. What's wrong with natural nature?

[JeffJS]

OK. Let's tone it down you two. Jeff, though you say that the PEG doesn't matter to you, by how heated up you're getting you show otherwise.

Point taken on how it may seem. You're wrong, but I can see where you would draw that conclusion. I haven't begun to get heated about any of it. The OP's question or request was, show them and the reasons for the rejections. I've stated this earlier, quite clearly. The other participant in this matter chose to come in with some pretty snarky comments. I'll take it as far as he wants to go, in the interest of my own amusement. He said he wasn't going to comment on my photos because I said, I don't care anymore. He chose to take another jab. I responded in kind. His turn.

[JeffJS]

.....

I find that kind of inconsistency unacceptable personally, because it then becomes an exercise in futility.

I also think that Post Processing has become a bit too important. What do I mean? I feel the judges a getting a little nitpicky about things to do to the photos just because there's software out there that can change things. What ever happened to capturing a scene as it is and not cloning out this/that, straighten this, crop that... I'm not saying taking time with "developing" a photo isn't important, and I'll agree that straight horizons and such should be taken care of before ever submitting, but seriously... comments like "the leaf could be greener" just seem silly. What's wrong with natural nature?

Nothing.

[Ash]

OK. Let's tone it down you two. Ash, comments about crying are completely inappropriate.

John, see the context of my comment below:

So I'll let the 'experts' tell me.. a recent photo...

Does it have a chance? or is somebody going to cry because the house is in the center of the photo?

No comments from me (I'm not an 'expert' by any means), but are you going to cry if this image is also rejected?

I do not see it inappropriate inasmuch as the initial question asked was inappropriate.

Perhaps now Jeff you can have your own say if you also become a PEG judge...

[jheu02]

Here's my latest rejection and the comments. I can see some of
what's being said (in fact I saw something about the photo while
waiting for results that I hadn't seen while processing it, a
bit of chromatic abberation, which the judges didn't comment
on), but some of it I feel is flat wrong due to assumptions being made
on the part of the judge(s). Here's the photo as submitted (now in
the user's gallery). Judges' comments below in bold and my
thoughts about them.



Not a compelling capture of this ordinary subject. Not much
texture rendered here - PP has taken much of the clarity away
from the image.

I would agree ordinary subject, but how often does one get to
see a seagull in this pose? Normally they scatter unless you're
feeding them. Maybe not enough on its own to justify acceptance, but I
also wouldn't consider this just an so-so capture. PP had
nothing to do with the "lack" of texture. The bird was all
"balled" up. Feathers preen to a very smooth texture. The
texture in the sand behind the gull fades away due to DOF (a long telephoto of 300mm, DOF is going to be narrow and helps isolate the subject).

Don't like this one much. b/w does not get it for me. And the
oof body, isn't much appealing.

THIS IS A COLOR PHOTO! Notice the bluish tint to the grey in
the feathers, the yellow eyes, the brownish sand with other
speckles in the grain of ISO400. No B/W conversion was done at all, nor any selective desaturation. I'll admit that on an overcast day, a greyish, white and black bird isn't the most colorful thing, but a photo shouldn't be knocked based on a faulty assumption. I also don't quite see the whole body being OOF, tail feathers yes as either DOF or some lens distortion at the edge of the frame is coming into play, but the eye's pretty sharp and that was my main concern when I took the shot. I suppose I could have sharpened a bit more after resizing, but I'm OK with a rejection if the judge feels it should have been sharper. See below also.

Interesting subject, but head feathers are soft.

I understand this comment completely and agree with the judge's comment here.

This could have worked with some directional lighting.

Well, sometimes you have to take what you can get, so I think this sort of comment, for this type of subject, really isn't helpful. Can't change that it was a cloudy, windy day, or that in the middle of a beach you wouldn't even have a chance to even set up lighting before the subject would move. This sort of comment or critique is completely correct for a still life/portrait/etc...

Another keeper!

I think so! And that's why I submitted it. And like I said earlier, after my submission, I noticed some chroma around the bird's head and some of the upper feathers which have become more of a distraction to me. Why I like this photo though is the feeling of a cold and miserable day and nature's reaction to it.

[JeffJS]

Here's my latest rejection and the comments. I can see some of
what's being said (in fact I saw something about the photo while
waiting for results that I hadn't seen while processing it, a
bit of chromatic abberation, which the judges didn't comment
on), but some of it I feel is flat wrong due to assumptions being made
on the part of the judge(s). Here's the photo as submitted (now in
the user's gallery). Judges' comments below in bold and my
thoughts about them.



Not a compelling capture of this ordinary subject. Not much
texture rendered here - PP has taken much of the clarity away
from the image.

I would agree ordinary subject, but how often does one get to
see a seagull in this pose? Normally they scatter unless you're
feeding them. Maybe not enough on its own to justify acceptance, but I
also wouldn't consider this just an so-so capture. PP had
nothing to do with the "lack" of texture. The bird was all
"balled" up. Feathers preen to a very smooth texture. The
texture in the sand behind the gull fades away due to DOF (a long telephoto of 300mm, DOF is going to be narrow and helps isolate the subject).

Don't like this one much. b/w does not get it for me. And the
oof body, isn't much appealing.

THIS IS A COLOR PHOTO! Notice the bluish tint to the grey in
the feathers, the yellow eyes, the brownish sand with other
speckles in the grain of ISO400. No B/W conversion was done at all, nor any selective desaturation. I'll admit that on an overcast day, a greyish, white and black bird isn't the most colorful thing, but a photo shouldn't be knocked based on a faulty assumption. I also don't quite see the whole body being OOF, tail feathers yes as either DOF or some lens distortion at the edge of the frame is coming into play, but the eye's pretty sharp and that was my main concern when I took the shot. I suppose I could have sharpened a bit more after resizing, but I'm OK with a rejection if the judge feels it should have been sharper. See below also.

Interesting subject, but head feathers are soft.

I understand this comment completely and agree with the judge's comment here.

This could have worked with some directional lighting.

Well, sometimes you have to take what you can get, so I think this sort of comment, for this type of subject, really isn't helpful. Can't change that it was a cloudy, windy day, or that in the middle of a beach you wouldn't even have a chance to even set up lighting before the subject would move. This sort of comment or critique is completely correct for a still life/portrait/etc...

Another keeper!

I think so! And that's why I submitted it. And like I said earlier, after my submission, I noticed some chroma around the bird's head and some of the upper feathers which have become more of a distraction to me. Why I like this photo though is the feeling of a cold and miserable day and nature's reaction to it.

What's wrong with natural nature?

Apparently everything. The picture doesn't much appeal to me either but having photographed more than I care to of these sky rats, there simply isn't a Lot of texture to them.

[Ash]

Good discussion points John.
As we both know, contradiction is bound to occur with this feedback process, so take heart that the incongruencies aren't a reflection of inadequacies of the overall process.

At the risk of being scrutinised for voicing an opinion, I'll offer whatever amateur comments on the feedback as I see it below:

Not a compelling capture of this ordinary subject. Not much
texture rendered here - PP has taken much of the clarity away
from the image.

I would agree ordinary subject, but how often does one get to
see a seagull in this pose? Normally they scatter unless you're
feeding them. Maybe not enough on its own to justify acceptance, but I
also wouldn't consider this just an so-so capture. PP had
nothing to do with the "lack" of texture. The bird was all
"balled" up. Feathers preen to a very smooth texture. The
texture in the sand behind the gull fades away due to DOF (a long telephoto of 300mm, DOF is going to be narrow and helps isolate the subject).

The 'extraordinary' pose of a gull alone wouldn't be a reason for exclusivity and interest, as you've mentioned. There isn't a lack of texture, though the diffused ambient lighting has made it appear somewhat flat - this alone also isn't a big deal, though it does contribute to the overall look of the image. But combining all the elements together - OK subject, OK interest, OK lighting = good image, but those who may consider it excellent and good for PEG may be limited.

Don't like this one much. b/w does not get it for me. And the
oof body, isn't much appealing.

THIS IS A COLOR PHOTO! Notice the bluish tint to the grey in
the feathers, the yellow eyes, the brownish sand with other
speckles in the grain of ISO400. No B/W conversion was done at all, nor any selective desaturation. I'll admit that on an overcast day, a greyish, white and black bird isn't the most colorful thing, but a photo shouldn't be knocked based on a faulty assumption. I also don't quite see the whole body being OOF, tail feathers yes as either DOF or some lens distortion at the edge of the frame is coming into play, but the eye's pretty sharp and that was my main concern when I took the shot. I suppose I could have sharpened a bit more after resizing, but I'm OK with a rejection if the judge feels it should have been sharper. See below also.

Mistaking this image as a B&W one is a considerable oversight. The rest is just subjective, of which sharpness has something significant to contribute to the overall look of the image - again, only one aspect amongst the others already mentioned.

Interesting subject, but head feathers are soft.

I understand this comment completely and agree with the judge's comment here.

And you can appreciate that PEG looks for images that are technically flawless as well as being compellingly interesting. Hence this being an important factor in the overall sentiment of the image.

This could have worked with some directional lighting.

Well, sometimes you have to take what you can get, so I think this sort of comment, for this type of subject, really isn't helpful. Can't change that it was a cloudy, windy day, or that in the middle of a beach you wouldn't even have a chance to even set up lighting before the subject would move. This sort of comment or critique is completely correct for a still life/portrait/etc...

True, though 'working with what you've got' is at times insufficient to produce a great image. Of course it's not a helpful comment as there's not much you could have done other than pop out an off-camera diffused supplemental lighting setup in a split second before the gull saw what you were doing and fly away, but flat lighting is flat lighting.

All in all - a good image. Exceptional for some, perhaps not for others - we're all of different minds which makes this vocation more than just a culmination of skill - it incorporates so much more, and involves human emotion and subjectivity. Satisfying these elements are just as important as getting an exposure right in camera.

[jheu02]

Ash,

Very thoughtful reply to my observations. I hope that this thread can actually generate discussions of this sort as it not only could help demystify why some photos make it and some don't, hopefully leading to us all being better photogs, but it can also help the judging. Understanding how preconceived notions, or unrealistic expectations of what can or can't be done with an image, will hopefully aid the judges in giving even better feedback so the confusion level can decrease a little.

[Ash]

Thanks also for being cordial John.
It's at times a contentious issue discussing rejected images, as I feared it would be from my first post in this thread, particularly with all the emotional investment attached to personal work.

I also appreciate that it won't be without fault - as we've seen already, but accept that the imperfect process is decent and does admit good quality work for display. Ultimately, we should consider the PEG process as a very limited critique of rejected images and if we do seek subjective advice on what does and doesn't work in our submissions that we should utilise the Photo Critique forum - bearing in mind that critique there does not necessarily assist with getting an image approved into PEG./

[yeatzee]

Ash,

I hope that this thread can actually generate discussions of this sort as it not only could help demystify why some photos make it and some don't, hopefully leading to us all being better photogs, but it can also help the judging.

^ this.

Personally, getting a shot in means about as much as getting a PPG image in... but in a different way.

PPG lets in pathetic images daily, and PEG does nothing about artistic merit but only technical perfection making it meaningless as well. Plus, im kind of sick of looking at my images on the PEG only to find a 2 or 3 star rating with no explanation. Oh well

I do not submit/haven't in a long time to either for the reasons stated above.

[Ash]

I do not submit/haven't in a long time to either for the reasons stated above.

... which is a shame, I think.
Fewer images will get through in this regard and PEG loses out as a result.
I do suggest repeatedly that there is so much more to an exclusive image than ticking all the technical criteria boxes, and this I hope would filter through both the submissions as well as the judges' perceptions of the submissions.