[yeatzee]

... 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.

PEG will be fine without my 3 star images

[JeffJS]

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

Tim, I didn't see your comment earlier due to some distractions (squashed). At first glance, it's just a fire gutted house. In the context the photo was taken however, which is explained in my Single in January album, the photo takes on a completely different meaning and it got a good response in that album. Maybe the judges would get it, maybe not. Most probably wouldn't even read the descriptions. At this point I'm of the attitude, if anyone cares to look at my photos, they are all linked in some way in my signature.

[Ash]

PEG will be fine without my 3 star images

Take those star ratings with a lump of salt.
I have a number of 1 star images in the collection also...

[thoughton]

I think it is an unusual pose, and a good image. However I can see why it might get rejected on technical grounds, mainly for the CA and the softness in the head. I also see a fair bit of 'glow' around the bird, the kind you can eliminate by stopping down a stop or two.

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.

[atupdate]

G
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.

Ash,

This statement disturbs me somewhat. The bird's eye is very much in focus and it is where my eyes gets anchored. The softness of the head or body is not a technical necessity and might not be purely technically related. All discussion about fast glass relates to how great narrow depth of focus is and then the judges discount the image for using this technique (an artistic choice not a technical error necessarily). I do realize that the discussion could progress to is this the proper application for narrow focus but then again, that is an artistic choice.

Tim

[atupdate]

John,

This is one of my favorite of the rejects posted so far. I love the overall softness, tonality, and composition.

Tim

[jheu02]

Tim,

Thanks for the comments. I thought this one was different enough from other "bird" pics and liked the composition formed by the shape of the bird extending from the lower left in a sort-of teardrop to the upper right. There was a minimal crop off the right and top to help offset the bird's head just a little further right than the original. I also needed to adjust the levels and curves to bring back some contrast on such a grey day and that I had to underexpose just a bit so as not to use a higher ISO. Didn't want to drop the shutter any lower than 1/320" since it was a 300mm MF lens. I think I shot this at f/6.3 (possibly even at f/5). Earlier I had been able to use f/8, but as this was after 4:30 in the afternoon during winter and pointed at the ground... I also did a little burning in of the backgound to give a little bit of vignette to highlight the gull. Oh well, I like it.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear back about another pelican shot I submitted. It's a very similar pose to one that was recently accepted, but I caught it with a different background and with its eyelid mostly closed. I actually think it's an even better shot than the one accepted, I just happened to process and submit it after the other. So, I wonder if the similarity is causing a judging quandry?

[jheu02]

Just remember, PEG submitters, the gallery is all about showcasing the 'wow' of life and 'pop' of Pentax IQ that would bolster the brand if the gallery were promoted as a product of Pentax gear. Images submitted to the gallery should be reviewed before clicking that 'Submit' button to see if they truly meet those requirements - a sharp and well-exposed image is simply not enough (but it helps. ).

Create the extraordinary from the ordinary, striking and compelling imagery from the world around us, and there will be more success.

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.

I saw that Tim highlighted this, and Tuco mentioned it very early on when the gallery was started. Your comment quoted here first from p. 4 or 5 and highlighted in red is a little cause for concern. It was my understanding that the PEG was started to showcase the very best of the forum members (while using Pentax gear), but not below a general "standard" of technical, compositional, etc level. This kind of statement almost sounds like how a marketing rep at a big-box store might feel "look at how sharp these photos from the XXX brand are!" There is soooo much more to photography as an art.

Where does an intentionally OOF shot fit in, or one in which a soft focus is intentional and completely keeping with the style of photography? Is it technically flawless or not? I'd propose that it can be just as difficult, if not more so, to intentionally take an OOF shot than one in focus. Would a marketing rep ever consider it as good? Probably not. But might it hang in an exclusive gallery? Perhaps! So, is it a good shot?

It's sort of like the "Rule of Thirds" discussion: yes, it's a great starting point and can yield great photos, but also knowing how and when to break it can show an even higher level of photographic comprehension than just blindly following it. Unfortunately, it seems from some of the comments that have been posted for rejected photos, that super sharp and loaded with texture are almost mandatory to be accepted. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to "water down" acceptance criteria. I've had more than enough times where an idea for a shot looked great in my head, and at the time I thought the composition, etc was what I was trying to achieve, but then get it on the screen, or look at it a little later and say to myself "What was I thinking?", or find that the "shot" I see with my eyes just doesn't translate when looking through the viewfinder. But as a very wise man once wrote:

"For everything there is an appointed time, even a time for every affair under the heavens."

There's definitely a time for razor-sharp images and ones that you can reach out and feel and touch. There's also a time for softness and understated simplicity and beauty. Let's not lose focus (pun intended) of the totality of our art form.

[yeatzee]

There's definitely a time for razor-sharp images and ones that you can reach out and feel and touch. There's also a time for softness and understated simplicity and beauty. Let's not lose focus (pun intended) of the totality of our art form.

Right... I would know considering I shoot @ F/1.2 regularly. But still IMO your bird picture is not it. We each have our opinions as do the judges.... and apparently they see in this case as I do. Not an overly interesting artistically, or technically compelling shot.

Where does an intentionally OOF shot fit in, or one in which a soft focus is intentional and completely keeping with the style of photography? Is it technically flawless or not? I'd propose that it can be just as difficult, if not more so, to intentionally take an OOF shot than one in focus. Would a marketing rep ever consider it as good? Probably not. But might it hang in an exclusive gallery? Perhaps! So, is it a good shot?

In all of the days I've spent on this forum, I can only think of one intentionally OOF shot that deserves to be in any gallery. Just because its out of focus and *different* doesn't mean its pleasingly artistic. IMO again

[yeatzee]

For the record, so you guys know my standing, I believe only two images posted in this thread should have made it. The rest I agree on (not the judging comments, but the rejected status).

Not counting my own of course

[jheu02]

Right... I would know considering I shoot @ F/1.2 regularly. But still IMO your bird picture is not it. We each have our opinions as do the judges.... and apparently they see in this case as I do. Not an overly interesting artistically, or technically compelling shot.

In all of the days I've spent on this forum, I can only think of one intentionally OOF shot that deserves to be in any gallery. Just because its out of focus and *different* doesn't mean its pleasingly artistic. IMO again

Tanner,

I wasn't bringing up OOF or soft shots to justify my seagull. As I stated in my post, it had also been brought up by Tuco in an off-handed way early on w/o any real response IIRC. This one specific shot doesn't matter in the long run. Ash's post about the "purpose of the PEG" got me thinking and so I was bringing up a point about artistic merit being as much a critical aspect in photography as any specific technical aspect. I get it that we all have different tastes and that you don't find this shot particuarly interesting. OOF/soft photography isn't for everyone, probably because we typically are "conditioned" to shoot for sharpness, so it's an unnatural photographic/artistic style, and so the first reaction is "that shot's not sharp...flaw".

For this specific shot I was doing what I could within the limits of the equipment, lighting and perceived time available for the shot to get the eye as sharp as I could. Apparently, it wasn't quite sharp enough elsewhere for the judges' and your tastes and that's fine. Sometimes that just happens and our efforts aren't quite good enough. But, I wasn't shooting this for the judges or PEG. I was shooting this for me and what I find interesting, so I'm happy with it, and thought others might like it also.

But the point was, do the judges dismiss any shot that's not razor-sharp right away, w/o giving the thought of what the photog may be trying to do artistically? If that's the case (i.e. trying to promote Pentax gear and IQ), I feel that PEG could potentially be "missing the forest for the trees." Isn't that the objective of PPG?

[yeatzee]

Tanner,

I wasn't bringing up OOF or soft shots to justify my seagull. As I stated in my post, it had also been brought up by Tuco in an off-handed way early on w/o any real response IIRC. This one specific shot doesn't matter in the long run. Ash's post about the "purpose of the PEG" got me thinking and so I was bringing up a point about artistic merit being as much a critical aspect in photography as any specific technical aspect. I get it that we all have different tastes and that you don't find this shot particuarly interesting. OOF/soft photography isn't for everyone, probably because we typically are "conditioned" to shoot for sharpness, so it's an unnatural photographic/artistic style, and so the first reaction is "that shot's not sharp...flaw".

For this specific shot I was doing what I could within the limits of the equipment, lighting and perceived time available for the shot to get the eye as sharp as I could. Apparently, it wasn't quite sharp enough elsewhere for the judges' and your tastes and that's fine. Sometimes that just happens and our efforts aren't quite good enough. But, I wasn't shooting this for the judges or PEG. I was shooting this for me and what I find interesting, so I'm happy with it, and thought others might like it also.

But the point was, do the judges dismiss any shot that's not razor-sharp right away, w/o giving the thought of what the photog may be trying to do artistically? If that's the case (i.e. trying to promote Pentax gear and IQ), I feel that PEG could potentially be "missing the forest for the trees." Isn't that the objective of PPG?

My first comment was in regards to your bird shot, the second was not

as for the bold, quite simply YES. I have submitted a couple F/1.2 photos and both were knocked down for not being sharp enough. Come on guys

as for the underlined, I understand it just fine. IMO no one other than the person who took the shot I mentioned earlier has been successful on this forum. IMO being key here. I see all to often people writing of a bad image as "artistic/artistically OOF" ...... BS

^ not saying you did

[Ash]

Ash,

This statement disturbs me somewhat. The bird's eye is very much in focus and it is where my eyes gets anchored. The softness of the head or body is not a technical necessity and might not be purely technically related. All discussion about fast glass relates to how great narrow depth of focus is and then the judges discount the image for using this technique (an artistic choice not a technical error necessarily). I do realize that the discussion could progress to is this the proper application for narrow focus but then again, that is an artistic choice.

Tim

Tim, I have given my thoughts on the said image previously, which should give the reasons for the opinion on this very image, and where the technicalities come into play. The artistic choice is very valid, but as you can appreciate this is probably the most subjective of the criteria one would judge an image on.

[Ash]

I saw that Tim highlighted this, and Tuco mentioned it very early on when the gallery was started. Your comment quoted here first from p. 4 or 5 and highlighted in red is a little cause for concern. It was my understanding that the PEG was started to showcase the very best of the forum members (while using Pentax gear), but not below a general "standard" of technical, compositional, etc level. This kind of statement almost sounds like how a marketing rep at a big-box store might feel "look at how sharp these photos from the XXX brand are!" There is soooo much more to photography as an art.

I do not see the cause for concern here - never have I stated that artistic creativity is overshadowed or is not important compared to technical competence. At almost every opportunity I continually assert that *both* are essential to excellent photography. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, as with one-in-a-million moments, but *generally* it is important for effective work to render subjects sharply and follow the simple guideline of having a subject, a background, and nothing else. The PEG approval page makes it clear: All photos must stand out in terms of composition, and also be flawless technically.

Where does an intentionally OOF shot fit in, or one in which a soft focus is intentional and completely keeping with the style of photography? Is it technically flawless or not? I'd propose that it can be just as difficult, if not more so, to intentionally take an OOF shot than one in focus. Would a marketing rep ever consider it as good? Probably not. But might it hang in an exclusive gallery? Perhaps! So, is it a good shot?

As above, the exceptions of the 'rules' should exhibits artistic skill, ingenuity and technical competence of their own. OOF and soft focus images fit in just fine when well suited and invoke the emotions intended by the effects employed. This is not about satisfying the marketing department, but it is about creating a gallery that is both Pentax and Exclusive...

"For everything there is an appointed time, even a time for every affair under the heavens."

That would be King Solomon.

There's definitely a time for razor-sharp images and ones that you can reach out and feel and touch. There's also a time for softness and understated simplicity and beauty. Let's not lose focus (pun intended) of the totality of our art form.

And this is understood.

[thoughton]

Yay, more rejections :P

The comments on 3 of them were fair enough, just differences in opinion. This one I can sort of see where a couple of comments are coming from, but not entirely. I do have to wonder if comments like 'bright red' merely indicate poor descriptive skills or a poorly calibrated monitor.

Does anyone else think this is too dark?



- Distracting cord at bottom of frame.
- Otherwise interesting arrangement and lighting of an ordinary scene.
- not really interesting to me. The bright red portions on the bottom are distracting and draw my eyes there.
- Close, but just a bit too dark