[Tamia]

Welcome to the club, Voytech!

...This scene, Tamia, is a wild one. Nicely depicted, though it does need a little something else in it, and maybe a little more zip in the PP. EXIF should be there in the image details when opened up in most picture viewing/editing software programmes.

Thanks for the comments, Ash, and for clearing up the EXIF bit -- opening up in software makes sense. I thought I might be missing something about revealing EXIF right from the site/picture online, like "right-click" or something. The PP on this picture of the snowstorm in the woods was difficult because the sun was actually trying to come through, and was really brightening up the deciduous woods off to the right, while the hemlock woods to the left were dark. But yes, a figure or animal or some other element would have improved it a lot.

[JeffJS]

The EXIF views fine both in your post here as it did in your PEG submission. Who ever said it didn't was either too lazy to look or isn't using a browser capable of looking at it. I would hope the latter is the case.

In fact, the review window will State that there is no EXIF found if it is in fact missing. To be rejected if not a Film photo.

[RichardS]

I got a quick no on this one:

In any case, I cannot argue with the points raised by the judges, except that one brought up something that puzzles me. He/she said " No EXIF found." I use Graphic Converter for most of my editing work, and the EXIF is visible to me. The info was also in the notes of the gallery where it was placed after rejection. This raises a question... when I look at your photos here on this page, for instance, I don't see a link to reveal EXIF. Where does one "find" it? And I wonder why one judge, at least, didn't see mine?

I just right-clicked on the image in your post, selected "EXIF Data" in the context menu and this is what appeared in a pop-up:

Camera Maker: PENTAX
Camera Model: PENTAX K200D
Image Date: 2010-12-05 11:45:09 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 20.0mm (35mm equivalent: 30mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.050 s (1/20)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: +1.00 EV
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined

I'm using Firefox 3.6.15 with FxIF 0.4.3 extension.

I can also save the image and open it with PhotoMe to see a whole lot more.

It works for me. Some people may be using a browser that can't reveal the EXIF data.

Richard.

[Tamia]

Thanks for your help, Jeff and Richard. I use Macs, and normally use Safari (an older version), but on your example, Richard, I tried Firefox and added the FxIF extension, which I didn't know about. Works great. Thanks for that!

[RichardS]

Thanks for your help, Jeff and Richard. I use Macs, and normally use Safari (an older version), but on your example, Richard, I tried Firefox and added the FxIF extension, which I didn't know about. Works great. Thanks for that!

No worries, Tamia.

You'll still get "No meta data found" on lots of images. Depends on the way the image gets from sensor to here, I guess.

Richard.

[Tamia]

No worries, Tamia.

You'll still get "No meta data found" on lots of images. Depends on the way the image gets from sensor to here, I guess.

Richard.

That's true of many of mine. When I was starting with post-processing, I worked on copies of the originals -- copy and paste into new windows in my graphics app -- and the EXIF didn't travel along. I've since learned how to preserve the EXIF.

[Tamia]

Another reject to my collection...

Windows




I might not have posted this except that in amongst the positive judges' comments I had two which are interesting. Here are the two comments:

Very creative, but there this is is closer to being visual art than a photograph.

Heavily post-processed, making it look a little too unnatural, and too much unstructured negative space in the image.

I can't take issue the "unstructured negative space" because I debated with myself about it before submitting the photo, deciding in the end to emphasize the windows, both in the car and the garage. However, the "closer to visual art" and "heavily post-processed" are amusing, in a way. Other than a crop, resize, an alteration to curves, and a clone to remove a distracting bright spot in the car body, I didn't do any PP. The car windshield was delaminated by the missile which cracked it, and that in combination with the tinting of the glass caused the odd patterns and colors. Here is the uncropped but resized and un-PP version:



The original was much sharper than the uncropped version suggests. You can see what the windshield is doing to bring out the dramatic sky.

Is it possible that reality can sometimes be too close to visual art?

[yeatzee]

I would have never guessed that heavy PP was not involved in the shot. An honest mistake im sure, as I've never seen ANYTHING that looked like that before and apparently neither has the judge

[BigDave]

Tamia:

This is a very interesting image. Sorry it did not make it through. Too bad you did not have some details about the image (can you add this to the EXIF data?). I can see some of what the judge was saying, as it looks like their was a lot of PP, but that was an assumption on their part. I do like the great use of dark and light.

Frame it and keep it in your private collection!

[Tamia]

I would have never guessed that heavy PP was not involved in the shot. An honest mistake im sure, as I've never seen ANYTHING that looked like that before and apparently neither has the judge

Oh indeed, Tanner, I make no aspersions against the judges. Occasionally I see a landscape or sight which I say to myself is too unreal to be real, and if I shot it no one would believe it wasn't "photoshopped." This comes close.

Tamia:

This is a very interesting image. Sorry it did not make it through. Too bad you did not have some details about the image (can you add this to the EXIF data?). I can see some of what the judge was saying, as it looks like their was a lot of PP, but that was an assumption on their part. I do like the great use of dark and light.

Frame it and keep it in your private collection!

Thanks, Dave. The EXIF is embedded in the image I submitted, but forgot to include it in the uncropped version I uploaded for this thread. It's below. It DOES look like a lot of PP, and I should have said something about it in my submission, perhaps. I leaned toward darkening the car's interior to emphasize the windows, and like dark images, tho not everyone does.

Make : PENTAX
Model : PENTAX K200D
Orientation of image : 1
X resolution : 72.0 ppi (pixel per inch)
Y resolution : 72.0 ppi (pixel per inch)
Resolution unit : inch
Software : K200D Ver 1.00
File date and time : 2011:03:29 13:43:02
Y and C positioning : co-sited
Exposure time : 1/60 s
F number : 11.0
Exposure program : Aperture priority
ISO speed rating : 100
Exif version : 0221
Date and time of original data generation : 2011:03:29 13:43:02
Date and time of digital data generation : 2011:03:29 13:43:02
Meaning of each component : reserved
Exposure bias : 0.5
Metering mode : CenterWeighted
Average Flash : Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode.
Lens focal length : 10.0 mm
Supported Flashpix version : 0100
Color Space : sRGB
Valid image width in pixel : 1010
Valid image height in pixel : 730
Sensing method : One-chip color area sensor
File source : reserved
Scene type : reserved
Custom image processing : Normal process
Exposure method : Manual exposure
White balance : Auto white balance
Focal length in 35 mm film : 15 mm
Scene capture type : Standard

[thoughton]

Not all the judges read the comments anyway, so there's no guarantees that would have made any diffference. I submitted a street photo a while back with a note saying "A street photo from the UK". The photo was of a pretty girl leaning against a wall, looking bored and clearing waiting for someone. One of the Judge's comments I got back was along the lines of 'the model should be looking at the camera, model's expression is quite strange'. Go figure.

[JeffJS]

There Are no comments to read. A title, EXIF, and a photo. That's it. Comments do not show until the photos are placed in a gallery. The idea, or at least what I thought the idea was, is for the photo to stand on its own merit, without explanation.

[photolady95]

I can't believe that one Tamia, didn't get in.

On my side, I've uploaded all of my Florida Rose shots and each one was shot down. The last one was of the bud, and one judge commented on the dying leaves. Well, once a rose bud comes fully there, the leaves do die. duh!! I give up for now.

For explanations, I don't usually give one for mine. I know too, as Jeff said, the judges don't see them anyway.

[Ash]

It's worth bearing in mind that each image is judged on their own merits. A series of submissions has no better 'odds' of getting in the gallery than a single excellently captured and processed image.

Interestingly Tamia, the original version of Windows is quite well portrayed and seems to have more effective use of the shadow detail. But the background garage does make for a highlight distraction that couldn't be avoided. Good work.

[atupdate]

Tamia,

I took a different approach to the PP'ing of your image. I used a couple of tricks to bring out the detail inside the car instead of using curves to darken the interior.



The first trick I did was steps 1 through 3 from my PF article. I set the opacity of the duplicate layer to the lower end (30-40%).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-processing-articles/129078-bringing-...nge-image.html

The second trick was from the following tutorial. Here I painted the interior white and set the opacity to about 80%.

Move the Light - Tutorials

I'm not saying this is better, just a different approach.

Tim