[Tamia]

Thanks for the comments on my Windows shots, everyone. For my part, I also feel a photo should stand for itself without explanation, though I admit I often add a caption, and also read the comments others append to their pictures.

Ash, you're right there was no real choice but to include the garage -- it was a bright day punctuated by gathering clouds. If I get a chance, I'd like to go back in dreary conditions. I only had about 30 minutes to spend there and could have spent all day.

Tim, thanks a lot for your suggestions and pointers to the tutorials -- very much appreciated. I'd debated with myself whether it was better to include the rotting interior of the car or to throw it completely into shadow.

My PP is done on GraphicConverter (no layers, very limited) and Gimp (for Mac), and I have a hard time working on Gimp because it's not fully implemented for Macs. I'll be going to Photoshop Elements soon.

[Nass]

Wish I still had my copy of photomatix, I suspect that image could be interesting in HDR

[Ash]

Could not win with this one, nor its colour version, despite also having only positive feedback:



Perhaps DoF and maybe the limited interest in the subject matter may be the issues, but I'm not sure.
In any case, it's not a bad result to me.

[Tamia]

Well Ash, I like that photo very much. I like the layers, the delicate textures in the petals, and the way my eye is drawn into the bloom. The limited DoF doesn't detract from it for me whatsoever. But I'm not a PEG judge!

[slowpez]

This one was rejected so fast that it was still warm when I got the rejection email.



The comments were as follows:

I'm struggling with this shot. I love the vista and there's no question it's well shot.

My 2 issues are the time of day and the foreground.

The time of day adds some harsh shadows and I'd love to see this early on the morning or at dusk with softer light. At this time of day, this might actuallybe a better B&W. Think Ansel Adams. He is afterall the benchmark this style of photo.

The foreground I would havesteppeda few feet foreward. Sometimes these 'anchor' objects actually take something away from the scene. The mountain, valley and river are so powerful,I wonder how this would look with a little less clutter.

There is no river in the scene - it is lava flow. Another version of a similar shot was turned down a while back because there were no trees. Hello- volcanic activity destroyed the trees. Worth fixing?

[Peter Zack]

That might be a fair commentary though but it seems that the 2 photos were judged by 2 different people with different opinions. Seems an odd comment to ask for trees when the natural scene doesn't have any. A shot needs to be judged on its merits IMO, not what you might want it to have.

Consider with this shot that the judge thought that there was a river in the shot but some of the foreground may have made that less obvious. The volcano and valley have a lot of interesting features but your eyes are drawn to the tree stumps. Have you tried a B&W version?

Looking back over this thread, there seems to be plenty of close up flower shots. For me, it's not that any of these are bad but it's an 'easy' subject we've all tried or seen. The shot has to be super exceptional and somehow unique IMO opinion to have a chance.

I know I still take flower shots but rarely post them or show them because they aren't particularly unique most of the time. Just my 2 cents.....

[Ash]

Indeed Susan, the scenery is pleasant, difficult to reproduce in the harsh midday sun, but there are a number of cluttered foreground distractions that I agree with the judge would best be avoided by stepping forward, and going to a wider focal length to incorporate more of the mountain and its surrounds.

Peter, I'm in agreement. I appreciate the vast number of flower macros that float into each gallery's submission queue, and how easy it is to capture such close-ups. I would not have submitted the image if I did not believe it was not remarkable (to me), and I realise it's not going to stir as much interest or invoke emotion as unique scenes or people.

[JeffJS]

I guess I spend too much time thinking about it so I didn't get to vote on it one way or the other.

I kind of like it as is. The day before this place blew it's top in 1980 (IIRC) there were plenty of trees. Anyone wanting to See Live trees here ought to look at a pre-1980 photo. I guess there are some who don't realize that that crater was once a mountain peak. The 'rivers' were cut in a matter of days if not Hours. The 'clutter' in the foreground once Were trees. To me, this is the type of photo that in fact, speaks for itself. As to the time of day and lighting, I guess the only thing you could do about that, is not take the photo when you did or not submit it at all. I for one, would not want you to think 'Ansel Adams'. I would rather you continue to think Susan Lopez.

I still don't know how I would have voted though. I hadn't made up my mind. It's been made up for me.

My 3¢

[Peter Zack]

Jeff, you may be correct. I'm not sure if that was the full judges quote but reading it again, I think the meaning was about a black and white conversion, not to copy Ansel Adam's work or style.

Myself, if the shot was left as is, no crop or cloning, the harsh shadows might actually look good as a B&W shot. Most of us only use B&W's with people shots, not landscapes.

My 2.5¢

[JeffJS]

My point was (b&w suggestion aside), I hope we don't aspire or expect anyone else to, be someone else. To emulate someone elses style. I tend to get more excited by a photo here at PF when I recognize a style and can say, (fill in name) did that, than when I would say, it looks like someone tried to copy (fill in name). I have my own style when I want to Make a photo. 99% of what I actually show are simple snapshots. Some like my style, some don't. I probably don't post it enough for anyone to recognize it but it pleases Me.

I agree that properly done, it would look good as a black and white. I can picture in my mind how I would do it. But it isn't my photo and in looking at it, I have to judge it on what is presented. Is it sharp? Yes. Is it an interesting subject? To some, yes. Is it well exposed? Yes. Is the horizon crooked? No. In other words, no real technical mistakes made (with the possible exception of time of day for lighting but even that can be argued). Once it fits that criteria, is it gallery worthy? Presentation is another matter. One of the criteria I was given was if the technical goods are there, and I still don't like it, consider if anyone Else Will and vote based on that. Believe me, I have hit the Approve more than once on photos that didn't particularly appeal to me but I thought others would like. Some make it, some don't. There Are some photos in the PEG that I personally don't think belong there.

As far as anyone's submissions go, It isn't about what I would have done differently (for the record, in a couple cases, yes, I have given suggestions at least in the form of what I found to be wrong). I've talked about this before. I put up one of my rejections in the photo critique forum. I basically made every change that was suggested and posted them. With each one, there were always comments that the other way was better, the original was better, or they hated all of them completely. At the end of it all, I decided that if I'm going to submit, it's going to be what *I* want to show, and what everyone else would have done, be damned. My submissions stand on their own merit as finished products, or they don't.

[Peter Zack]

I completely agree with you Jeff and one needs to develop their own style and I guess that would even include how you edit. Editing in itself is a style. We're way past the time when people argue "is a photo real if it's edited". So given that, we have to edit based on how we like things, our technical skills and what we want to portray. It's still good to look at the masters but only as a reference.

[Ash]

And not only do we differ in photography and editing styles Jeff, but we'd be differing in voting styles as well. I do not bias my votes on whether I believe others may like the image, and thus am more strict on what I consider an image good for PEG. Each submission must stand on its own merit and the compass to which I allay them on requires 'points' to be scored on each aspect of technical excellence, brilliance in subject portrayal and image presentation as well as impact on the viewer.

PP should be a part of the picture (even if it is the slightest of retouching or contrast adjustments) because let's face it, rarely does an excellent image just come straight out of the camera (notwithstanding studio work where everything is under controlled conditions).

[JeffJS]

I completely agree with you Jeff and one needs to develop their own style and I guess that would even include how you edit. Editing in itself is a style. We're way past the time when people argue "is a photo real if it's edited". So given that, we have to edit based on how we like things, our technical skills and what we want to portray. It's still good to look at the masters but only as a reference.

Agreed.

And not only do we differ in photography and editing styles Jeff, but we'd be differing in voting styles as well. I do not bias my votes on whether I believe others may like the image, and thus am more strict on what I consider an image good for PEG. Each submission must stand on its own merit and the compass to which I allay them on requires 'points' to be scored on each aspect of technical excellence, brilliance in subject portrayal and image presentation as well as impact on the viewer.

I thought you were finished responding to me Ash, but ok, I don't mind if you want to.

The PEG isn't MY personal gallery Ash, nor is it Yours. These are the criteria I was given for judging. If what you were asked to look for is different, so be it.

-Each photo much be technically perfect, or nearly perfect. No uncropped edges, crooked horizons, distracting objects, hot spots, ugly bokeh, distractions, or unwanted bluriness. As an experienced photographer, you're used to these things, and should have no problem discerning them.

-Each photo must say something and have a unique composition. It must be interesting, and can't be boring. If a photo doesn't appeal to you but you feel it's good enough that it will appeal to most others, you may still decide to approve it.

Note RE insect photos: this rule is very important! Don't approve a photo just because it's a pretty, technically-sound documentation. There's got to be more to it than that in order for it to pass your test.

There are a number of photos in the PEG that I would not have voted to approve and in some cases, Didn't. Do you know what bores the hell out of Me? Sunsets. Especially Beach sunsets. Followed by Bug macros and static bird shots.

PP should be a part of the picture (even if it is the slightest of retouching or contrast adjustments) because let's face it, rarely does an excellent image just come straight out of the camera (notwithstanding studio work where everything is under controlled conditions).

I'm not going to go back and look for where I said anything different because, I didn't. What I Said was, What I would do with someone elses photo in terms of PP doesn't matter. What YOU would do with someone elses photo, Doesn't matter. Suggestions for changes aside, what Does matter is the photo as presented from the photographer.

[atupdate]

-Each photo much be technically perfect, or nearly perfect. No uncropped edges, crooked horizons, distracting objects, hot spots, ugly bokeh, distractions, or unwanted bluriness. As an experienced photographer, you're used to these things, and should have no problem discerning them.

-Each photo must say something and have a unique composition. It must be interesting, and can't be boring. If a photo doesn't appeal to you but you feel it's good enough that it will appeal to most others, you may still decide to approve it.

Note RE insect photos: this rule is very important! Don't approve a photo just because it's a pretty, technically-sound documentation. There's got to be more to it than that in order for it to pass your test.

This should be in the original PEG announcement thread. If there are judging guidelines, it would be nice to know them before submitting

I'm not going to go back and look for where I said anything different because, I didn't. What I Said was, What I would do with someone elses photo in terms of PP doesn't matter. What YOU would do with someone elses photo, Doesn't matter. Suggestions for changes aside, what Does matter is the photo as presented from the photographer.

I agree and I think I have finally found my PP style. However, there are several people that don't have a great deal of PP experience and any PP suggestion made make might not have been considered (or even obvious) to the image owner and produce an "aha" moment.

Great discussion going on here lately. There are words of wisdom I will consider from this discussion. Thanks judges and interested parties.

Tim

[slowpez]

Thanks for the comments on the photo guys. According to the EXIF, the photo was taken at 6:35PM and I can see where another hour would have made a difference. I deliberately included the foreground in the photo because I wanted to show the broken, scags that were left behind. Evidently I am the only one who thought it added to the story of this devastating event. I think I will give B&W a try for my own satisfaction.
Jeff, Peter, and Zack, as always I learn so much from your comments and really do appreciate that you take the time. Susan