[Dr Orloff]

The foreground in the original is too dark imho, there appears to be a slight right to left tilt to the image. Lightening the foreground helps but reveals that a few paces forward might be a better option to get a more watery foreground and bring more reflections into play. In fact twenty yards further down the tracks might have made better use of those puddles to the right as well. Nonetheless, a very good idea and still a good shot. What a shame you received no comments.

[Dice]

Thanks Dr. more good feedback. And something to bring forward to my next shots. best regards.

[baro-nite]

Since my last post I have resubmitted the blacksmith image and also submitted a landscape. (Neither was accepted, but I did get comments on both.) I've also spent an entertaining hour or so reading through pretty much this entire thread. I think I have a much better understanding of what PEG is about, its virtues and limitations, and will happily submit again when I think I have the right sort of image.

As I see it now, PEG is for WOW! images with no discernible technical flaws. (I don't think that's clear from the public PEG info; thanks to JeffJS for posting the judging guidelines.) Technically flawless WOW shots are not the be-all and end-all of photography, but I think it's a good challenge (especially for an amateur like me) to try to meet that standard, even as I think the besetting sin of photography is overemphasis on just those qualities. It's still good to learn how to do it.

Here are my suggestions, worth about what you paid for them:

• PEG is for strong, clean, dare I say it obvious, compositions. You like busy images, studies in texture, ambiguity, subtlety? Fine, but PEG doesn't.
• The fewer things/details/textures/gradients in the shot, the less room for small technical flaws. See above: strong, clean, simple.
• Sharp. Shallow DOF can be OK, as can a dreamy glow, but having the subject in tack sharp focus is obligatory.
• Do whatever PP is necessary to hide flaws, boost contrast, paint with light, whatever gives the image obvious "pop". PEG is not a purist gallery.
• Accept PEG for what it is. Don't worry about rejections. Think of PEG as an assignment for images of a particular type, not a place to test your personal favorites.

To be clear: I am not a judge or involved in any way; these are just my opinions; these are not criticisms of PEG or its judges.

[Dr Orloff]

I suspect you could find elements of what you say in any of the many exclusive type galleries or competition winners. And some of those suggestions surely just represent best practice. But you could find examples in the PEG of images that clearly contradict your suggestions too. I very much doubt that PEG judges act with one mind or with any particular image type in mind.

[baro-nite]

I suspect you could find elements of what you say in any of the many exclusive type galleries or competition winners.

I would go farther than that and say that this applies to a lot of the photography world in general, albeit not usually with quite the same standard for technical perfection. That's why I said it is useful to learn how to achieve it. If one wants to sell one's work, this is probably the way to appeal to the widest audience (says I, total sales $0).

And some of those suggestions surely just represent best practice.

I agree entirely, and in no way am I criticizing this as a set of standards for this gallery or any other purpose. Only pointing out that it is a particular emphasis and one that should be kept in mind if the goal is getting images accepted here. The two images I picked I thought had a chance of acceptance. But now I think I see why they had essentially no chance. I'm absolutely fine with that and will simply keep it in mind as I attempt to create an image worthy of submission.

But you could find examples in the PEG of images that clearly contradict your suggestions too.

No doubt; there are exceptions to every rule. I don't say a complex image can't make it, only that it becomes much harder simply because there's more that can go wrong, more potential nits to pick.

I very much doubt that PEG judges act with one mind or with any particular image type in mind.

I shouldn't have said "type", which implies genre and/or style; perhaps "particular set of qualities". It is inarguable that they are looking for images that are technically very polished -- that's in all the guidelines that are available and reflected in the comments that have been made. As to the WOW factor, that's obviously subjective and harder to define, but I think it's a good way of summing up the non-technical qualities the judges are looking for.

[atupdate]

• PEG is for strong, clean, dare I say it obvious, compositions. You like busy images, studies in texture, ambiguity, subtlety? Fine, but PEG doesn't.
• The fewer things/details/textures/gradients in the shot, the less room for small technical flaws. See above: strong, clean, simple.
• Sharp. Shallow DOF can be OK, as can a dreamy glow, but having the subject in tack sharp focus is obligatory.
• Do whatever PP is necessary to hide flaws, boost contrast, paint with light, whatever gives the image obvious "pop". PEG is not a purist gallery.
• Accept PEG for what it is. Don't worry about rejections. Think of PEG as an assignment for images of a particular type, not a place to test your personal favorites.

I think this is a spot-on summary on what it takes to make it into the PEG. Not every image will meet every criteria but they will need some sort of WOW factor to override any criteria it doesn't meet.

Tim

PS: I wanted to give baro-nite a like for his post but I need to spread a little more love around the forum before I can give him another like. For a newer member, I really like your contributions to the forum to date.

[Ash]

I wanted to give baro-nite a like for his post but I need to spread a little more love around the forum before I can give him another like

I'll do it for you Tim.
Good contribution baro-nite.

[Dr Orloff]

My rejected photo here, together with all the comments. I wonder why reasons for rejection are a secret:


We appreciate your participation, and are looking forward to reviewing your future photos! If applicable, you will find comments for improvement of your photo at the end of this message. Note that you can edit your photo and re-submit at any time.

All the best,
PentaxForums.com

Below you will find comments on your photo. You might want to re-submit an edited version of your photo depending on the circumstances!
BEAUTIFUL!

Nice use of the elements

[Ash]

This often happens, with positive comments coming through despite a number of no votes with no comments. This is a good image Dr Orloff. I like it a lot, and agree there are great elements complemented well in the image. What makes it less striking IMO is the multiple competing subjects that somewhat detracts from the overall impact of the scene. Otherwise a fine result.

[Dr Orloff]

It seems to me that a no vote with no comment is now the norm, it didn't used to be. I'm less interested in positive comments as a yes vote is positive comment enough. A comment like yours Ash would have been welcome in the process.

[Prieni]

• PEG is for strong, clean, dare I say it obvious, compositions. You like busy images, studies in texture, ambiguity, subtlety? Fine, but PEG doesn't.
• The fewer things/details/textures/gradients in the shot, the less room for small technical flaws. See above: strong, clean, simple.

I put that rule to the test, I think it is difficult to get a photo with fewer things:


Alas, it was rejected. The comment made me smile: "very nice but it needs a point of interest, more than the horizon".
It's my photo and I say "No, it doesn't, it's exactly as I intended!". But I see that this minimalist approach was too minimalist for the Elusive Gallery, no problem here. Just wanted to put your hypothesis to the test.

Ok, it needs a point of interest, so this one might work (I thought):


Close, but no cigar. "Interesting but for me, getting the sides symmetrical would have made it better." Well, for me it wouldn't, it would make it worse. Doesn't composition 101 say that you should get the subject out of centre? (A rule that I like to break from time to time as demonstrated by my minimalist submission above).

All good fun, though, and I'm happy that some feedback was provided. I'll keep submitting but I think I have to stop after the first admission...

Prieni

[baro-nite]

Just wanted to put your hypothesis to the test.

Thanks for trying! Keep in mind that a single comment in the rejection notice represents the view of one judge only, so it leaves in question why the images weren't accepted.

No question #1 is a clean composition, although I would argue that the texture of the water surface is a significant component of that. So I think this misses on being "strong and obvious". As simple as it is on first blush, it's actually quite a subtle image, and lacks that hit-the-viewer-with-a-hammer obviousness of what the image is about. All of which is to say, I really like this image, but don't consider its rejection to run counter to my "guidelines".

#2: subject out of the center is one of those basic rules, indeed. Although here I guess the judge is saying the subject is the symmetry of the two trees, hence is a case to break that rule to emphasize this symmetry.

I haven't submitted any myself since my above posting, not because I don't intend to, but because I haven't had the time or, indeed, inspiration for it. I'm unlikely to come up with what I see as a suitable image in my normal run of shooting, so I'll have to make an assignment of it. Unless I want to try with a bird pic.

[Prieni]

I guess you are right. Please view my comments regarding this matter as light hearted as they were meant. Nothing worse than taking this whole Gallery thing too serious (regardless whether it is the Exclusive Gallery here or any other gallery).

Regarding the symmetry on the second shot: The trees are not symmetrical at all, different height, different shape. I don't think cropping from the right would improve it at all.

Nothing wrong with bird pics, but it is a challenge to come up with something that is really special. In that respect I think it is a tricky subject area for trying to get into the Exclusive Gallery. I could give this a try :

On second thought, I better leave it, it would get an "Interesting but the tail is cut off" comment.

Prieni

[Adam]

I put that rule to the test, I think it is difficult to get a photo with fewer things:

I really liked both of those photos, shame they didn't get in

[Prieni]

I really liked both of those photos, shame they didn't get in

Sounds like you don't like them anymore now that they had to stay out.
Nothing to worry about, I still like them.
Prieni