Kids are so cute

[GrahamH]

White sheet taped to wall, flash bouced off walls/ceiling.
Spaghetti cooked, cooled, NO SAUCE!!!!
Bubble making toy ($10)
Strawberry provided by parents (and kept away from ME.
Very co-operative parents
Not a lot of room.
Feet in a couple of them slightly out of focus to draw attention away from them.
We all had fun with this shoot.
Graham

[Kris V]

You're right - a real cutie!

[jiro]

#4 is a definite winner, Graham. Very good shots.

[SinghStyleStudio]

Lovely...

[GrahamH]

Lovely...

Gimmee the camera, my turn

[MajaMolly]

Number 4 is a fantastic shot.

[speedneeder]

Graham,
Is the focus just a little off in #2 and #3?
Personally I would avoid white clothes on a white backdrop, but this is purely a matter of taste.
Well done. #4 is a keeper for sure.
What are you using for sharpening? I would prefer #4 a little sharper and with a little more contrast, again this is a matter of taste, not right or wrong
For example, from your photo, I applied a small tweak with the curves tool and did a little sharpening.

[GrahamH]

On the originals you can just about see individual eye lashes (pics 1,2,3) so it may be an artefact of downsizing? I haven't applied further sharpening after downsizing.
One of these was shown in a club clinic and similar comment was made. I showed the judge afterwards the full sized file, zooming in to show the eyelashes.

[speedneeder]

I understand! I am sometimes surprised when I load something to Flickr and post it here.
One day I will learn that sharpening is the last thing you do, even after resizing

[Colin Southern]

One day I will learn that sharpening is the last thing you do, even after resizing

No no no no no no no no no!

3 passes (minimum). Capture (pretty much before anything else), Creative/Content (mid-workflow), Output (after re-sampling).

Wrote a wee bit about it some time ago, with examples.

[speedneeder]

Let me rephrase, for those of us wanting to minimize time in PP, sharpening is the last thing we should do!

[Colin Southern]

Let me rephrase, for those of us wanting to minimize time in PP, sharpening is the last thing we should do!

Hi Brian,

In all seriousness, if you want to minimise PP time then not sharpening at all will save even more time, but both will produce sub-optimal results. For my portraiture - generally - I'm applying capture sharpening of 0.3 @ 300 - content/creative of 4 @ 40 - and (after down-sampling) about 0.3 @ 50-100.

[speedneeder]

Good advice - thanks.

[GrahamH]

Camera club last night, they presented hundreds of entered shots. Amazing how many were critiqued for OVERALL sharpness (versus selective).
Being a camera club I find it difficult to believe so many people (and many advanced as well) make such a mistake on so many of their images.
The images ar presented, and judged, on a screen projector, limited to around 1000 pixels and shown on screen around 6' high (viewing distance probably around 8-10').
I sharpen my pics before printing (typically 8"x10") but what should I do for the judging parameters? Sharpen more?
Not having access to such a projector (unlike a small number of members) makes it difficult to assess myself.

Thanks,
Graham

[Skyline]

What a great set. I have some candid ones of one of the Grandsons....... with the sauce

[Donald]

Being a camera club I find it difficult to believe so many people (and many advanced as well) make such a mistake on so many of their images.

Do they? Who was doing the critiquing? Did you agree with what was being said?

[GrahamH]

Do they? Who was doing the critiquing? Did you agree with what was being said?

I only know of one of the three judges (a pro portraitist), others I don't know.
One photog (a judge, but not judging this comp, also very experienced and successful in comps in the clubs as least) made several comments. Apparently the judges didn't like pattern shots with comments such as 'no centre of focus'. Others about the marking, e.g. several times the judges remarks were along the lines of - 'great image, don't know what could be done to make it better' and then the score given was a 7. (Guidelines are 6 for an average shot. Very infrequently is a score less than 6 given, never seen one for less than 5, making the score out of 10 irrelevant in my opinion). It also seems that judges like over saturated pictures (desert shots with bright yellow sand and brilliant blue skies - totally unrealistic).
I don't understand.
One shot I thought was really nice was a leaf edge on and rim lit (natural light) with a dragonfly on it (partially rim lit). Being a closeup, closest wing tip was out of focus (no surprise there then). No way can full sharpness be achieved. A flat leaf (and so flat bug) could have been all in focus, but then the rim light wouldn't be there (backlit bug at the best).
Last year, same sort of judging so I gave up entering to see if I could figure out what is considered a good shot. I still have no idea. (I didn't enter this comp due to lack of understanding what is wanted in an image).

The image last year (year before?) of the photog's wife on the patio chair, legs apart! I don't see what was interesting about it at all, yet it won a major prize (controversially so). I can't remember the comp and can't find it via google.

Graham
(dazed and confused)

[Markvetnz]

I only know of one of the three judges (a pro portraitist), others I don't know.
One photog (a judge, but not judging this comp, also very experienced and successful in comps in the clubs as least) made several comments. Apparently the judges didn't like pattern shots with comments such as 'no centre of focus'. Others about the marking, e.g. several times the judges remarks were along the lines of - 'great image, don't know what could be done to make it better' and then the score given was a 7. (Guidelines are 6 for an average shot. Very infrequently is a score less than 6 given, never seen one for less than 5, making the score out of 10 irrelevant in my opinion). It also seems that judges like over saturated pictures (desert shots with bright yellow sand and brilliant blue skies - totally unrealistic).
I don't understand.
One shot I thought was really nice was a leaf edge on and rim lit (natural light) with a dragonfly on it (partially rim lit). Being a closeup, closest wing tip was out of focus (no surprise there then). No way can full sharpness be achieved. A flat leaf (and so flat bug) could have been all in focus, but then the rim light wouldn't be there (backlit bug at the best).
Last year, same sort of judging so I gave up entering to see if I could figure out what is considered a good shot. I still have no idea. (I didn't enter this comp due to lack of understanding what is wanted in an image).

The image last year (year before?) of the photog's wife on the patio chair, legs apart! I don't see what was interesting about it at all, yet it won a major prize (controversially so). I can't remember the comp and can't find it via google.

Graham
(dazed and confused)

Is that the chairs legs or the woman's legs?
If it's the latter then no wonder it won a major prize!

Like all comps, it's always a matter of subjectivity. I don't get too hung up on results. We have a system of honours, highly commended, merit and acceptance. Acceptance basically means rubbish, but in this PC world we wouldn't want to offend anybody or perhaps discourage the overly sensitive.

[mariaramil]

[QUOTE=Markvetnz;156956]Is that the chairs legs or the woman's legs?
If it's the latter then no wonder it won a major prize!

Ah, it was the National Portrait Gallery 2010 (look away now, not for minors: http://www.npg.org.uk/index.php?id=6715)

Interesting that some people think of entering competitions to win... I mean, they will enter a particular style of pictures depending on the judge's taste.

The way I do it (on advice from more experienced club members) is to go with what I like. Sometimes the judges like my pics, sometimes they raise objections... I take this as good constructive criticism but I may still disagree. Often, the least appealing of my pics will surprise with a higher score than anticipated.

Are competitions ever objective? (I didn't enjoy quite a few of the winners on the NPG 2010). I think they sometimes depend on personal taste or fashion rather than specific qualities.