Mini Competition #52

[Geoff F]

You've lost me.

- "Theme?" - Would that be "52"? "Playing cards?" Wheelbarrels?" "Bombers?"

Yes Playing Cards - Clubs. It didn't say what type of club. I was almost tempted to include a night club.

I actually quite like the theme idea, although it may mean including some photos which aren't exactly A1 grade to join in with the theme. But surely that is part of the spirit of these fun competitions. I have previously expressed my reservations about the risk of this becoming too elitist.

[Donald]

What a wonderful set (apart from the first one, of course!). The voting has clearly been negatively influenced by the very unhelpful comments suggesting that I should have set the wheelbarrows on fire !!

Anyway, and in no particular order ..........

Crosseyed - Thought, for a moment, that was a shinty stick (see www.shinty.com Great sport - everyone should play it!)

Robo - Looks fine to me. What did you mean by 'poor'?

Peter - that's got be a commercial prospect. There's got to be a Christmas card manufacturer out there somewhere who would grab that one.

Wendy - You're doing wonderful things with that fence. I found myself yearning to get down and left so that - a) I saw the whole strainer (that's what we call the big post that takes the strain of the tightened wire - it's growing up on a farm that does it) more 'in' the image and, b) to see more of the fence going off into the distance.

Now, of course, I don't know what's outwith the borders of the image. None of that may have been physically possible, or it was obvious to you that such a shot wouldn't have worked.

And .. can you remember where your point of focus was. Everything just out from the strainer is spot-on. But, I don't think the post itself is as sharp as it could/should(?) be.

Jim's about to get on a plane to Amsterdam so won't be bothered about this!

John - (Crinan) Gorgeous. Takes me back to my 'real' home (just north of Fort William).

Pops - How about a crop at the bottom (at the bottom of the left-most door)?

Geoff - You don't need to see the faces of the kids to to know the rapt attention that would have been on them. Pity about those folks in the background, but nothing you could do about that

[Henrik]

Yes Playing Cards - Clubs. It didn't say what type of club. I was almost tempted to include a night club.

I actually quite like the theme idea, although it may mean including some photos which aren't exactly A1 grade to join in with the theme. But surely that is part of the spirit of these fun competitions. I have previously expressed my reservations about the risk of this becoming too elitist.

Hi Geoff,

Thank you for your interpretation of this "theme".

I need to say that the fabulating way of communicating here leaves a great amount of uncertainty of, what is actually being said. In a very few seconds you elaborate the expression "playing cards" via "clubs" to a possible "night club".

This thread was started by Donald saying: "Let's get in fast to start the thread before Dave comes up with another of his ideas!!" Apparently referring to the mini-competition #51, which Dave introduced by saying: "... how about this mini comp having a UFO / Alien lifeforms theme in honour of the alledged "Area 51" ?" (Please notice the undefined reference to some "Area 51".)

Next Dave adds to this competition #52: "Right then, what's the significance of 52 ... I know; the number of playing cards in a pack, so we'll need pictures of clubs, spades, queens and diamonds (only joking)"

When I later asked you, what exactly you meant by referring to a "theme" ("Would that be "52"? "Playing cards?" Wheelbarrels?" "Bombers?""), Dave answered me: "In a word; Yes (sort of). (probably not wheel barrows though) It is optional, so just ignore it. (and I will take this as a cue not to be so silly in future; no more themes)"

I think that I understand, that these mini-competitions are open for all types of pictures. That is: No theme. And that Dave tried to signal this by adding his "(only joking)".

SOME have responded by adding pictures with a reference to a theme. Others didn't.

Now Dave answered me that the theme is optional. But then next you answer me as if you think there is some sort of theme. And you add, that you actually like the theme idea.

I know that these competitions are for fun, and I may be a very serious minded fellow. But in the end - judging between the various pictures - it is unclear, wheather they should be evaluated as a respond to some theme, or they should be evaluated just as "good pictures".

In my own judgement I lean aganist Dave: There is no theme.

I make these comments not because this case is the world's biggest problem, but because I want to advocate for more direct and clear communication, when dealing with the web in general. In a one-way communication form it is easiest to enterpret each other, if you express yourself without various undertones. I've experienced a good deal of irony here at CiC. Naturally it is great with a humorous tone inbetween the members. But the risk of misunderstanding is present. Not all of us has english as mother tongue, which can also be a hurdle in understanding, what was meant.

********

That said, I actually also like the theme idea myself! I haven't found your reservations about the risk of this becoming too elitist. I can think that a true theme would narrow down the number of participants, simply because everyone has some kind of picture, but not everyone has THAT particular kind of picture fitting into the theme. That would obviously slow down the turnaround of these very fast competitions. (Unless perhaps the number of pictures is set to e.g. 5 instead of 10.) And again: As a main rule the more professional CiC members would more often be able to either find a matching picture on stock or be able to shoot one that fits during the next few days. (I guess, that would be your "elitist" point.) - So maybe it is best to stick with Dave: There is no theme in these competitions. (Although deep in his subconsious mind I think he finds it thrilling to have one )

Regards, Henrik

[ScoutR]

I need to say that the fabulating way of communicating here leaves a great amount of uncertainty of, what is actually being said. In a very few seconds you elaborate the expression "playing cards" via "clubs" to a possible "night club".

Hi Henrik:
At the risk of making things worse, I feel I need to comment. I don't think there is any "fabulating" going on here. Something new (themes) was introduced and people were having a bit of fun with how to interpret the theme, that is all.

SOME have responded by adding pictures with a reference to a theme. Others didn't.

I think it was clearly stated in bold text that the theme was optional.
Edit: Sorry Henrik, "Purely Optional" was stated for the theme in Mini Comp #51. I can see where it might have been confusing as to what was going on if you were not following the posts in Mini Comp #51

I know that these competitions are for fun, and I may be a very serious minded fellow. But in the end - judging between the various pictures - it is unclear, wheather they should be evaluated as a respond to some theme, or they should be evaluated just as "good pictures".

From one serious minded person to the other, I think if the theme is optional, then the way one evaluates their vote is optional too. It's your vote, make your decision on what's important to You.

I make these comments not because this case is the world's biggest problem, but because I want to advocate for more direct and clear communication, when dealing with the web in general. In a one-way communication form it is easiest to enterpret each other, if you express yourself without various undertones. I've experienced a good deal of irony here at CiC. Naturally it is great with a humorous tone inbetween the members. But the risk of misunderstanding is present. Not all of us has english as mother tongue, which can also be a hurdle in understanding, what was meant.

Direct, clear communication is a good thing, however, the Web is what it is and if you are expecting everything to be understood by everyone all the time then you are undertaking a huge project, and quite frankly I hope you don't succeed because it will certainly limit participation. I would be terrified to post anything, if I had to worry that someone somewhere might misinterpret or misunderstand what I have said. I like things the way they are now. If I misunderstand something that is important to me I ask, until I understand. If it's not important to me then I let it go.

That said, I actually also like the theme idea myself!

I like the Optional Theme idea. The theme gets me thinking, but keeping it optional does not force me to have to go out and get a shot in a limited amount of time. I tend to photograph the same things all the time (photographers block?), and stating a theme, makes me think of other options. Even if I don't go out and do it, the thought process is what counts. It's a starting point and eventually I might actually try to shoot some of the things that the theme got me thinking about.

Just my 2 cents

Wendy

[crosseyed]

Donald

No that's a hockey stick, this kid sleeps with it. We don't have shinty that I know of in Canada. The Great one refers to # 99 Wayne Gretzky, although I'm still sticking to he has a # 52 on the back of his T-shirt

[Donald]

No that's a hockey stick, this kid sleeps with it. We don't have shinty that I know of in Canada. The Great one refers to # 99 Wayne Gretzky, although I'm still sticking to he has a # 52 on the back of his T-shirt

Oh, yes you do! Although not on much of a scale. There are people in Cape Breton who have been re-introduced to shinty and there have been a few exchanges. Cape Breton, of course, has a significant Scots-Canadian community and, indeed, Scottish gaelic is still spoken there by quite a number of people. The story is told (though not verified) that it was Scottish soldiers, serving in the colonial UK army who, unable to play shinty during the harsh Canadian winters, took to the ice - hence the birth of ice hockey.

[Henrik]

Direct, clear communication is a good thing, however, the Web is what it is and if you are expecting everything to be understood by everyone all the time then you are undertaking a huge project (...)

Hi Wendy,

Thank you for your "2 cents".

I don't expect everything to be understood by everyone all the time. I just try to advocate for MORE direct and clear communication. So don't be shy!

Regards, Henrik

[ScoutR]

I found myself yearning to get down and left so that - a) I saw the whole strainer (that's what we call the big post that takes the strain of the tightened wire - it's growing up on a farm that does it) more 'in' the image and, b) to see more of the fence going off into the distance.
Now, of course, I don't know what's outwith the borders of the image. None of that may have been physically possible, or it was obvious to you that such a shot wouldn't have worked.

Hi Donald: Thanks for the feedback. I know I should wait until the polling is over, but I've posted the original below. As you can see, I could not get any more of the fence going off in the distance. I could have and should have included more of the stainer though. All I had to do was zoom out a bit.

And .. can you remember where your point of focus was. Everything just out from the strainer is spot-on. But, I don't think the post itself is as sharp as it could/should(?) be.

I honestly don't remember my focus point. Probably around the second post though. In the original (below) the strainer does not look quite so out of focus. What happened is that I discovered the "Clarity" tool in Lightroom and I kind of liked the soft effect created by decreasing the clarity. It does fuzzy up the strainer though. I'll see if I can sharpen it up a bit.



Thanks again for taking the time to help me out. Just curious, but which do you like best the original or the decreased clarity version?

Wendy

[PopsPhotos]

Donald, I have already cropped that to fit 4:5 print ratio, so I think removing more of the sidewalk would also lose more of the reflections. I've wiggled the crop all over the place and that is the one I like best.

I entered that in a local juried exhibition contest here. It was selected to be exhibited. We won't find it's position in the show until opening night. I would post the original, but it is about 13Mb. I'll think about putting the original up on one of my display sites.

OK, this is the original.



And, this is your suggested crop. I don't like losing all the secondary reflection on the left. Just my eye vs. yours. I must admit, it is a strong picture, albeit in a different way.



Pops

[RobO]

What a wonderful set (apart from the first one, of course!). The voting has clearly been negatively influenced by the very unhelpful comments suggesting that I should have set the wheelbarrows on fire !!

Anyway, and in no particular order ..........

Robo - Looks fine to me. What did you mean by 'poor'?

Hi Donald

On my screen the small image is horribly "liney." If you look at the top left corner of the photo where there is some wire fencing, blurred in the panning & DOF - thre seems to be a similar effect on many areas of the picture when in it's smaller format.

The larger is fine.

A rather strange phenomenon!

Thanks

Rob

[Donald]

On my screen the small image is horribly "liney." If you look at the top left corner of the photo where there is some wire fencing, blurred in the panning & DOF...

See what you mean. Maybe one of those inevitable, unavoidable (but annoying) consequences of downsizing. I had a very helpful input from others here - Image Resizing Frustrations.

Given it's a blurred background, would putting a mask over it holding back any sharpening on that area make any difference? Of course, I might be going in completely the wrong direction here, not being a 'panning' expert.

[Dave Humphries]

See what you mean. Maybe one of those inevitable, unavoidable (but annoying) consequences of downsizing.

Just to clarify this - The effect where it appears ragged when small, but OK when expanded by clicking the bar above the image, is not anything to do with the image down sizing that the photographer has carried out before uploading the image.

It is because the forum's html code tells the browser to display images at no more than 680 pixels wide in order to keep the posts on a page all the same width. Hence the browser is applying a downsizing all of it's own.
You will find that Internet Explorer (I am using IE7 here at work), makes the ragged edges issue considerably worse than Firefox does - yet another reason to swap for anyone still using IE

Clicking the "Click here to see image full size" bar, displays the image at the 'full' resolution - by which I mean the resolution of the image link used. This still may not be the full resolution you uploaded, it depends where your image is hosted and how you link to it. If you need help with this, ask specifically about your host site if you get odd results.

You can avoid the above (ragged edge when not expanded) problem by;
a) down sizing to 680 pixels maximum width (not 681 or 682, but 680!) before uploading to your hosted place
b) if uploading to albums here at CiC, you should downsize to 600 pixels maximum width (or height), then linking into a post won't be an issue because it is already less than 680 wide.
c) Implore everyone to use Firefox

Other things that affect how bad this phenomena appears are;
- picture content, especially sloping straight (as in Car 52) or curved lines/edges
- image resolution, there seem to be unfortunate combinations of image size vs 680 that can make it worse
- whether the browser zoom function is being used; e.g. Ctrl+"+" (or "-"), or Ctrl+scrollwheel, or maginfying glass - Tip Ctrl +"0" (zero) restores to 100% (normal) zoom
- probably/possibly screen resolution will play a part too, but I can't check that here at work

... and of course, if someone has uploaded an image wider than 680, always expand it (even if only for a few extra pixels) before judging technical quality!!!

Hope that's helpful to someone.

Cheers,

[Donald]

I know I should wait until the polling is over,

Oh my G..!!!!! My apologies. I had a complete thought-bypass and posted up comments before polling was closed. I will now go and beat myself severely. Sorry. Won't do it again.

[Colin Southern]

Oh my G..!!!!! My apologies. I had a complete thought-bypass and posted up comments before polling was closed. I will now go and beat myself severely. Sorry. Won't do it again.

Hi Donald,

I wouldn't give it a moments thought. When I started these mini-comps I really wanted something that was as uncomplicated and rull free as possible ... so pretty much "anything goes" as far as I'm concerned.

[Dave Humphries]

Oh my G..!!!!! My apologies. I had a complete thought-bypass and posted up comments before polling was closed. I will now go and beat myself severely. Sorry. Won't do it again.

I agree with Colin and besides, it not as if you have said anything that really draws attention to any particular defect that may impact voting, you're very complimentary.

Under the extenuating circumstances; a mere twenty lashes will do

[ScoutR]

When I started these mini-comps I really wanted something that was as uncomplicated and rule free as possible ... so pretty much "anything goes" as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you Colin and Dave - So refreshing to be here, and be able to relax and learn at the same time!!!!!!!





Life just does get to serious sometimes.

Wendy

[RobO]

Hi All

Dave, Colin & Donald.... Thanks so much for your help. It's ALL great stuff and as ScoutR says, it's nice to be relatively relaxed about it all.

Donald, I envy you living in Scotland it is SO beautiful up there. I have a friend in Sumborough at the moment for 2-3 weeks

Keep up all your good work with the competitions, it's certainly taken a big leap forwards in the last few #. I guess the snow will be gone before I get a chance to be out with the camera - I've seen lots of shots on the way to work but never have the time to stop or the camera to hand.

Thanks again for all your help, all

Rob

[Donald]

I know I should wait until the polling is over ...

Right, having committed my little faux pas ........

Just curious, but which do you like best the original or the decreased clarity version?

The answer is - the original, but .....

I think you need a chainsaw for Christmas to get rid of the broken branch overhanging the fence and another few inches of, very localised, snow just on the other side of that ditch (or leave the branch and just get the props department to arrange more snow)!

Seriously, for me the original does give a greater sense of the fence going somewhere. It is a fence. The first version felt more like some posts and wire in/on the ground without any particular purpose. What am I trying to say? I'm trying to say that the original tells me more of a story. It tells me, more powerfully, that there were people who worked that land and needed to build a fence in that place. Does that make any sense?

[Donald]

Pops

And, this is your suggested crop. I don't like losing all the secondary reflection on the left. Just my eye vs. yours. I must admit, it is a strong picture, albeit in a different way.

Yep. My idea is okay. But, I agree, your version, posted in the mini-comp above, is much better.

I entered that in a local juried exhibition contest here. It was selected to be exhibited.

Brilliant. Congratulations.

This image invokes a wonderful memory for me. Once did a 3-day train ride from Tuscon, Az to Chicago. I have retained a vivid memory of going through Dallas, Tx and, from the train window, seeing older, colonial-type, buildings reflected in the polished aluminium and glass of a modern edifice. Just gone back to the diary I kept of that trip and noted that this was on Tuesday 5th September 1989 (can't believe it was 20 years ago).

Thank you for stirring a wonderful memory.

[ScoutR]

I think you need a chainsaw for Christmas to get rid of the broken branch overhanging the fence and another few inches of, very localised, snow just on the other side of that ditch (or leave the branch and just get the props department to arrange more snow)!

I'm sure the props department will comply with more snow, and when they do I will be back out there. It's a nice area and I didn't stay as long as I would have liked. The camera was starting to act out because of the cold (I think) and the operator wasn't exactly dressed for the occasion either.

What am I trying to say? I'm trying to say that the original tells me more of a story. It tells me, more powerfully, that there were people who worked that land and needed to build a fence in that place. Does that make any sense?

Thanks for the feedback Donald. It absolutely makes sense. I guess it depends on what one is trying to convey. Sticks and wire in the snow isn't exactly what I was after. LOL, I still kind of like the low clarity effect, but perhaps a different subject.

Wendy