Does it matter?

[billtils]

I have enjoyed the discussions in the "Expert's Presentation on computer screens and image viewing" thread, but the main effect has been to make me ask "Does it matter?".

Here are a few of the elements in the question.

1: A print: This is the end-product from scene > camera > raw engine > PP > printer. Each step presents a challenge as to how well it replicates the previous one, but the PP step can and probably will make the idea of faithful transfer from those that precede it moot. We can change pretty well everything to create a "better" image there before capturing our best (or more accurately "most pleasing to the photographer") effort on print. We all know that there are more "how to" works on the monitor to print step than you can poke the proverbial stick at, but just like the one that precedes it, does it matter if the author likes the result?

2: A Projected Digital Image: the great thing about a print is that what you get is what you and any other viewer will see, unlike with PDIs. However, outside of the serious hobby/professional world does it really matter all that much as long as what the audience views is near enough to what they want?

3: Distractions: For those of us in clubs, whether competitors or spectators, how often have we seen an image we like then heard the judge criticise it for distractions that we didn't notice? Or, as in the case of Dan's post #14, one or more potential distractions are integral to the composition as intended by the author.

[DanK]

3: Distractions: For those of us in clubs, whether competitors or spectators, how often have we seen an image we like then heard the judge criticise it for distractions that we didn't notice? Or, as in the case of Dan's post #14, one or more potential distractions are integral to the composition as intended by the author.

I've personally had both experiences. I've had distractions pointed out and thought to myself, "how could I have missed that"? I've had other cases--the photograph discussed here has been one example--where the element involved is debatable.

There is also no avoiding the fact that judges, like everyone else, have their own taste, and that enters into their evaluations. Here's another one I had in the same competion (we were allowed a maximum of three) that garnered a mediocre score:



The judge liked the composition--the separation of the two smaller flowers balancing the one larger one. However, he had a number of criticisms. One was that he thought the saturation of the stems was too great and distracting. I actually think it's luminosity rather than saturation that is the issue, but I see his point. I had already brought the stems down, and I may re-edit it to bring them down farther. His second criticism was that he didn't like the black background. (Manfred--he didn't comment on its being pure black, which is hard to know on screen; he just didn't like black at all.) He wanted something like out-of-focus grass and wanted me to paste in another background. That's a perfectly valid taste, but it's not mine. After experimenting a bit with various kinds of backgrounds for flower macros, I decided that I often prefer a plain black background. I've done a lot of them, and they have generally been very well received. That's not to say that he was wrong; he simply had a different notion of what's aesthetically pleasing. He also wanted more detail (I think mostly local contrast or texture) in the petals. I had tried various degrees of local contrast, and the level in the image was a deliberate choice.

BTW, I thought this particular judge was one of the better ones I have worked with. I found his comments were well thought out and useful, even when I disagreed with him.

[Manfred M]

The reason it matters Bill is that the judge wants to see the image as close to what the photographer intended, so unless the projected image and what the photographer had on his or her computer screen are reasonably close, this is not going to happen.

Most screens, straight out of the box are far too bright and are set up to work in office lighting that often exceeds 200 lux. The effect, unfortunately, is somewhat akin to looking at your phone's screen indoors and outdoors. High levels of light was out the image on the display, as an obvious example.

The problem with the audience is that when we look at an image among the general public, their view of what is a great image is going to be a lot different from what someone in the field looks at. My favourite example is always wedding or baby pictures. Family members ooh and aw, whereas most other people will look at it with a more critical eye and won't know what the fuss is all about.

Prints are just as tough - and recommendations do vary. I feel that this document / download from x-Rite is generally viewed as one a lot of pros refer to when setting up viewing lights for prints. Unfortunately, this tends to mean the higher end galleries as I've seen terrible lighting is some places.

www.xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/StandardViewingNTK_EN.pdf

As for identifying distractions / distracting elements is something one really starts to understand with practice and I (and other photographers who are far better than I am) can easily spot these issues in someone else's work far more easily and quickly in their own. I know one photographer who uses a "muse" (she is an interior decorator, not a photographer) to review his images before he is ready to make his final print.

[xpatUSA]

I've personally had both experiences. I've had distractions pointed out and thought to myself, "how could I have missed that"? I've had other cases--the photograph discussed here has been one example--where the element involved is debatable.

There is also no avoiding the fact that judges, like everyone else, have their own taste, and that enters into their evaluations. Here's another one I had in the same competion (we were allowed a maximum of three) that garnered a mediocre score:



The judge liked the composition--the separation of the two smaller flowers balancing the one larger one. However, he had a number of criticisms. One was that he thought the saturation of the stems was too great and distracting. I actually think it's luminosity rather than saturation that is the issue, but I see his point. I had already brought the stems down, and I may re-edit it to bring them down farther. <>

One of my sub-hobbies is ANALyzing other people's images, often by decomposing them into, for example, Hue, Lightness and Saturation:



In the above panels, 0-255 on your screen represents the decomposed layer, not levels in the original image.

It can seen in the middle panel that the Lightness of the stems is about the same as the petals. It can also be seen at right that the stems are more saturated (look brighter in the panel) than the petals - but not by much.

Our eyes being what they are, the background will play tricks with our perception of the plant colors.

Imagine: what if the background was white? - perhaps the petals would stand out more ...

[billtils]

I've personally had both experiences. I've had distractions pointed out and thought to myself, "how could I have missed that"? I've had other cases--the photograph discussed here has been one example--where the element involved is debatable.

There is also no avoiding the fact that judges, like everyone else, have their own taste, and that enters into their evaluations. Here's another one I had in the same competion (we were allowed a maximum of three) that garnered a mediocre score: ...

His second criticism was that he didn't like the black background. (Manfred--he didn't comment on its being pure black, which is hard to know on screen; he just didn't like black at all.) He wanted something like out-of-focus grass and wanted me to paste in another background. That's a perfectly valid taste, but it's not mine. ... He also wanted more detail (I think mostly local contrast or texture) in the petals. I had tried various degrees of local contrast, and the level in the image was a deliberate choice.

BTW, I thought this particular judge was one of the better ones I have worked with. I found his comments were well thought out and useful, even when I disagreed with him.

With you all the way here Dan, especially on the backgrounds (unless the competition in question was "Nature" themed).

In my club, about half the audience at a competition night are not entrants and it's always interesting to see and hear their reaction to the comments made by the judges. I reckon that the divergence between how the entrants rate the judge and what the audience come up with is inversely proportional to the quality of the judge.

[xpatUSA]

I reckon that the divergence between how the entrants rate the judge and what the audience come up with is inversely proportional to the quality of the judge.

Excellent!

[xpatUSA]

I feel that this document / download from x-Rite is generally viewed as one a lot of pros refer to when setting up viewing lights for prints. Unfortunately, this tends to mean the higher end galleries as I've seen terrible lighting is some places.

www.xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/StandardViewingNTK_EN.pdf

Bad link on my computer, Manfred.

I was going to post a blurb about ICC profiles but probably Xrite covered it ...

[Manfred M]

Bad link on my computer, Manfred.

I was going to post a blurb about ICC profiles but probably Xrite covered it ...

Ted - check your download folder. This link downloads the x-Rite document directly to my computer.

[xpatUSA]

Ted - check your download folder. This link downloads the x-Rite document directly to my computer.

Thanks for the advice but it's not in my download folder. The link gives me the 404 error:



Dell/FireFox/Norton via a Verizon broadband router.

Also when I click on a link to a PDF, FireFox opens it up right away (no downloading involved).

[DanK]

I got the same error

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for the advice but it's not in my download folder. The link gives me the 404 error:



Dell/FireFox/Norton via a Verizon broadband router.

Found it - your link should not have a forward slash after ".pdf". So, it is a bad link.

Good article, by the way ...

[Manfred M]

Dan - last Thursday was the last event held at one of the photo clubs I belong to, before I shut the club down due to COVID-19. There were three of us on the jury and the scores between us were remarkably consistent; rarely more than one point (out of 10) apart.

At the end of the night, there were two images that had the same high score (26/30; two judges gave the image a 9/10 and the third an 8/10)) and we had to break the tie. The final point that all three judges agreed on was that there was a significant area of the image where shadow details were lost and gave the tie-break to the image that did not have this flaw. It had a different issue (an element that worked to an extent, but was also a bit of a distraction).

When I look at your image, I noticed the following four things:

1. The brightness of the green on the stalks and how that overpowers the petals;

2. The difference in spacing between the left and right flower from the middle on. I find that the right one is just a bit too far away;

3. Three bright stalks crossing the bottom edge that tends to drive my view off the bottom of the frame; and

4. Crushed black in the background.

The way I tend to score images is that I start with a full 10 points and will deduct a full point for a significant issue and 1/2 point for a minor one. Some clubs judge images based on 1/2 points and others on full, so depending on the club, I would have scored this image at either 6.5 or 7 out of 10.

If I had seen this image, I would likely have scored it a 7.5 or 8.

[xpatUSA]

Found it - your link should not have a forward slash after ".pdf". So, it is a bad link.

BTW, the forward slash comes up in the URL but does not appear in your post text. I blame CinC

[xpatUSA]

Our eyes being what they are, the background will play tricks with our perception of the plant colors.

Imagine: what if the background was white?

Hues taken from Dan's plants ... but FastStone Viewer wouldn't take the posted petal's hue value (no idea why) so it won't match Dan's posted petal colors. Still, the effect of backgrounds on perceived color is quite evident.

[Manfred M]

Hues taken from Dan's plants ... but FastStone Viewer wouldn't take the posted petal's hue value (no idea why) so it won't match Dan's posted petal colors. Still, the effect of backgrounds on perceived color is quite evident.

That is a well known phenomenon; Colour Adaptation - it's one of the reasons people are told to adjust the backgrounds in their PP software so that they are a middle tone, rather a very dark or very light one.

People like black or white backgrounds because their images "look better".

[DanK]

That is a well known phenomenon; Colour Adaptation - it's one of the reasons people are told to adjust the backgrounds in their PP software so that they are a middle tone, rather a very dark or very light one.

People like black or white backgrounds because their images "look better".

Well, that’s the goal, right? That’s the same reason why people chose a given mat or frame. After trying a variety of backgrounds, I decided that black often makes the flower image look better than the alternatives I’ve tried. However, I’m increasingly interested in trying charcoal gray backgrounds. I might have to use composites to get that right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

... However, I’m increasingly interested in trying charcoal gray backgrounds.

Any particular shade and/or tint in mind? There seems to be quite a bit of variation on the 'net.

I might have to use composites to get that right.

Sorry, I didn't understand "use composites" ...

[Manfred M]

Well, that’s the goal, right? That’s the same reason why people chose a given mat or frame. After trying a variety of backgrounds, I decided that black often makes the flower image look better than the alternatives I’ve tried. However, I’m increasingly interested in trying charcoal gray backgrounds. I might have to use composites to get that right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've been know to use a similar approach.








Although my white backgrounds are actually a light gray and my dark ones are a very dark gray.

[DanK]

Sorry, I didn't understand "use composites" ...

My backgrounds are actually quite uneven because of light reflecting from the non-uniform cloth surface. That all goes away when I zero out the area. I could create a smooth gray, but that might look like plastic. If I want something slightly textured but otherwise uniform, I may have to create a background image with uniform light and make a composite of that with the flowers.

[xpatUSA]

If I want something slightly textured but otherwise uniform, I may have to create a background image with uniform light and make a composite of that with the flowers.

How about creating a background from scratch in something like the GIMP, utilizing any of the many artistic effects available and then applying your subject(s) as a montage?



My quick and dirty choice of effects is not up for critique, it just illustrates the principle involved.