Re: New mandate needed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
    >
    > --
    > The Committee.


    "The End"
     
    Annika1980, Mar 20, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Bruce Guest

    Annika1980 <> wrote:

    >On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <>
    >wrote:
    >> ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
    >>
    >> --
    >> The Committee.

    >
    >"The End"



    That already happened.

    The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Mar 20, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-03-20 16:57:26 +0000, Bruce said:

    > Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> The Committee.

    >>
    >> "The End"

    >
    >
    > That already happened.
    >
    > The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet. ;-)


    My realization has been growing. After spending some time attempting to
    write comments on the current SI, I've deleted them. I have nothing
    even marginally useful to contribute in the way of either feedback or
    photos.

    The three suggestions I thought of for new mandates have already been
    done and I noticed while checking that there were many more
    contributors in the past than there are now.
     
    Pete A, Mar 20, 2012
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    otter Guest

    On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 4:07:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012-03-20 12:45 , Annika1980 wrote:
    > > On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne<>
    > > wrote:
    > >> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> The Committee.

    > >
    > > "The End"

    >
    > It has a certain ring to it.
    >


    I like it. I might be able to use my dogs.

    Or how about: "Flash"
     
    otter, Mar 21, 2012
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Mar 20, 4:57 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    > Perhaps we should conduct a survey "What is preventing or discouraging
    > you from contributing to the SI?"
    >

    The biggest thing preventing me is the fact that I rarely come here
    any more and don't really keep up with the mandates. I still take as
    many pics as I ever did, maybe even more. But I post them other
    places like on Facebook.
     
    Annika1980, Mar 21, 2012
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/03/2012 3:11 PM:

    > many pics as I ever did, maybe even more. But I post them other
    > places like on Facebook.


    Ah, now I know why you need a 5dm2!
    Heck, all those 400X600 images must stress the resolution of the blessed thing.
    You should really think of upgrading to a Mavica.
     
    Noons, Mar 21, 2012
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 <>
    wrote:
    : On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <>
    : wrote:
    : > ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
    : >
    : > --
    : > The Committee.
    :
    : "The End"

    I don't recall you being that sarcastic when you were a regular contributor.
    If your point is that we can't continue without you, get over it. In many
    respects you may be the best photographer in the group; but no one is
    indispensable, not even you.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 22, 2012
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:57:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Annika1980 <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <>
    : >wrote:
    : >> ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
    : >>
    : >> --
    : >> The Committee.
    : >
    : >"The End"
    :
    :
    : That already happened.
    :
    : The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet. ;-)

    But when that point is raised by people who have never participated, those who
    raise it will have to forgive us for questioning its relevance.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 22, 2012
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:47 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:28:06 +0000, Pete A
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >On 2012-03-20 16:57:26 +0000, Bruce said:
    : >
    : >> Annika1980 <> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>> On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <>
    : >>> wrote:
    : >>>> ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
    : >>>>
    : >>>> --
    : >>>> The Committee.
    : >>>
    : >>> "The End"
    : >>
    : >>
    : >> That already happened.
    : >>
    : >> The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet. ;-)
    : >
    : >My realization has been growing. After spending some time attempting to
    : >write comments on the current SI, I've deleted them. I have nothing
    : >even marginally useful to contribute in the way of either feedback or
    : >photos.
    : >
    : >The three suggestions I thought of for new mandates have already been
    : >done and I noticed while checking that there were many more
    : >contributors in the past than there are now.
    :
    : Perhaps we should conduct a survey "What is preventing or discouraging
    : you from contributing to the SI?"

    In my case it's mostly the 24-hour day. I'm a strong advocate for a 28-hour
    day (and an eight-day week), but I understand that it's unlikely to happen in
    my lifetime.

    That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is the
    time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
    maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 22, 2012
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Trevor Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012032122350077923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2012-03-21 19:37:43 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >> That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is
    >> the
    >> time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
    >> maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.
    >>

    > I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with resizing.
    > With Photoshop (CS5 in my case) using the crop tool I make the appropriate
    > crop to establish edge ratio.
    > Retaining proportionality adjust image size to 1200 pixels along the long
    > edge.
    > Then a simple "save as" reducing quality to about "9" you should have a
    > file size somewhere between 255-330 MB.


    I sure hope you mean 255-330kB!


    > I would imagine you would go through a similar process with most other
    > editing software.
    > For those folks with Macs it is even simpler using Preview and the "adjust
    > size" tool.


    It seems you missed the key words "maximum accepted size while maintaining a
    level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile". I imagine he
    knows how to resample, but would prefer larger files/better quality pictures
    to compare.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Mar 22, 2012
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Trevor Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012032123475864440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > Following the work flow I described above quality is more than OK for the
    > display viewing required for the SI.


    For you, but perhaps not for him by the sound of what he posted.


    > For example here is a 7.8 MB 2520 x 3720 image:
    > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979.jpg >
    > and the same image reduced to 298 KB 867 x 1280:
    > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979w2.jpg >



    Your point being that the 298kB file is just as good for comparing image
    quality, or just as good if you only want to see a small screen image amd
    don't care about image quality?
    Is that what the SI is about?

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Mar 22, 2012
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <>
    >: wrote:
    >: > ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
    >: >
    >: > --
    >: > The Committee.
    >:
    >: "The End"
    >
    >I don't recall you being that sarcastic when you were a regular contributor.
    >If your point is that we can't continue without you, get over it. In many
    >respects you may be the best photographer in the group; but no one is
    >indispensable, not even you.



    The SI has a long history of "losing" its best contributors, many of
    whom quote the same reason why they felt they could not continue.
     
    Bruce, Mar 22, 2012
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-03-22 04:21:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

    > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:37:43 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:47 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:28:06 +0000, Pete A
    >> : <> wrote:
    >> :
    >> : >On 2012-03-20 16:57:26 +0000, Bruce said:
    >> : >
    >> : >> Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >> : >>
    >> : >>> On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <>
    >> : >>> wrote:
    >> : >>>> ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
    >> : >>>>
    >> : >>>> --
    >> : >>>> The Committee.
    >> : >>>
    >> : >>> "The End"
    >> : >>
    >> : >>
    >> : >> That already happened.
    >> : >>
    >> : >> The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet. ;-)
    >> : >
    >> : >My realization has been growing. After spending some time attempting to
    >> : >write comments on the current SI, I've deleted them. I have nothing
    >> : >even marginally useful to contribute in the way of either feedback or
    >> : >photos.
    >> : >
    >> : >The three suggestions I thought of for new mandates have already been
    >> : >done and I noticed while checking that there were many more
    >> : >contributors in the past than there are now.
    >> :
    >> : Perhaps we should conduct a survey "What is preventing or discouraging
    >> : you from contributing to the SI?"
    >>
    >> In my case it's mostly the 24-hour day. I'm a strong advocate for a 28-hour
    >> day (and an eight-day week), but I understand that it's unlikely to happen in
    >> my lifetime.
    >>
    >> That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is the
    >> time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
    >> maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.
    >>

    > This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
    > have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
    > 800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
    > JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
    > it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and
    > frequently many trials are required to get images (just) down to size.


    I reduce sharpening and often apply selective noise reduction to obtain
    a good looking 300 KB file. It's surprising how much the file size is
    increased by even low levels of noise, especially noise in the expanse
    of the sky.

    It's obvious from the comments on the SI images that there are some who
    don't bother to look at the "original", they view only the default
    "large" image. Therefore there's little point in submitting a 1200x800
    of reduced quality, just send an 800x600 at 300 KB.

    > Another thing which bugs me is the use of archival photographs. A
    > number of times the rules have said 'no archival images' and then
    > blatantly archival images have been accepted. I'm happy with archival
    > images and would prefer to be able to use them but, if they are not
    > allowed, they should be not allowed from anyone.


    I'm guilty of posting old images because I'm so rarely fit enough to
    take pictures.

    > My other problem is the weather. For the last two years its been
    > lousy. Almost never have I been able to get out on the few good
    > shooting days we have had. I don't expect anyone can fix this for me.


    My "better" days hardly ever coincide with suitable weather. When they
    do, it's usually a case of having to do a bit of gardening or get the
    laundry hanging on the line.
     
    Pete A, Mar 22, 2012
    #13
  14. Eric Stevens <> writes:

    > This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
    > have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
    > 800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
    > JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
    > it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and
    > frequently many trials are required to get images (just) down to size.


    That's...weird. Or absurd. Something like that. I very rarely have
    jpegs 600x800 come out as big as 200k in the worst cases. 1200x800,
    twice the area, would therefore come out to MAYBE 400k in the worst
    cases. This is at Photoshop jpeg quality levels of 6-8. I can of
    course get much bigger images at 10 or 12 -- but those are absurd levels
    for on-screen viewing, those are for printing from.

    > Another thing which bugs me is the use of archival photographs. A
    > number of times the rules have said 'no archival images' and then
    > blatantly archival images have been accepted. I'm happy with archival
    > images and would prefer to be able to use them but, if they are not
    > allowed, they should be not allowed from anyone.


    I haven't followed the history -- but actually following the rules as
    announced is pretty much always important to me.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 22, 2012
    #14
  15. Eric Stevens <> writes:

    >
    > Here are two I have plucked from my (dirty word) archives.
    > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02101-FACE.jpg is 135 kB and
    > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02102.JPG is 2.27 MB. If you have
    > a preference for taking the second category of phototographs you are
    > faced with an enormous struggle to get within the size limits.


    Am I missing something? The first one is 787x790 pixels, the second one
    is 2560x1712 pixels. HUGE difference in pixel dimensions has a lot more
    to do with the difference in file sizes than subject matter.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 22, 2012
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/22/2012 3:42 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > Robert Coe<> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980<>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne<>
    >> : wrote:
    >> :> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
    >> :>
    >> :> --
    >> :> The Committee.
    >> :
    >> : "The End"
    >>
    >> I don't recall you being that sarcastic when you were a regular contributor.
    >> If your point is that we can't continue without you, get over it. In many
    >> respects you may be the best photographer in the group; but no one is
    >> indispensable, not even you.

    >
    >
    > The SI has a long history of "losing" its best contributors, many of
    > whom quote the same reason why they felt they could not continue.
    >

    We can't deal with Brucies criticism.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Mar 22, 2012
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Trevor Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012032200215984492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2012-03-21 23:56:55 -0700, "Trevor" <> said:
    >>> Following the work flow I described above quality is more than OK for
    >>> the
    >>> display viewing required for the SI.

    >>
    >> For you, but perhaps not for him by the sound of what he posted.
    >>
    >>
    >>> For example here is a 7.8 MB 2520 x 3720 image:
    >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979.jpg >
    >>> and the same image reduced to 298 KB 867 x 1280:
    >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979w2.jpg >

    >>
    >>
    >> Your point being that the 298kB file is just as good for comparing image
    >> quality, or just as good if you only want to see a small screen image amd
    >> don't care about image quality?
    >> Is that what the SI is about?
    >>

    >
    > The loss of image quality when viewed on a computer display is negligible,


    Only if you start with negligable image quality.


    >and the sizing recommendations for the SI allows for some uniformity of
    >size and file size reduction for pbase for all submissions.


    It simply allows people without GB download allowances and the highest
    broadband speeds to view them and make judgements on basics like
    composition, subject treatment, artistic concept etc, but NOT image quality.


    > The SI is about the challenge of capturing an image to meet a particular
    > mandate.
    > In many cases it draws some of us out of our comfort zones. The landscape
    > shooter pushed to take portraits, or macros. The camera used is
    > irrelevant, use a compact, super-zoom, or DSLR. Hell use a view camera.
    > Having a good quality image is nice, but participation, subject meeting
    > the mandate and composition are more relevant.
    > The SI is not a competition. All skill levels are welcome to submit
    > images, learn from mistakes and be inspired by the better submissions. It
    > then becomes a learning experience for many who choose to play.
    > Obviously if it were a pixel peeping competition larger files would be
    > required. The SI was intended to be entertaining and fun.


    I agree that's the aim, but I wasn't the one who made the comment about it's
    worth. Obviously there are far more people here than participate in the SI.
    My take is that I let my clients judge my work, I don't need any body else
    to do it for me :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Mar 23, 2012
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Trevor Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012032219365742612-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

    > There is no judging involved. It is not a competition, I thought that was
    > clear. There might be some comments expressing opinions, certainly not
    > judging.


    I thought in the context I used the word "judging" as in commenting on, I
    realise there are no prizes.


    > However there are those here who do not participate, or share their images
    > in any way at all as they talk and bluster a better game than their talent
    > or product might reveal in the light of day.


    Perhaps, or just can't be bothered. Not that one persons comments prove
    anything either way. I'm often amazed at what crap some pro's produce (IMO)
    and the amazing work of some amateurs. (IMO) Obviously others have different
    opinions, just as some of the work I see favourably commented on here is not
    to my taste. And likewise I doubt my work is to everyone's taste.
    Fortunately I don't find that an issue I need to care about.


    > Those who participate have a mix of skill and experience, some like Tony
    > Cooper and me are old fart photo hobbyists with little claim or desire to
    > be pros. Others have been, or are pros, but most just have no issues or
    > hangups with sharing within the bounds of the challenge of a particular
    > mandate.


    As it should be if they choose to participate, more power to them.


    > You professional work is not going to rise or fall on the opinion of
    > anybody commenting on SI submissions. Besides it is challenging and can be
    > both entertaining and fun.


    I think that's up to the individuals to decide for themselves.

    > ...but all this talk seems to be moot as you are obviously in the same
    > anti-SI school as Tony "Bruce" Polson, and we are not likely to see any
    > examples of your fine work anytime soon.


    I thought it was clear I am NOT anti SI at all. I hope all those who choose
    to participate get the satisfaction they seek.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Mar 23, 2012
    #18
  19. Eric Stevens <> writes:

    > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>
    >>> This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
    >>> have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
    >>> 800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
    >>> JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
    >>> it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and

    >>
    >>I don't believe 2 MB.

    >
    > I've since posted an example.


    Which I looked at, and it's not 1200x800, it's much bigger. And the
    small example is much smaller. Your problem, based on those examples,
    is not the compression.

    >> Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
    >>rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
    >>or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
    >>level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.

    >
    > I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.


    I could quote the Bibble Pro jpeg level instead, would that help? :)

    More generally -- I'm being specific about exactly what I do with which
    software. Other people with that software (so not you in that
    particular case) can try what I said, and either find they get similar
    results, or not; either result is enlightening.

    If you would be more specific, the same thing could happen -- we could
    figure out if other people got the same results you report, or different
    results.

    >>Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
    >>arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
    >>web.

    >
    > But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
    > Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
    > might be like in a print.


    For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
    for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
    bring extra goodness.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 23, 2012
    #19
  20. Eric Stevens <> writes:

    > (Just for fun, I have tried printing 1 black pixel. The printer prints
    > it but I can't even find it).


    Put a wide red ring around it, more than 100 dots away say (grossly
    more space than I believe the driver ever has things affect other
    things); then you can find the center of the ring by eye pretty well.
    Use a magnifying glass :) .

    (Jumping back to the previous discussion -- I may have misunderstood one
    thing; are you tring to produce files that *print* well for SI
    submission? That's a big difference from files that look good on the
    web, and could explain things. But what's most needed for printing is
    more pixels, not lower compression levels.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 23, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Spanjaard

    Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Robert Spanjaard, Apr 16, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    338
    tony cooper
    Apr 26, 2010
  2. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Robert Coe, Apr 17, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    520
    Paul Furman
    Apr 24, 2010
  3. Annika1980

    Re: Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Annika1980, Apr 17, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    349
    Eric Stevens
    Apr 17, 2010
  4. PeterN

    Re: [SI] New mandate needed

    PeterN, Mar 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    250
    RichA
    Mar 20, 2012
  5. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] New mandate needed

    tony cooper, Mar 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    282
    Pete A
    Mar 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page