St Monans Breakwater


(Brian Innes) #1

Following on from my [Play Raw] thread on my St Monans Breakwater Image, https://discuss.pixls.us/t/play-raw-st-monans-breakwater-fife-scotland/7594, I did a final edit, and submitted this version:

to my local Photographic Association’s first competition of the season (which is judged by one of the club committee rather than an external judge)

Quite good results and feedback from tonight, it wasn’t placed within 5th place or above, but got 18 points out of a maximum of 20. Marks were deducted for slightly blown highlights on some of the water.

But still, 18 out of 20, I’m pleased at that :slight_smile:

Just goes to show you don’t need lightroom etc to get decent images for a Photographic Association’s club competition.

Certainly at least the feedback is something to consider should I revisit the image :slight_smile:


(Mica) #2

This is a lovely image. Was the judging on technical merit alone, e.g. blown highlights?


#3

I like what you came up with. Does your local association post the winning photos? It would be great to see what you were up against.

I agree that the bright patch is distracting but I disagree that it is blown. Maybe washed out would have been a better description. The detail is still visible. It is just that the patch’s brightness and local contrast is unlike the rest of the image. Perhaps, it was noted in the feedback. However, if they just left it at blown, I would say that that isn’t the point, since it could be a part of what makes the image beautiful or fascinating.

Anyway, thanks for sharing this image as a PlayRaw. I had fun with it. :slight_smile: Someday in the distant future I will take a photo and submit it to a competition. :blush:

Edit: Here is what I would consider blown and washed out. (I messed up the sample in the original post). White denotes 255; grey >=230. The latter is possibly clipped; the former is the threshold where things start to look washed out.



If I were to nitpick, I would point out this

z_3

and that

z_2


(Brian Innes) #4

Not purely technical detail but also on the judges “personal preferences” as to what makes a good image. Although I wonder if I would have scored less had the judge known I had used pure open source software? :wink:


#5

Possibly. I vaguely remember someone testing picture critics and getting different reviews depending on the camera brand indicated in the (doctored, off course) EXIF.


(Brian Innes) #6

@afre The winning image isn’t on my club’s website yet. But the winning image was of a church near the sea, with what looked like a photoshopped flock of birds in the sky, and what looked like a photoshopped bride & groom on the grass near the sea… :wink:

I’m not a fan of photoshopping (or should I say Gimping?) things into an image to make a “better” photo…

Anyway, I’m quite pleased at how my images scored (will upload another to a showcase later on), considering I’m just a hobbyist at photography. Better get my finger out though and get some images together, as the hand in for the next competition is on Tuesday 18th of September, with judging on the 9th of October…


#7

Sky replacement and / or image insertion doesn’t seem fair. I guess it depends on the contest rules and criteria.


(Brian Innes) #8

Sadly it seems anything goes nowadays. Even the “Nature” winning image last year in the club was a heavily photoshopped image of two photoshopped birds of prey chasing the same photoshopped prey…