[nwbcc] Rules for club competition

[Jim]

No.

Tony Cropper wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> My twopenny's worth, building on Howell's contribution...
>
>   
>> For image size maximum dimensions of 1024 x 768 is clear, on the 
>> other hand having a maximum file size may on occasion penalise some 
>> photos with a lot of intricate detail. 
>>     
>
> Certainly true. It would be unusual for the most intricate 1024x768 JPEG
> to be too large to handle so I, too, contend that filesize is pretty
> irrelevant.
>
> What concerns me a little here is the conciseness of the instructions on
> preparation if the image is in portrait mode. Should its height, ie. its
> longer dimension, be limited to 768 pixels? If so it is at disadvantage
> over a landscape image which could then be larger. If, on the other
> hand, we allow the image to be 1024 pixels in its vertical dimension it
> no longer fits on the screen at full size.
>
> Does this actually matter? Maybe we have to suck it and see. But, if it
> is seen to make a difference, be prepared to return to a square format
> as one sees with slide projection (think about it!). In this case we
> could institute a size of simply 768 in the image's longer dimension.
> Orientation then ceases to be relevant to image quality.
>
>
>   
>> For type, jpeg is obvious.
>>     
>
> This should be writ large - NO Tiffs, No PSDs etc..
>
> The compression level used for our JPEGs should be left to the
> individual with the note that anything more than the minimum compression
> will increase the damage to the image caused by JPEG encoding.
>
>   
>> The IoM requirement that all parts of the image must have been taken 
>> by the entrant is also sensible.
>>     
>
> In essence correct but the IOM's rules use the word 'taken'. Does this
> imply that the source material must be of photographic origin. Is this
> what is wanted? Or can someone draw a line on an image or put a letter
> or number into it? Neither of these would be 'of photographic origin',
> so would they be permissable or not?
>
>
>   
>> With regard to submission: a title will in most cases be sufficient 
>> to identify a photo, but if no title is preferred or a very simple 
>> title is used, then some extra symbols should be added to the file 
>> name in case the same title is used more than once:
>> e.g. 'No title d5f.jpg',  or 'Tree 5391.jpg'.
>>     
>
> The rules pertaining to entries to the slide competition demand that the
> entrant number his entries in order of precedence, most important first.
>
> This could be helpful in this competition as well, not only to allow the
> selection of a variable number of individual entries per person per
> competition but also to separate filenames (Tree 1, Tree 2 etc.).
>
> However, there is a need to ensure that filenames do not coincide and
> Howell's suggestion of adding some extra, personal, symbols is key.
>
> The Western Counties rules require the compsec to ensure no duplication
> of names by renaming of all files to include an entrant code. This could
> be a lot of work, and no duplication of filenames could be ensured
> simply by checking and changing any which are duplicated. I wonder what
> David thinks on this.                                     
>
>
>   
>> As a discussion point:
>>     
>
>   
>> I expect digital submission to be very popular. If so, we may like to 
>> divide digital images into two categories:
>>     
>
>   
>> 1. Straight images - no manipulation other than attention to simple 
>> adjustments such as cropping, brightness, contrast, etc.
>>     
>
> And burning, dodging, selective colour changes, lens blur, cloning...?
> 'etc.' is such a large word.
>
>   
>> 2. Manipulated images.
>>     
>
> Unless it is possible to define the difference between the categories
> precisely, this could cause argument. However, it may cause less than
> having a single category in which anything goes.
>
> At what point do we need to add 'and Image Manipulation' between
> 'Camera' and 'Club' in our name?
>
> Isn't this fun!
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> tony
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.nwbcc.org.uk/pipermail/clubtalk_nwbcc.org.uk/attachments/20070120/b8a70b77/attachment.html