[nwbcc] Rules for club competition

[Jim]

Sorry, that should have read: "No - I've got flu and it's not fun at 
all" But - for the reasons stated - the message was sent after two key 
strokes. I didn't even notice. Oops!

On the subject of the rules, my only suggestion is that we keep them 
simple. JPEG is clearly a good standard to use. If someone submits a 
TIFF file at 30MB it won't win friends never mind competitions. On the 
other hand, 10MP cameras are producing 2.5MB jpegs and we'll just have 
to get ourselves a faster computer when the time comes ;-)

On the subject of the club name - it's actually a point that has come up 
in the past. When the time comesh ow about simply changing the focus 
from "camera" to "photography"?

Jim


Jim wrote:
> 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/20070121/dc7dca4e/attachment.html