[nwbcc] Rules for club competition

[Robert]

On Saturday 20 Jan 2007 15:12, marilyn adams wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I have 2 examples of competition rules relating to projected images for
> consideration

**** Comments on IoM Rules :-

In Item 1 it says the rule applies even to prints.  But none of what follows 
in Item 1, and not much of the other items, is relevant to prints.  For 
example, "submitted by e-mail" etc (!?), and Item 3 refers only to 
projection.

Also in Item 1 it says : "... maximum size of 1024 on the longest side at 72 
ppi saved at the maximum level of 12."  This does not make any sense after 
the word "side".  JPG images are saved with a resolution of X by Y pixels.  
How many pixels per inch [ppi] there are in the image presented to the viewer 
depends on that final presentation - eg whether printed, or projected onto a 
2m by 2m screen, or onto a 3m by 3m screen.

The "level of 12" presumable refers to something in the image software used by 
that particular writer, which I probably do not.  Limiting the resolution of 
a print would be nonsense.

**** Comments on the WCPF Rules :-

It says "The Landscape dimensions should be 1024 x 768 pixels and portraits 
must not exceed 768 pixels high."  But why is it to be 1024 x 768 *exactly* 
for landscape but "not exceed" 768 for portrait?

Nitpicking, they surely don't mean "landscape" and "portrait", but "landscape 
format" and "portrait format".

**** Comments on other NWBCC comments :-

I do not think it practicable to differentiate between "manipulated" and 
"non-manipulated" images.  We never did so when it was all film images.  The 
early digital days when first adopters tried to impress by putting Princess 
Diana's heads on elephants' bodies are now passe, and I don't think we are 
ever going to be overwhelmed with that sort of stuff.  Also, I think that 
even the arty one-click digital effects such as "impressionist", "posterise" 
and "pointillism" will be self-limiting : too much of them and the judge will 
get bored and mark them down.  OTOH,  the rare genuinely creative digital 
manipulation will always be welcome, but they are never likely to be 
numerous enough to warrant a separate category.

Robert