ADAPS Competitions Formats?

A place for discussions not specifically catered for elsewhere

What is your preferred format for ADAPS competitions?

35mm slide
0
No votes
Mounted Prints
2
10%
Digitally Projected Image
1
5%
Prints & Slides as now
6
30%
Prints & Digitally Projected Images
11
55%
I don't really care about competitions
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
John
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 5020
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:34 am
Contact:

Post by John »

did you see an instant move up the competition leaderboard and was this down simply to the improved size of the prints do you think?
I think the move to A3 was part of a continuous improvement in the standard of our photography. You can't really separate the two. As the photographer gets better he or she might feel the need for larger prints just for personal satisfaction and an increase in expectation.

The larger print tends to be more impressive, is more demanding of technique but will get the attention more easily if it's good. A large painting on a gallery wall has the same effect, but has to be good.

An exceptional smaller print or painting can score, but it needs to be exceptional, or a particulat subject that might benefit from a small print.
Best regards

John
User avatar
Sue
Master Photographer
Master Photographer
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:19 am

Post by Sue »

Hi
This is my first posting so here goes,

Ideally I would like to continue with Prints & Slides for all compititions. Doing slides is the best way to learn photographic skills. What you take is what you get.

I know all clubs are having a hard time getting enough slides for all the compititions, so I think we will end up with prints & digitally projected images. 8)
Best wishes

Sue
Kevin Stephens
Initiate
Initiate
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:41 pm

Post by Kevin Stephens »

Although it is sad I feel the days of 35mm slides are numbered and over time will not retain sufficient support for good competitions.

I come to photography from a rock climbing/mountaineering background and in the past have enjoyed some great evenings with friends around the projector screen with a few beers to view inpirational slides from great climbs around the world. Now that hardly anybody takes film cameras on these trips it has come down to exchanging CD Roms :(

Digital projection just does not cut it for quality and impact, and very few folk can justify the expense of a decent quality digital projector

Having said that A3 inkjet printing is much more acessible than good quality dark room printing, and although arguably not quite as good as darkroom prints, the quality difference is much narrower than between 35mm and digital projection - prints is the way to go.

I support the idea that entrants should have a declaration "not digitally manipulated" or digiltally manipulated. With the former only allowing whole image tweeks to sharpness, levels, saturation etc.

I hate mixes of foreground and sky from different locations, and particularly saddened by a regular winner from another local club with a shot of a Himalayan mountain "improved" by photoshopping in a peasent woman from an unrelated area.

By the way, how did my Wastwater pic get on on Thursday?

Kevin
User avatar
Paul Jones
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 2378
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:35 pm
Spam Protection: No
Contact:

Post by Paul Jones »

Kevin Stephens wrote: I support the idea that entrants should have a declaration "not digitally manipulated" or digiltally manipulated. With the former only allowing whole image tweeks to sharpness, levels, saturation etc.
Hi Sue, Hi Tom, Hi Kevin - thanks for your comments. :)

I have to say though that personally I can see little merit in having to declare if an image has been 'manipulated'.

It may be just me, but I think that digital photography and post-processing (or manipulation if you prefer the term) go hand-in-hand. I'll openly declare that every image that I show has been post-processed - some a lot more than others - through choice and a fondness for experimentation on the computer after the shutter button has been pressed.

Do we have any more views?
Kevin Stephens wrote: By the way, how did my Wastwater pic get on on Thursday?
I don't know - you'll have to ask Walter.

Best regards
Paul
================
http://www.PaulJones.org


"As usual Paul is absolutely correct."
"In short, Paul is an absolutely brilliant mentor."
User avatar
keith richardson
Committee Member
Committee Member
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Atherton, Lancashire
Contact:

Post by keith richardson »

Paul Jones wrote:
Kevin Stephens wrote: I support the idea that entrants should have a declaration "not digitally manipulated" or digiltally manipulated. With the former only allowing whole image tweeks to sharpness, levels, saturation etc.
Hi, as you would probably expect I have to agree with Pauls comments on this. surely the important thing is the final image and not how it was arrived at.

If it is obvious that the image is a result of manipulation then it doesn't need declaring, but if it isn't obvious then this surely is down to the photographers skill in the digital darkroom. Expecting someone to spend possibly hundreds of pounds on a copy of CS2 or CS3 and then demand that they didn't use 90% of it for doing exactly what it is designed to do is a bit much to ask.
I assume that anyone using a wet darkroom wouldn't be asked to point out which areas were burned in or dodged.

And I suppose that anyone who felt really strongly about this would at least find solace in helping to keep the slide competition going. :D

best regards, Keith.
Kevin Stephens
Initiate
Initiate
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:41 pm

Post by Kevin Stephens »

Paul said
It may be just me, but I think that digital photography and post-processing (or manipulation if you prefer the term) go hand-in-hand
Hmmm, I'm all for post processing Paul, but the manipulation I'm referring to goes far beyond that, eg juxtaposing sky and landscape from two different locations, or the example I referred to in my post. Fine if that's what the photographer may have done, but let's be honest about it.

My reasoning is that photography is a great way to show people what a fantastic planet we live on, and it means a lot to me to be able say "yes it was really like that, I was there"
User avatar
Paul Jones
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 2378
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:35 pm
Spam Protection: No
Contact:

Post by Paul Jones »

Kevin Stephens wrote: photography is a great way to show people what a fantastic planet we live on, and it means a lot to me to be able say "yes it was really like that, I was there"
I can thoroughly appreciate your point of view, Kevin. Photography as a straight record of a place, a person or an event, as opposed to pictorial or art. Both are valid.

Best regards
Paul
================
http://www.PaulJones.org


"As usual Paul is absolutely correct."
"In short, Paul is an absolutely brilliant mentor."
User avatar
oakeycoke
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bolton

Post by oakeycoke »

Temporary solution:

Paul, with regard to part of your original post
"Do we need two categories, perhaps - one for prints and one for digitally projected images? "

Prints, slides and digital projected images, three categories, done over a couple of competitions, that way the whole membership gets to see and vote.

There's lots of discussion on Digital projectors in various forums and the following link from the Technical Committee of the PAGB gives their views:

http://www.lcpu.org/docs/PAGB%20PROJECT ... 20Full.pdf

Though done in 2006 and published this year it makes no reference that I could see about using an LCD TV screen to view the images? Maybe they hadn't thought about it? Digital projectors do have problems with large resolution so in the PAGB report they talk about 1024x768 (XGA) as a standard but do mention 1400x1050(SXGA).
The report to its credit goes on in some length about projection software, acdsee, pictures2exe, jpegs, sRGB, calibration etc.

A decent digital projector would be over £1000 (ouch)

Well i tried the 32" Samsung LCD yesterday connected to my old laptop as a trial. First this laptop is only a Pentium 111 1Ghz processor with 384Mb ram dvd/cd rom and some abysmal graphics card and is around 6yrs old or more.

The photos looked good, far easier to see than the prints we display in the club, so the laptop at the club would be well up to displaying the images.

Now the sad (lol) part, placing a 20"x16" mounting board against the tv, it fits with loads to spare in landscape mode, but not portrait.
Placing an A3 print against it in portrait mode and approx 2cm is lost.

So a 32" tv will display our images with only a very slight loss of height in portrait mode, however software would reduce the ratio of the image so it fitted the screen. (Unfortunately they would all have a black background as thats the border colour of most LCD's, by that I mean the plastic bits round the screen)

Cost of LCD TV's are well under £500 now for 32" depending on specification. This one of mine has a 170 degree viewing angle, so Paul you will be okay in your seat in the front corner.
User avatar
oakeycoke
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bolton

Post by oakeycoke »

Sue said,

"Doing slides is the best way to learn photographic skills. What you take is what you get."

I would agree with the ,what you see is what you get, but hey firstly joining our club is the best way to learn photographic skills.

Secondly as an example from Septembers comp and the photos of flowing water. With slide you would need as a newbie to take notes of every f stop and shutter speed and then wait for your film to come back from developing and compare for that slushy/foaming water effect (not my preference). With digital you could take various f stops with loads of different shutter speeds and within hours at home you could compare them on your pc monitor. If you lost your notes then just look at the exif data, in fact you wouldn't need to take notes, as the exif would provide all the info and much more besides... Oh! you could just look at the lcd on your digital camera as a rough guide.

Only a little wind-up Sue, I know where you are coming from.

Phil
User avatar
Walter Brooks
Master Photographer
Master Photographer
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Bury, Lancashire

Post by Walter Brooks »

Secondly as an example from Septembers comp and the photos of flowing water ...

... and that is how film users learnt their photographic skills, and so over time you know what f stops and shutter speeds work and in what way. No notebook, no exif data ... just, to quote Hercule Poirot, those 'little grey cells'.
User avatar
oakeycoke
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bolton

Post by oakeycoke »

Keith said,
" have been following this discussion and one point that comes up from the previous posting is whether size matters print wise.

When you invest in an A3 printer, 'mainly for competition purposes' have you felt that the investment was worthwhile? did you see an instant move up the competition leaderboard and was this down simply to the improved size of the prints do you think?"

Well Thursday night's L&CPU portfolio of prints... I didn't keep an exact record but it was around 5 or 6 prints at A4 and the rest were larger, quite a few larger than A3 from the two boxes of prints in the portfolio. A ratio I would estimate of around 15% at best.

I rest my case.

Though Len did point out that close up some of the quality wasn't good, something that probably wouldn't be noticed on a large tv screen.
User avatar
John
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 5020
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:34 am
Contact:

Post by John »

I was in Cardiff today at a demonstration that was made using a laptop and a huge TV screen.

The resolution of HDTV isn't up to it IMHO and not only was the screen smaller than we are used to via the projector but also the detail in text was no better.

It leaves me thinking that we would be better off with one of the new high end projectors which are intended to perform as well as monitors.

:?:
Best regards

John
User avatar
Paul Jones
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 2378
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:35 pm
Spam Protection: No
Contact:

Post by Paul Jones »

John wrote: It leaves me thinking that we would be better off with one of the new high end projectors which are intended to perform as well as monitors.
So, it's either a whip-round at the club, another Lottery grant, or stick some old cameras on Ebay....? :)
Paul
================
http://www.PaulJones.org


"As usual Paul is absolutely correct."
"In short, Paul is an absolutely brilliant mentor."
User avatar
John
Iconic Photographer
Iconic Photographer
Posts: 5020
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:34 am
Contact:

Post by John »

So, it's either a whip-round at the club, another Lottery grant, or stick some old cameras on Ebay....?
Dangerous talk, Mr Jones... :lol:
Best regards

John
Theo Dibbits
Master Photographer
Master Photographer
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Lostock, Bolton

Post by Theo Dibbits »

John

Are you sure it is the projector? When Gladys did her talk on picturestoexe the quality of the projection looked a lot better then when you are using the club's laptop. It maybe worth having a look if the graphics card could be upgraded.

Theo
Post Reply