PPG Submisions


fatspider

Link Posted 26/02/2010 - 22:36
Does anyone know if exif data has to be intact for submisions to the Pentax Photo Gallery? ie: showing the image was taken with a Pentax?

I'm thinking of submitting a few images but some have been run through an unregistered version of Neat Image and as a result the exif data has been affected, second question is would running them through Neat Image disqualify them regardless?
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 26/02/2010 - 22:46
Yes to the first question, probably no to the second, as i'm sure noise reduction is pretty standard practice.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Prieni

Link Posted 26/02/2010 - 22:52
I second that.

Maybe you could reload the 'neated' image to your imaging software and put it as a new layer on the original version. When you then flatten the image and save it should have the EXIF intact again.
I would also think that noise reduction shouldn't be a problem. There are quite a few images in the PPG that show post processing of various degrees. Also HDR images are admissible now.

Good luck!

Prieni
How inappropriate to call this planet earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. - Arthur C. Clarke
Prieni's PPG page

Mike-P

Link Posted 26/02/2010 - 22:54
I stopped using neat image for that very reason. The plug-in for Elements/PS4 doesn't seem to do it though.
No equipment list here but thanks for taking an interest. My Flickr

fatspider

Link Posted 26/02/2010 - 23:02
Quote:
Maybe you could reload the 'neated' image to your imaging software and put it as a new layer on the original version. When you then flatten the image and save it should have the EXIF intact again.

I considered that Ralph, but felt I would be caught out for "cheating"

Quote:
The plug-in for Elements/PS4 doesn't seem to do it though

Whats Elements/PS4??? I'm using Photoshop7
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

Malo1961

Link Posted 26/02/2010 - 23:28
For your consideration Alan. Seeing the amount of HDR treated images on PPG nowadays, it seems they have forsaken the "rule" of no heavy image manipulation allowed.

Ironical enough you get to see more and more examples of Post Production Garbage these days. The accepted pictures from members of this forum being the fortunate and good exception on this trend. But maybe those in the States who do the majority of voting (I guess) just like "Over the top".
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

gartmore

Link Posted 27/02/2010 - 08:30
You dont need the exif data at all, just tick the scanned image box. Then manually input the data and clear 'This is a scanned image' from the notes box.

I suppose they have had to allow HDR since the K7 can do it.

I think there has been a marked drop in standards lately and it seems to take weeks if not months for pictures to be reviewed. I get depressed when, in a weakened moment, I do any judging.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

Goliath_UK

Link Posted 27/02/2010 - 09:34
Malo1961 wrote:
For your consideration Alan. Seeing the amount of HDR treated images on PPG nowadays, it seems they have forsaken the "rule" of no heavy image manipulation allowed.

Ironical enough you get to see more and more examples of Post Production Garbage these days. The accepted pictures from members of this forum being the fortunate and good exception on this trend. But maybe those in the States who do the majority of voting (I guess) just like "Over the top".

I for one vote anything that's obviously PPd down.
John

"Before we invent Artificial Intelligence, shouldn't we eliminate natural stupidity?"

My Flickr
My PPG Entries

Prieni

Link Posted 27/02/2010 - 10:24
Martin,

I might be the exception from the exception, then...

These are some recent acceptances:






I have added them in the HDR category although they are more pseudo-HDRs. And I hope they don't fall in your PPG category.
I have to admit that sometimes I find the obvious over the top PP quite fitting, like in this one (also in PPG):



John (Goliath): Where does 'obvious' PP start and where does it end? Why is the PP that a bunch of Japanese engineers did (i.e. that happens in camera) any better than what I do from the RAW shot at my computer?
All my images have had some PP treatment...

But of course it is your right to vote according to your taste and I certainly have no problem with that.

Prieni
How inappropriate to call this planet earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. - Arthur C. Clarke
Prieni's PPG page

Malo1961

Link Posted 27/02/2010 - 10:42
Ralf,
I think you know my point of view regarding "over the top" or HDR.
When used with care I have no problems at all, I even think those new techniques can offer a lot of advantages when used with care and subtlety. Yours are a perfect example of that.
But.......You have to admit there is a lot "over the top" and not so subtle work accepted these days, spoken by a guy who isn't exactly a purist himself.

Oh....I did say this, didn't I ?

Quote:
The accepted pictures from members of this forum being the fortunate and good exception on this trend

Yours are just good stuff Ralf, and PPG worthy.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 27/02/2010 - 11:24
Wonderful images Ralf. I would have voted for those in a heartbeat. My criteria for voting is would it would it be the kind of image I would expect to see in National Geographic, or on a gallery wall. I don't see much heavily PP work that I have to vote on, but far too many poorly composed shots, and banal shots of geese etc i'd rather see a heavily PP shot than that sort of toot tbh.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Prieni

Link Posted 27/02/2010 - 11:36
Martin,

yes I do know your point of view. It was a bit tongue in cheek from me.

And looking at my last example I could understand when someone would feel that to be over the top. It is (and I think it has to be; this is what I had in mind when taking the shot).

I agree that there is a lot of stuff out there where I think that PP has gone too far. But that is a too far for me only. And others might feel different.

Will, thanks for the thumbs up on these. And I know what you mean on the banal shots...

Prieni
How inappropriate to call this planet earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. - Arthur C. Clarke
Prieni's PPG page

Mike-P

Link Posted 27/02/2010 - 12:03
I have 5 HDR pics on there now (2 accepted yesterday) .. I quite like them as long as they are not overdone and the process can be very handy in bad lighting conditions.
No equipment list here but thanks for taking an interest. My Flickr

Goliath_UK

Link Posted 28/02/2010 - 10:45
Prieni wrote:


John (Goliath): Where does 'obvious' PP start and where does it end? Why is the PP that a bunch of Japanese engineers did (i.e. that happens in camera) any better than what I do from the RAW shot at my computer?
All my images have had some PP treatment...

But of course it is your right to vote according to your taste and I certainly have no problem with that.

Prieni

Prieni - It's a very valid question with no correct answer: to me, any image where my first reaction upon viewing it is "whoa, HDR!!" or "I can see a lot of PP has been done on this" means that I am liable to vote it down unless the PP suits the composition and subject. All too often I'm seeing images where HDR has been used "way" too much and IMHO ruined a good shot. I guess my rule is that the shot should just look right - I shouldn't be able to notice any PP at all, as your shell shots demonstrate superbly.

P.S. - Please don't think I'm a complete Luddite I do use HDR and PP myself, As Mike stated it's very handy in bad lighting.
John

"Before we invent Artificial Intelligence, shouldn't we eliminate natural stupidity?"

My Flickr
My PPG Entries

Prieni

Link Posted 28/02/2010 - 11:43
Goliath_UK wrote:

Prieni - It's a very valid question with no correct answer: to me, any image where my first reaction upon viewing it is "whoa, HDR!!" or "I can see a lot of PP has been done on this" means that I am liable to vote it down unless the PP suits the composition and subject. All too often I'm seeing images where HDR has been used "way" too much and IMHO ruined a good shot. I guess my rule is that the shot should just look right - I shouldn't be able to notice any PP at all, as your shell shots demonstrate superbly.

Well, at least on the second look you would see that some PP was applied here, they don't look that natural. You might not easily guess what has been done but you can see that something was done.
In this case I was lucky to feel similar to you what the 'right' look would be on this one.

Goliath_UK wrote:
P.S. - Please don't think I'm a complete Luddite I do use HDR and PP myself, As Mike stated it's very handy in bad lighting.

Wouldn't have thought that for a minute. Luddites wouldn't touch a DSLR
with a barge pole, would they?

Prieni
How inappropriate to call this planet earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. - Arthur C. Clarke
Prieni's PPG page
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.