PDA

View Full Version : Metallic for competition



Keith_A_Howe
01-20-2011, 04:47 PM
Got a first run print in today for our district competition in March. Tried printing it on metallic paper. It died. I wouldn't merit it because the detail is gone in several areas and it looks terribly underprinted. I had printed it myself on watercolor and it looks good. So I will reprint before entering. The moral of this story is not "don't use metallic". Metallic paper can be an excellant choice for certain images. The moral here is pick the right paper for the feeling you are trying to convey and get it printed far enough in advance that you have time to make changes if you need to.

Keith

Sandra_Pearce
01-20-2011, 06:42 PM
Keith, I used metallic on my Mermaid and it was sharp enough to work. I am
very careful about metallic.

Joe_Campanellie
01-20-2011, 07:29 PM
Keith is right. Metallic takes just the right image to work. When metallic first came out everyone wanted to use it on "everything". A lot of portraits just didn't look natural because of the characteristics of metallic paper.

I've been lucky with metallic and some of my nature images. But again you have to be careful because there seems to be such a fine line with this medium of looking great and losing detail and costing you a merit or worse.

The image I had this year that made it into the top ten GIA Awards in San Antonio was a metallic print. But the colors just worked for it.

Linda_Gregory
01-20-2011, 10:04 PM
I entered one image in Metallic and it did merit but in the critique, they mentioned the reason it did not go loan was the lack of detail in the dark areas. :) I am going to blame that on Metallic.

Joe_Campanellie
01-20-2011, 10:46 PM
Yeah...metallic seems to carry with it a fair amount of contrast. I've tried it on a couple of my eagle images which is probably a worse case scenario trying to maintain detail in the white and black feathers. For the most part have gone back to traditional papers for these images.

Nice thing about printing my own competition prints is that I can control any contrast problems that might arise.

Howard_Kier
01-21-2011, 04:03 AM
I just printed an image for use at a bridal show on metallic paper. It was the right image and received a wow from the person who received the 2nd copy. But I knew ahead of time I wanted the colors to really pop on the image and the metallic gave me that. Part of being a photographer is knowing which paper to use for various projects.

GregYager
01-21-2011, 04:35 AM
I just finished watching our state competition and I think about 80% of the entries were metallic. Many simply did not look good to me but they did score well. I chose to stay away from the metallic this round but it looks like I should've tried some in order to fit in.

Rick_Massarini
01-21-2011, 04:49 AM
Really !!!: :confused: :D :rolleyes:


For those who were not at the OurPPA.com get together at the Hyatt - ya had to be there to understand what the "Really!!!" remarks mean. Maybe Greg will start a "Really" thread. Go for it, Greg !

Keith_A_Howe
01-21-2011, 01:18 PM
I just finished watching our state competition and I think about 80% of the entries were metallic. Many simply did not look good to me but they did score well. I chose to stay away from the metallic this round but it looks like I should've tried some in order to fit in.

Were they metallic? were they just really high gloss which is kind of the standard for competition. I would be shocked to see 80% metallic. It would be pretty weird if almost everyone just spontaneously decided to use metallic because it's really not very popular in competition.

Keith

Joe_Campanellie
01-21-2011, 02:24 PM
And sometimes...when you have a panel of five judges...the two judges in the outside "cheap" seats...don't necessarily get the best view of a metallic print. Metallic can do funny things when those competition lights hit it. IMHO. Keith would know better on this.

Used to be Kodak had the corner on the market for metallic. Now you have Fuji who has a metallic surface on traditional paper and Lexjet who has entered the market with a metallic ink jet product.

Mark_Levesque
01-21-2011, 07:55 PM
My experiences with metallic for comp images have been hit or miss. It seems to work best on images without a lot of fine tonal gradations and images where flesh tones don't have to be accurate. Monochromatic images often benefit. It's kinda cool paper, but best used in moderation.

KirkDarling
01-21-2011, 08:17 PM
I had printed it myself on watercolor and it looks good. So I will reprint before entering.


So, Keith, will you likely be entering the image on the watercolor paper?

Keith_A_Howe
01-21-2011, 09:00 PM
Greg, Most images are on an F surface (glossy, saturated and contrasty) paper or on a paper and then laminated to a high gloss. Both can look like matalic's glossy look but they do not have the metalic (kind of mirror surface) under the emultion.

So, Keith, will you likely be entering the image on the watercolor paper? To be determined - might be velvet fine art paper.
Keith

Joe_Campanellie
01-21-2011, 09:04 PM
I have an image I w9ould like to enter on watercolor this year. Have to see on that. Did good at state but still need to send it through SEPPA first and see how it does.

GregYager
01-22-2011, 12:57 PM
Keith...My percentages are probably a bit off but yes it was actually metallic paper. A very high percentage of the black and whites were metallic. Not quite as high percentage of the color was metallic but much more than I would have thought. The impression I got was that it was a trend. Just not a trend that worked for me. I submitted glossy and lustre but now I'm starting to think I need to experiment with some other things such as the softer watercolor papers and maybe pearl. One of my images took Best of Show in November as a digital submission but fell short of meriting with a 78 as a print. I'm still confident with the image having merit potential but I know the lustre paper did it no justice.

My scores ranged from 77-78 which can be a bummer but the good news is that I'm enjoying photography again.

GregYager
01-22-2011, 01:13 PM
Really !!!: :confused: :D :rolleyes:


For those who were not at the OurPPA.com get together at the Hyatt - ya had to be there to understand what the "Really!!!" remarks mean. Maybe Greg will start a "Really" thread. Go for it, Greg !

I guess if I explained it without giving specific examples I could get away with that but I'm thinking it could possibly ruffle a few feathers if not handled with a delicate touch. For now I will give the short explanation....

I'm sure this is true with all competitions but while setting up the Image display we made it a point to try and learn from every image we handled. I guess you could say we were evaluating with an untrained eye. Some images made us say "Wow"....some made us say "I kinda see it"....some made us say "Really?!?"

Keith_A_Howe
01-22-2011, 02:39 PM
I' Some images made us say "Wow"....some made us say "I kinda see it"....some made us say "Really?!?"

Greg, No feather ruffling with that observation. That's the way it's always been. I judge prints that I don't think should merit but they still do because enough other judges on the panel disagree with me and the average carries the print. That's the reason why there is more then one on a panel, so you get a fair rating, where differing perspectives are equally weighed. It's real easy to walk through a print show and say "how in the heck did this print hang?" and have the few people with you chime in to agree. That's why print judging has no comments made until after everyone scores, so the judges are scoring based on their own evaluation and not comments they hear from other judges. If they are pretty much in agreement then the score probably stays. If there are a little wider differences of opinion then there is probably a challenge. That's when those opinions get voiced out loud. There still may be a judge or two who disagrees and their score still weighs into the final average but the print may still merit or not, even if one or two judges feel it should have gone the opposite way. That's what we want, a judging that IS NOTcontrolled by only one way of looking at things. So walking through a print show and seeing images you personally don't feel belong there is to be expected. If you looked at the prints and didn't disagree with any of the results, that would tell me you probably don't know enough about photography yet to form your own opinions on what is good or no, that you are being swayed just by the fact that it is hanging in the show. I am not surprised you disagreed with some images, it's what I would hope everyone does unless they are still star struck by the idea of a "merit" print.

Keith

gailcarver
01-26-2011, 12:25 AM
You know, I just took the judging workshop and it was awesome! It really helped me see differently. You don't have a lot of time to so you really have to start seeing deeper into a print. The different perspectives on the panel are crucial to the process. And there was an opportunity to see what happens when you see lots of average prints come through, and then an above average or even merit worthy print comes up! That was funny!

Now I want to watch evey judging event I can! Understanding the process, the twelve elements, and being able to talk about a print in more detail (under the pressure of time and peers) is so helpful!

Jeremy_Orr
02-11-2011, 06:20 PM
I'll fan the fire. :)

We (my business partner and I) each entered 4 images in last week's PPIowa print competition. Some were on lustre yet most were on metallic.

Metallic prints merited, scored well and placed (one 1st, one 3rd). Brian and I also each received top 10 non-master photographer plaques. Iowa is one of the toughest print competitions in the nation - the print lighting/judging standards used in Iowa are mimicked at nationals in many ways. (I'm just the messenger on that part - it's just what other masters and judges have told me)

I love to brag just as much as the next guy - but the main point is that metallic prints CAN do well in competition. There is no one-size-fits-all photo paper.

Jeff_Dachowski
02-11-2011, 07:18 PM
[QUOTE=iClick;248047]I'll fan the fire. :)

Iowa is one of the toughest print competitions in the nation - the print lighting/judging standards used in Iowa are mimicked at nationals in many ways. (I'm just the messenger on that part - it's just what other masters and judges have told me)

QUOTE]

Jeremey,
Congrats on your results.

I want to point out that this comment above, is said in nearly every state in the country, all regions and all districts. Everyone thinks they have the monopoly on difficult jurors. In reality, no salon chairperson, or print chair, or jc has ever told me to make the images score better. In fact they have always told me that they do not want to see 80's in their show that would not hang at Nationals.
Jeff

Jeremy_Orr
02-11-2011, 07:59 PM
[QUOTE=iClick;248047]I'll fan the fire. :)

Iowa is one of the toughest print competitions in the nation - the print lighting/judging standards used in Iowa are mimicked at nationals in many ways. (I'm just the messenger on that part - it's just what other masters and judges have told me)

QUOTE]

Jeremey,
Congrats on your results.

I want to point out that this comment above, is said in nearly every state in the country, all regions and all districts. Everyone thinks they have the monopoly on difficult jurors. In reality, no salon chairperson, or print chair, or jc has ever told me to make the images score better. In fact they have always told me that they do not want to see 80's in their show that would not hang at Nationals.
Jeff

I can tell you it's not smoke. One of the judges from a state in the SE stated she is very disappointed in her state - as they have switched to digital only and the quality of submissions is not near what she sees in Iowa.

Iowa is not the end all, be all - but we certainly are much higher than average.

Keith_A_Howe
02-12-2011, 12:51 AM
the main point is that metallic prints CAN do well in competition. There is no one-size-fits-all photo paper.
That was the point all along. You need to find the media (which paper and printing method or file entry) that perpetuates the story of the image. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each media becomes important to the success of the image. Because this thread was about metallic, I will reiterate one of the main charastics of metallic. IF your image has areas of white or near white there is a strong chance of your image appearing to have blown high lights because of the mirror like surface under the emulsion reflecting light back at the viewer.

I also judged some of the pearl metallic in Kansas City that seems to handle this issue better.

Any paper can do well on one image and it can really hurt another image.
This is why I really recommend ordering a 8x10 test print from the same image on different media to be able to understand the different characteristics of each. Try this on a high key, low key, contrasty and flatly lit images.

Keith

Jeff_Dachowski
02-12-2011, 12:24 PM
[QUOTE=Jeff_Dachowski;248054]

I can tell you it's not smoke. One of the judges from a state in the SE stated she is very disappointed in her state - as they have switched to digital only and the quality of submissions is not near what she sees in Iowa.

Iowa is not the end all, be all - but we certainly are much higher than average.
All righty. Good to know that Iowa has the hardest print comp!

Jeremy, on another note, who determines the awards at the state level? Is the print chair, or the panel?
Thanks!!!
Jeff

GregYager
02-12-2011, 01:28 PM
[QUOTE=Jeff_Dachowski;248054]

I can tell you it's not smoke. One of the judges from a state in the SE stated she is very disappointed in her state - as they have switched to digital only and the quality of submissions is not near what she sees in Iowa.

Iowa is not the end all, be all - but we certainly are much higher than average.

You're really discussing apples and oranges when comparing print submissions to digital submissions. When people are entering prints they are investing money in the print and in shipping the print therefore they're less likely to submit a weak case filler. In the case of digital submissions it only costs you time to upload a weak case filler and see how it does with the judges and no additional cash is being risked. This causes a competition with digital entries to appear weaker than one with print entries. I'm from a SE state and we allow digital entries but we also do print. I'm proud to say that in our State competition last month we only had one digital entry which was an out of state album entry. The rest were prints.

I'm curious btw, which state went all digital?

Joe_Galioto
02-12-2011, 02:16 PM
greg
i believe nj was all digital last year, didn't read this years rules yet
and i judged in pa also last year that was all digital also