View Full Version : images that do not merit...
06-26-2007, 01:07 AM
Are images that do not merit at local competition even "worthy" of entering as a certification print? This image (below) did not merit at my local competition and wanted to know should I submit it for cert?
So, what exactly are the guidelines for submitting images for certification? I did a search, but did not find anything.
06-26-2007, 01:25 AM
That one whould do just fine. The want salable images with good exposure and composition. Figure on images scoring at least in the 70's in print comp. I can look at your images for you before you send them out if you wish.
06-26-2007, 01:27 AM
Thanks Michael! I will post some here and give you a call sometime for review before I send anything. This image did NOT get a 70 at NCPP.
06-26-2007, 01:59 AM
Were there technical issues with the print? It's hard to tell from such a small image, but the composition, sharpness and exposure seem to be at least close. In my (very limited) experience, prints that score in the 60s in local competition have significant, noticeable technical deficiencies.
But certainly a print that scores in the high 70s in local competition (assuming a decent jury crew) is worthy of submitting for certification.
06-26-2007, 02:30 AM
It may just be because it's on the web, but... I'm seeing some really sharp areas around the feet and the more I look at it, it looks like some selective blurring. If that's the case, I would start fresh with the original image!
06-26-2007, 02:39 AM
I am not a judge, but did administer CPP applications, and watched judging after unpackaging & laying prints out; I believe the judges are supposed to look at one's submissions, first as a body of work as they would be delivered to clients in the ratio of one's work. If one is 70% weddings, 70% of submissions would be weddings. If the body of work is not passing, and yes scoring 70 in local judging is a "guideline", then they look at prints individually.
06-26-2007, 05:29 AM
Thanks for the replys!
The issues from the judges for this image were that the lighting was flat and the technique that I used to blur the background was poorly done. I all ready knew I did not do the best job on the blur technique and I know how I am going to correct it so it is less of a selective focus and more of a depth of feild thing. They did not say much more.
Also, if I remember correctly, there were 2 or 3 masters judging. We have a tough crew here at my local. (Right Michael;) )
We have also went to a thumbs up / thumbs down scoring system so I have NO idea how much below 70 it got.
06-26-2007, 01:25 PM
As a C.P.P. Liaison, when asked I use the PPA Above Average guidelines. If you submit images that would score between 76 - 79 in a state, or higher, competition you should do ok.
With that said, I would not submit this image. The concept is excellent. I love introspective images ... especially of kids. But this particular image has problems. #1 Flat lighting on face ... flash or too much reflector fill ? #2 Shadow on neck above collar. (from flash or reflector ?) #3 Too soft. #4 He is too centered. Even for client work we should try to use the rule of thirds or at least get close. And when I've judged I've taken off points when kids are too big in the presentation. I would have liked seeing him half again as far away. #5 The end of the log he is sitting on is way too bright. If all the rest was good that could easily be toned down in Photoshop. As bright as it looks I once again ask if you used a flash or a reflector and that is why the log is so bright ... a result of lighting him ? #6 Finally, I see this as a horizontal ... the log is a diagonal in horizontal so I'd like to see a horizontal image.
I'd love to see you re-do this pose and post again !
06-26-2007, 07:27 PM
Great feedback Craig! After looking at the original again after some time has passed, it realy makes you see things different.
I think I only used flash with the lightspere and no reflector. My metadata say that the flash fired, but I don't always trust the metadata.
Here is the original with nothing done to it.
I also did a gaussian blur and the kodak airbrush filter, then masked the boy so he stayed sharp (which I know I should have done differently). I wanted the background to be soft.
Here's the image with nothing done to it (only default conversion).
06-26-2007, 08:05 PM
My metadata say that the flash fired, but I don't always trust the metadata.
FWIW, it definitely fired. You can tell just by looking at the light pattern on his face.