From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s2qm56pa8tdjebvln1mdmiekvh4hk49f19(a)4ax.com...

>>Your last sentence is exactly what I have been saying. My objection was to
>>your statement that
>>"Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>category."
>>I was simply giving some examples of categories to which your above
>>statement is inapplicable.
>
> It would only inapplicable in certain categories *within* certain
> groups if the group has categories. In the group PSA, it seems that
> the prohibition is across the board, although someone might argue that
> horizontal flopping is not rearranging elements since the elements of
> the photo remain in the exact same relationship to the other elements
> in the photo. An element is a part, and flopping affects the whole.
>

As I understand it, PSA only has strict rules in the nature and PJ
categories.



> Be an interesting question to bring up to PSA, but not one to bring up
> in your club. Never a good idea to start a debate in your own club.
>




The issue is not local to our club. It started from the body of which our
club is a member. Our club voted down the idea, but somehow our negative
vote was recorded as a positive vote. The board of our governing body
resigned over the issue.
We are a fairly small club, 65 active members. We have regular field trips,
that include at least one meal. so far we have had three this week. Many
members show up just for Sunday morning breakfast and then just go home.
Several of our members are going on a three week field trip in September. I
agree we try not to start debates, since most of us get along reasonably
well. Somehow our rule changes come about by consensus and are then
formalized.


--
Peter

From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 22:41:42 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:s2qm56pa8tdjebvln1mdmiekvh4hk49f19(a)4ax.com...
>
>>>Your last sentence is exactly what I have been saying. My objection was to
>>>your statement that
>>>"Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>>category."
>>>I was simply giving some examples of categories to which your above
>>>statement is inapplicable.
>>
>> It would only inapplicable in certain categories *within* certain
>> groups if the group has categories. In the group PSA, it seems that
>> the prohibition is across the board, although someone might argue that
>> horizontal flopping is not rearranging elements since the elements of
>> the photo remain in the exact same relationship to the other elements
>> in the photo. An element is a part, and flopping affects the whole.
>>
>
>As I understand it, PSA only has strict rules in the nature and PJ
>categories.

Those are both areas where I think that there should be restrictions
and limitations on editing. On flopping horizontally, though, it
would depend on landmark elements in the image.
>
>> Be an interesting question to bring up to PSA, but not one to bring up
>> in your club. Never a good idea to start a debate in your own club.
>>
>The issue is not local to our club. It started from the body of which our
>club is a member. Our club voted down the idea, but somehow our negative
>vote was recorded as a positive vote. The board of our governing body
>resigned over the issue.

>We are a fairly small club, 65 active members.

Our membership is up in the hundreds; about 500 if I remember
correctly. However, the average attendance is about 80 each of the
two nights a month we meet. Higher on competition nights or when a
particularly good program is offered. Of the 500, I would say that
something like 150 are really active. The other 350 pay the dues but
show up sporadically. I see pretty much the same faces each meeting.

>We have regular field trips, that include at least one meal. so far we have had three this week.

Three in a *week*? Wow. We have field trips about once a month or
month-and-a-half, but they only average something like 10-15 members
signing up. They usually have a meal. They are to local sites or
events.

>Many
>members show up just for Sunday morning breakfast and then just go home.
>Several of our members are going on a three week field trip in September.

We have some professionals that run (very expensive) trips for
members. One to Cuba was last month, one is being hawked for a
two-week trip to Canada, and one somewhere else but I forget where.
I
>agree we try not to start debates, since most of us get along reasonably
>well. Somehow our rule changes come about by consensus and are then
>formalized.

We don't seem to have floor debates, but the committees and the
officers are in charge of the rules. I don't know what goes on in
committee meetings or who button-holes what committee member or
officer. I stay out of that.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: J. Clarke on
On 8/5/2010 6:21 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:38:55 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "tony cooper"<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:id4m569khm721da7qug8bvu7rq6h24ep0l(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:12:33 -0400, "Peter"
>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not
>>>> so,
>>>> if presented as art.
>>>> Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of
>>>> the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a
>>>> pictorial.
>>>
>>> I make a distinction - a significant distinction - between "Street"
>>> and "PJ" (Photo Journalism).
>>>
>>> Street photography captures life as we see it...a man lighting a
>>> cigarette, people entering and leaving a subway entrance, a
>>> shopkeeper, a woman holding a baby. In street, we look for
>>> interesting scenes that usually involve people, but we capture them in
>>> whatever environment we find them. PJ captures newsworthy
>>> scenes...firemen fighting a fire, a potential suicide on ledge, and -
>>> of course - war scenes.
>>>
>>> In street, enthusiasts really don't think that distractions detract
>>> from the photo. A trash can in the photo? Leave it if the trash can
>>> is the natural environment. We don't change backgrounds or
>>> significantly alter the image, but some very minor editing is
>>> acceptable. Usually, though, editing is limited to the processing
>>> steps. I like high contrast black and white, so my photos might have
>>> more contrast than the actual scene.
>>>
>>> In PJ, it is unethical to edit in any way that changes what is
>>> pictured. Even cropping is frowned on if the cropping takes out
>>> something that might change the viewer's perception of what is
>>> portrayed.
>>>
>>> What you call "pictorial" (not a term known to me) is a completely
>>> different type of photography. There, we look for interesting scenes
>>> and we are free to make some minor alterations like taking out that
>>> trash can.
>>>
>>> I'm more in favor of taking out than I am in adding in. I have no
>>> problem with taking out a distraction, but I can't go along with
>>> adding in something to make it more interesting. If you have a photo
>>> of a bristling dog in an attack position, you can take out something
>>> in the background but you can't add in a cat as the dog's source of
>>> irritation.
>>
>>
>> OK
>> It's good to have definitions so we understand. Perhaps because I don't do a
>> lot of street photography, I really don't distinguish between PJ and street.
>> You are certainly correct in the context of your distinction about no
>> cropping in PJ.
>>
>> I define pictorial as any image that has been seriously manipulated. I have
>> no problem taking out of putting in. I will frequently change the sky, add
>> birds, etc. I will also do full or partial partial color reversals. I do not
>> represent any image as an accurate portrayal of the scene, unless it is. In
>> our club I had presented an image of a lighthouse. the judge commented that
>> it would be a stronger image if reversed. Under our local rules it would be
>> permitted.
>>
>> Since this is a hobby, I think it's OK to do whatever degree of manipulation
>> makes you comfortable.
>
> I'm gin player, and a money gin player. Not big money, but the game
> doesn't interest me unless it's so-much-a-point. The first thing gin
> players do, before the cards are shuffled, is define the rules. Is it
> knock, and is there a maximum count to knock? Deal one more card to
> the non-dealer or the same number to both players and turn a card with
> a choice taking it or drawing from the deck? Hollywood? How much a
> point, how much a box, and what bonus for a schnitz? And so on.
>
> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
> the "Creative" group.
>
> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
>
> I think I used this before as an example, but on this shot I'll
> process it to have the man facing right (to the view) no matter which
> way he's facing in the capture.
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/costco-011/708026915_sZDGm-XL.jpg
>
>
> So what do we call the photograph that is not street, not PJ, not
> pictorial/creative, not a landscape? Just an interesting photo of
> people, places, or things?

My view on this is that one should consider whether the photo is legal
record or not. Photojournalism, while not technically legal record,
should work under the same rules--reportage is supposed to be accurate.
The alterations which should be permitted there are very limited. If
you're entering it in a competition of some kind, then the rules of the
competition apply. If you're selling it commercially then any rules set
by the buyer apply. If none of those considerations apply, then do
whatever you feel like--it's your photo.



From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hr1n56t142g6o0q3cios274o5l0klr6uig(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 22:41:42 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>>
>>As I understand it, PSA only has strict rules in the nature and PJ
>>categories.
>
> Those are both areas where I think that there should be restrictions
> and limitations on editing. On flopping horizontally, though, it
> would depend on landmark elements in the image.


Whhile I completely agree, I've heard PSA judges state a stricter approach.
My personal solution is simple. If I've flipped the image, I don't enter it
where PSA rules apply.

>>
>
>>The issue is not local to our club. It started from the body of which our
>>club is a member. Our club voted down the idea, but somehow our negative
>>vote was recorded as a positive vote. The board of our governing body
>>resigned over the issue.
>
>>We are a fairly small club, 65 active members.
>
> Our membership is up in the hundreds; about 500 if I remember
> correctly. However, the average attendance is about 80 each of the
> two nights a month we meet. Higher on competition nights or when a
> particularly good program is offered. Of the 500, I would say that
> something like 150 are really active. The other 350 pay the dues but
> show up sporadically. I see pretty much the same faces each meeting.
>
>>We have regular field trips, that include at least one meal. so far we
>>have had three this week.
>
> Three in a *week*? Wow. We have field trips about once a month or
> month-and-a-half, but they only average something like 10-15 members
> signing up. They usually have a meal. They are to local sites or
> events.
>
>>Many
>>members show up just for Sunday morning breakfast and then just go home.
>>Several of our members are going on a three week field trip in September.
>
> We have some professionals that run (very expensive) trips for
> members. One to Cuba was last month, one is being hawked for a
> two-week trip to Canada, and one somewhere else but I forget where.

The trip is not professionally run. Just a few guys did some research and
decided to do it and invited any interested member to join them. Some are
flying out and meeting them just for a few days. No one will make any
profit.
Last year, twelve of us decided to go to a baloon festival, for three
nights. Many of us have found the club to be a social center as well as a
camera club.


> I
>>agree we try not to start debates, since most of us get along reasonably
>>well. Somehow our rule changes come about by consensus and are then
>>formalized.
>
> We don't seem to have floor debates, but the committees and the
> officers are in charge of the rules. I don't know what goes on in
> committee meetings or who button-holes what committee member or
> officer. I stay out of that.

Better off. I try to stay out of all political matters within the club. The
only thing I might get upset about would be if the club was to adapt a rule
that only shots taken with a Canon would be eligible.


--
Peter

From: Superzooms Still Win on
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 12:15:51 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:hr1n56t142g6o0q3cios274o5l0klr6uig(a)4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 22:41:42 -0400, "Peter"
>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>As I understand it, PSA only has strict rules in the nature and PJ
>>>categories.
>>
>> Those are both areas where I think that there should be restrictions
>> and limitations on editing. On flopping horizontally, though, it
>> would depend on landmark elements in the image.
>
>
>Whhile I completely agree, I've heard PSA judges state a stricter approach.
>My personal solution is simple. If I've flipped the image, I don't enter it
>where PSA rules apply.
>

What I don't understand is how flipping an image left/right is going to
ever improve an image. If the image has good composition, viewing its
mirror counterpart will make absolutely no difference at all (except in the
case of portraits, then it can ruin it). Is this "flip an image for better
composition" some misconception being spread by snapshooters? Those
desperate to find *anything* at all upon which to blame their base-amateur
level of photography?

Maybe this could be used as a good test. If your image looks better flipped
one way or the other then maybe your original composition was horribly
wrong to begin with. Yet to me, it would look equally bad both ways.