Single Image Competitions

[Barry Beckham]

I always get a little nervous when I hear requests like this to be included in PTE5, I have a similar view to requests for sound editing to be included too.

I think PTE5 is a superb product, but when software tries to be all things to all people, don't we then risk losing something. That old saying Jack of all trades, master of none, come to mind.

Software that does this is often over complicated, difficult for new users to find their way through the myriad of add ons and then doesn't do what it's supposed to that well.

There are already software packages that do the sort of thing asked, probably better than PTE could and they have the ability to keep league tables etc. Check our the camera club sites or the Photographic Alliance of Great Britain. They are bound to have some listed.

I have used two systems as a judge and they both performed fine.

[davegee]

You are right Barry - PTE is just the means of projecting the images and it does that superbly well.

The database side of things is just there to organise the images.

It should be possible though, for a parallel product to be designed for the purpose given the resources.

A lot of clubs use PTE for projection of images during competiton (ours included) but then have the organising problems if and when there is a need for elimination, disqualification, marking etc.

If Brian's (or anyone's) database can help with the organising of images then why not give it a try? It should not interfere with what Igor is doing. The main objection to PTE in most people's opinions seems to be in the area of colour management. Otherwise, it is the best product available for showing images for competition.

DaveG

[cjdnzl]

Hello Brian,

At this point I don't know the detailed answers to most of those questions; those I can answer are interleaved below. I decided to answer publicly because others may be interested as well. You can access the PSNZ website for more information on

http://www.photography.org.nz/index.htm

Colin,

Thanks for that News about PSNZ and this might be an oppurtunity to 'garner' some Research Data ?

May I ask the following questions:-

A)

How many Categories of Photographs will be exibited ?

I think two; Natural History and Open

How many Photographs per Owner are envisaged ?

Maximum two per topic I think

C)

Can an Owner's enter their Photographs in multiple Categories ?

Yes, but a given image can only be on one category

D)

How many 'Owner Age Categories' are there ? (Eg:- Children, Youths, Seniors) ignore gender.

One. There is no age discrimination

E)

Will the Presentation Formats be in Landscape or Portrait or a mixture of both and Odd Sizes ?

For prints, 16x20 maximum, matted or mounted. Projected images maximum dimension 1024 pixels - but if it's a vertical image they don't specify 768 maximum, which means potential resizing may happen. I am currently in dialogue with PSNZ about this.

F)

What 'Viewing Format' will be adopted:- 4:3 or 16:10 or a mixture of both ?

Any format within the bounds of 1024x768, a projector limitation. We would like a higher end projector, but data projectors are pricy here and we are a smallish club, about 40 members.

I would really appreciate your assistance in trying to tie up these parameters, and indeed if anyone else is

reading this, their input would also be appreciated.

No need to tie up this Forum Thread, just copy the above and send your answers via the Forum Messenger

EMail which can be accessed by clicking on My Profile.

Brian.Conflow.

[Conflow]

Colin,

Many thanks for your response to the Questionairre ~ it has gone into the Research Folder.

One thing is becoming very clear, there is a very wide range of 'Specification Diversity' in

Club Photo Competitions. I think thats very healthy because it reflects the 'gendre' of the

Club and its local ethos. I'm all for that, some would disagree and try to impose so-called

"standardisation" as if local activities were International Competitions, which they are not.

I will come back to you on this as more data becomes available.

Brian.

[davegee]

Colin,

The norm is to specify something like "The image must be a maximum of xxxx pixels wide and xxxx pixels high including any borders"

I would be interested to know what you and others do when the submitted entry is "oversized" and does not comply.

It would also be useful if you indicate if you agree with what is done and if not what should be done?

What is done when images fill neither the width nor the height of the "frame" - are they projected at actual pixels or fit to screen?

DaveG

[Big Kev]

Hi Barry - that is the problem - the PAGB and the camera clubs do not have a recognised program.....the PAGB I am led to believe are are apparantly going to use Adobe Bridge.

I am not asking for a database, league tables or any other sort of clever bit of kit....just an extra button or key stroke that can be pressed preferrably whilst projecting in the 'preview' mode that will attach a marker to that particular image. Then afterwards a way of calling up all the ones that have the marker - ie the best images.

These extra bits would not of course need to be used in normal picture shows......as some of the items are not used now - such as 'comments' and the 'printer settings'......

The addition of this extra function might just generate a great many more registrations worldwide.

I always get a little nervous when I hear requests like this to be included in PTE5, I have a similar view to requests for sound editing to be included too.

I think PTE5 is a superb product, but when software tries to be all things to all people, don't we then risk losing something. That old saying Jack of all trades, master of none, come to mind.

Software that does this is often over complicated, difficult for new users to find their way through the myriad of add ons and then doesn't do what it's supposed to that well.

There are already software packages that do the sort of thing asked, probably better than PTE could and they have the ability to keep league tables etc. Check our the camera club sites or the Photographic Alliance of Great Britain. They are bound to have some listed.

I have used two systems as a judge and they both performed fine.

[John R]

Hi Barry - that is the problem - the PAGB and the camera clubs do not have a recognised program.....the PAGB I am led to believe are are apparantly going to use Adobe Bridge.

Sorry, I am a Newby here and we appear to have two threads discussing the same thing.

This issue is my reason for being on this Forum.

As I have said elsewhere the primary requirement of any program used to display images in a competition is that it is displaying them exactly as the author intended. PtE v5.5 appears not to display a 1024 x 768 image precisely, the older version now available on the website I think does. This is the result of my own experiments with both versions.

Is is also said that PtE is not colour aware. I do not know how to test this. I would assume this is OK if all the images for your competition are submitted in sRGB. But this is a nuisance - what do you do about images which are NOT sRGB. To make it a requirement and disqualifying incorrect entries may result in upsetting a lot of entrants because, at Club level anyway some have trouble even with sizing.

I think Bridge was used by the PAGB in the Great British Cup but you can get problems with images which have already been "flagged" before. The Federations are using a variety of programs.

[John R]

I would be interested to know what you and others do when the submitted entry is "oversized" and does not comply.

What is done when images fill neither the width nor the height of the "frame" - are they projected at actual pixels or fit to screen?

DaveG

I think you must ensure that the program used for display resizes images which are too big. One of the first Nationals for PDIs was the Vale Of Evesham. They say that the image will be viewed 1024 x 768 and therefore is best submitted at that size, their actual limit is 3000px. The 3000px image will not look as good as a 1024 when viewed at 1024.

The L&CPU caused consternation when they asked for images smaller than 1024 x 768 to have a black border to fill up to 1024 x 768. Those of us used to software which displays against black anyway were puzzled, but it can cause problems and you don't want your images displayed against white - this is a killer!

You certainly don't want images to be enlarged either - that will destroy fidelity.

[bjc]

This is an interesting topic ~ one that I am eagerly following.

I think v.4+ could quite easily (?) be modified to meet the basic requirements of ‘Knock-out’ Competitions ~ (no need for the animation features of v.5+, nor the improved engine).

Programming a ‘keystroke’ to perform a variety (or sequence) of computer tasks is far from unachievable, to people such as Igor.

We can already assign our own personal preferences/settings to Mouse Clicks, image events and Button presses etc in PTE, so projecting that forward to the inclusion of optional keystrokes is not too big a step.

The ability to assign user-selectable tasks (from a list of available options) to, for example, the ‘F’ keys or the Numeric Keypad, could open up endless possibilities.

Taking it as far as the fully organisational data base concept may be demanding a program re-write, but adding basic user-selectable options to keystrokes may be doable.

That said, potential sales figures (just one copy each per Photographic Society/Group ?) may not offer all the necessary incentive needed to justify the amount of work that would undoubtedly be required.

I would like to see it happen, but somehow doubt that it will.

Who better than Igor to develop such a program ?

bjc

[davegee]

Hi John,

Once again in this posting you have failed to qualify what you mean by:

"PtE v5.5 appears not to display a 1024 x 768 image precisely"

Could you enlarge/explain this?

DaveG

[John R]

Hi John,

Once again in this posting you have failed to qualify what you mean by:

"PtE v5.5 appears not to display a 1024 x 768 image precisely"

Could you enlarge/explain this?

DaveG

Sorry Dave, but I have posted so many messages about this issue to so many people and there are two threads going here too!

I mean what I say. A 1024x768 image, displayed with the computer output set at 1024 x 768 does not appear any different to a 1400 x 1050 version of the same image - and it should be more detailed. It seems that this problem only exists in v5.x, the v4 available now on the wnsoft.com site seems OK.

[John R]

I would like to add that I hope Igor takes note of "bjc" remarks.

Next to fidelity of display we need a facility to manage the images, move them around, delete them etc and this should not be too difficult. I have heard of PtE being used for this - in Project mode. I have yet to try that myself.

Personally I can do without numbers appearing on the images and fancy databases of results - a spreadsheet can see to that.

Display accuracy is a minefield. It appears no projector manufacturers are prepared to help and a I am told that Vista can change display setting without you realising it (the PAGB have just orederd two computers WITH XP, for that reason).

No doubt we will look back in five years at this issue and chuckle a bit - it will all be sorted - but it is a bit of a pain getting there.

[davegee]

Quick reply:

If you mean that you are comparing two images at 1024x768 and 1400x1050 in the same presentaion / preview where both fit to the confinements of a 1024x768 output then I can understand.

The 1400x1050 image is being INTERPOLATED DOWN to 1024 width (or is it 768 height?) and therefore a loss of quality/detail is only to be expected.

If you display both at "ACTUAL PIXELS" or "ORIGINAL" then there should be no quality losses but you will lose some of the 1400 image. However, since the 1024 version has already been compressed/interpolated to a greater degree than the 1400 version aren't they going to look different anyway?

DaveG

[fh1805]

To my mind (and here I'm speaking as an ex-Competition Secretary at my local Photographic Society and as the chairman of the sub-committee which established our principles for projected digital images) there are two main factors that should come into play when setting the rules for a competition of projected digital images (and I mean single images not AVs):

- the native resolution of the digital projector that will be used to display the images

- the colour space in which the images are presented

If images are prepared to a size greater than the native resolution of the projector they will suffer interpolation downwards with a consequent loss of definition (i.e. they will handicap themselves)

If the images are prepared in a colour space other than that which will be used to project them they will suffer colour casts/changes and that, too, will handicap them. If the entrants are daft enough to give themselves a handicap by not working in accordance with the competition rules, they don't deserve any sympathy when their entries get marked down.

Our rules in this matter are straight forward:

- all images are to be supplied as JPEG files sized to a maximum width of 1024 pixels and a maximum height of 768 pixels

- all images are to be prepared in the sRGB colour space

- the Competition Secretary reserves the right to disqualify any images that do not meet these criteria

At present, while the world of computing and HD TV is going through a period of flux as far as resolutions and aspect ratios are concerned, the only sensible option seems to me to be to work to the "lowest common denominator". If 16:10 aspect ratio becomes the norm - with projectors offering a native resolution that conforms to this aspect ratio, then the rules should be changed when the equipment used gets upgraded/replaced.

Until then, why complicate matters?

[cjdnzl]

Quick reply:

If you mean that you are comparing two images at 1024x768 and 1400x1050 in the same presentaion / preview where both fit to the confinements of a 1024x768 output then I can understand.

The 1400x1050 image is being INTERPOLATED DOWN to 1024 width (or is it 768 height?) and therefore a loss of quality/detail is only to be expected.

<snip>

DaveG

If an image at 1400*1050 pixels is shown full screen on a 1024*768 projector, then it is clear that the image has been resampled by either the presenting software or the projector.

I should think that the resampling should be done by the presenting software using a high-quality resampling algorithm, say Lanczos or one of the newer hybrid algorithms, in which case the loss of quality will be imperceptible.. Leaving it to the projector could be asking for trouble.

For simplicity, I think the rules for the competition should state the projector's native pixel size and the colour space that will be used, and no more. It is up to the entrant to make sure his image/s are optimised for those parameters, or accept the consequences.

Colin

[davegee]

Peter and Colin,

Peter’s model is an interesting and very valid one, but just as there is no standardisation in projector resolutions at this time there is also no standardisation in competition rules within the various clubs.

Consider the case of a club who, like many other clubs, have since before the days of digital competitions given judges the entries up to two weeks before the actual competition. The advantage of this is that all adjudications SHOULD then be “considered adjudications with helpful comments” and not snap decisions based on one viewing. In digital competition this also avoids the need for “holding back” images for further viewing.

These clubs then agreed with judges wishes to have the original digital images supplied for viewing in their own packages as well as in PTE EXE files. (Heaven knows why – they never ask for negatives).

So the situation is now that the person who puts in “oversized” images has an advantage – more pixels, no re-sizing etc. and the judging is not taking place on a level playing field. Also, Peter’s perceived “handicap” no longer applies because the judging is not taking place on the PTE version but on the original images which have not been subjected, in some instances, to any interpolation whatsoever.

AJR is also in the same boat – see his post in the other thread.

Colin, when you say:” It is up to the entrant to make sure his image/s are optimised for those parameters, or accept the consequences” in the scenario I describe this does not apply.

Remember, in the days of prints and slides, the old saying that a “Good A3 will always beat a good A4”?

It is a similar situation.

Hence the need, in my scenario, to disqualify or reject oversized images and make sure that a level playing field exists.

DaveG

[John R]

Quick reply:

If you mean that you are comparing two images at 1024x768 and 1400x1050 in the same presentaion / preview where both fit to the confinements of a 1024x768 output then I can understand.

The 1400x1050 image is being INTERPOLATED DOWN to 1024 width (or is it 768 height?) and therefore a loss of quality/detail is only to be expected.

If you display both at "ACTUAL PIXELS" or "ORIGINAL" then there should be no quality losses but you will lose some of the 1400 image. However, since the 1024 version has already been compressed/interpolated to a greater degree than the 1400 version aren't they going to look different anyway?

DaveG

And my point is that the 1024 x 768 should look better than the 1400 x 1050 when viewed at 1024 x 768 and yet in v5 it DOESN'T. In V4 it does. Therefore I feel V5 is not mapping a 1024 image correctly.

[fh1805]

John,

You still have not made it clear in what way PTE is not giving you what you expect.

Are you saying that in PTEv5 the 1024x768 prepared image when viewed at 1024x768 looks as bad as the 1400x1050 prepared image?

Or are you saying that the 1400x1050 prepared image looks just as good as the 1024x768 version?

To simply say that both images look the same in PTEv5 is telling us nothing of any value in furthering the technical aspects of this discussion.

How about zipping the images and the PTE projects and posting them so that we can all see exactly what it is that you're talking about?

[cjdnzl]

Peter and Colin,

Peter’s model is an interesting and very valid one, but just as there is no standardisation in projector resolutions at this time there is also no standardisation in competition rules within the various clubs.

Consider the case of a club who, like many other clubs, have since before the days of digital competitions given judges the entries up to two weeks before the actual competition. The advantage of this is that all adjudications SHOULD then be “considered adjudications with helpful comments” and not snap decisions based on one viewing. In digital competition this also avoids the need for “holding back” images for further viewing.

These clubs then agreed with judges wishes to have the original digital images supplied for viewing in their own packages as well as in PTE EXE files. (Heaven knows why – they never ask for negatives).

So the situation is now that the person who puts in “oversized” images has an advantage – more pixels, no re-sizing etc. and the judging is not taking place on a level playing field. Also, Peter’s perceived “handicap” no longer applies because the judging is not taking place on the PTE version but on the original images which have not been subjected, in some instances, to any interpolation whatsoever.

AJR is also in the same boat – see his post in the other thread.

Colin, when you say:” It is up to the entrant to make sure his image/s are optimised for those parameters, or accept the consequences” in the scenario I describe this does not apply.

<snip>

DaveG

It doesn't apply because the judge in your scenario is not viewing the images according to the competition specifications, as you say above. If the rules for the competition state that a 1024*768 projector shall be used, then all pre-viewing and viewing of entries must be done accordingly, including by the judge/s. It is not on for a judge to view entres on a monitor at, say, 1680*1050, or other dimensions larger than 1024*768, and the competition organizers should make that clear to the judge.

Perhaps the answer here is for the rules of the competition to state that oversized images will be resampled using a good quality algorithm, e.g. Lanczos in Irfanview before being viewed by anybody. The parallel with prints doesn't really exist, since prints are inherently available for immediate viewing, and cannot be changed between viewing and judging, whereas digital images can come in a variety of forms, and all require further work to be viewed, by loading a CD or an image file from the internet or off a memory stick, etc. Further, images are subject to variations in color balance, brightness, contrast, etc. due to being viewed on different equipment that may or may not be profiled to sRGB standards. This is more analogous to the judges viewing negatives rather than finished prints. Unlike prints, a digital image is never final.

My opinion here is that the rules should state exactly what is required, and what will happen to submitted images if they do not comply with the rules. All viewing and judging should be done only by projection with specified equipment, color profiled to sRGB standard.

There is no doubt that considerably more work will be required of the organizers, and there will be a learning curve for those not knowledgeable about digital matters.

Colin

[MikeL117]

Hi All

Just a few comments from my point of view.

First for anyone thinking of using Bridge to display competition images DON'T. Bridge is a browser and is not optimised to display the slideshow well. It seems to filter the high frequency components from every image it shows regardless of whether it needs to resize or not. So all images will appears slightly soft at best and any with a lot of fine detail will be obviously damaged.

Lightroom, on the other hand, does a superb job of displaying the images and seems to do a subjectively better job at resizing than Photoshop.

PTE also does a superb job at display and resize. As it does not colour manage it can't mess-up the colour if there is a fault in the profiling but it does require all images to be saved as sRGB (not necessary to be embedded) for them to look correct. Although Adobe1998 will often look OK for most images, ProPhoto will look awful

The problem with pre-rated images in Lightroom (and Bridge) and be overcome by selecting all images and setting the rating to zero (and flags to off) before starting the competition.

I have not done objective tests at 1400 x 1050 but subjectively I can say that they are far superior to 1024x768 when using PTE versions 5.1 and 5.5 although I have not done a direct comparison between Version 5 and Version 4.

A point on resampling that I know a lot of you will be unhappy about, but I urge you to actually try it under real conditions, if it is done well (as PTE and Lightroom do) it has NO significant effect on the judgement in a competition. It is FAR better to fit to screen (maintaining the aspect ratio) than to show a small image with actual pixels or a cropped part of a large image. People do make mistakes, not every entrant has a full understanding of sizes in pixels. In club level competition it is more important to give all the members a good show of the images and content and composition should be more important than absolute technical quality. I know if I were to send the wrong size to a national or international comp (there are so many different sizes specified) I would want my image to be shown the full size of the screen rather than postage stamp or a corner even though it will not be seen at its best quality – only I would know it could be better, it would be my own fault.

Yes, we should minimise any “messing” with the image and make sure that the messing that is done causes the least damage to the image. Any one who is concerned that their image must be only shown at 1:1 with absolutely no resampling should make sure they supply exactly the native resolution of the projector filled to the edges with their preferred colour (and hope there is no digital keystone correction and the signal to the projector is fully digital and the graphics card hasn't been used to slightly rescale the image and the software hasn't regenerated the pixels to suit some internal format and the software is mapping the image you supplied at 1:1...)

I would worry more about profiling and calibration which will really mess up your image if the organisers have got it wrong.

Colin raises a good point about judging conditions. It should not matter in higher level competitions as all the judges should see the images by projection under the stated conditions at the same time. For club competitions where a digital entry may be sent to a judge for marking before the competition, the likelihood that this judge will have a correctly calibrated system with the same native resolution as the intended final projection system is very small. At our club we are seriously considering not sending digital images out to judges (even embedded within PTE) for this very reason.

Mike

Competition Secretary - Oldham Photographic Society

[davegee]

You guys certainly have a lot more faith in judges than I do!

I agree 100% with Mike's last paragraph.

DaveG

[John R]

Hi All

Just a few comments from my point of view.

First for anyone thinking of using Bridge to display competition images DON'T. Bridge is a browser and is not optimised to display the slideshow well. It seems to filter the high frequency components from every image it shows regardless of whether it needs to resize or not. So all images will appears slightly soft at best and any with a lot of fine detail will be obviously damaged.

Lightroom, on the other hand, does a superb job of displaying the images and seems to do a subjectively better job at resizing than Photoshop.

PTE also does a superb job at display and resize. As it does not colour manage it can't mess-up the colour if there is a fault in the profiling but it does require all images to be saved as sRGB (not necessary to be embedded) for them to look correct. Although Adobe1998 will often look OK for most images, ProPhoto will look awful

I have not done objective tests at 1400 x 1050 but subjectively I can say that they are far superior to 1024x768 when using PTE versions 5.1 and 5.5 although I have not done a direct comparison between Version 5 and Version 4.

Colin raises a good point about judging conditions. It should not matter in higher level competitions as all the judges should see the images by projection under the stated conditions at the same time. For club competitions where a digital entry may be sent to a judge for marking before the competition, the likelihood that this judge will have a correctly calibrated system with the same native resolution as the intended final projection system is very small. At our club we are seriously considering not sending digital images out to judges (even embedded within PTE) for this very reason.

Mike

Competition Secretary - Oldham Photographic Society

Thanks Mike, the info on Bridge is just what I am looking for.

Of course a 1400 x 1050 will look better; when viewed 1400x1050. At 1024x768 the 1024x768, correctly prepared for that size, will look better. This is how it should be. I am saying v5 fails to show this, Windows, Irfanview and v4 of PtE do.

On your last point I would say that the judge is not doing his job properly if he is not viewing the images at their correct size and using a non-calibrated monitor.

I think often it may not matter since subject, composition, message, meaning will be far more important than detailed quality of the image but we are setting parameters for the competition and we are honour bound to view the images at those same parameters.

Have you any experience of the any other software used for running competitions?