I know perfectly well how jpeg images and digital photography work. The artifacts I am referring to are usually caused by editing an existing file. Some people were using inferior software or not realizing the high compression settings they were using. The purpose of this thread was to try to make members more aware of the problem so that they would have a better chance in the contest. Since originally posting this thread the problem has been significantly reduced.
yet a person with a 12MP camera will have no choice whats so ever but compress the image far more then someone with just a 6MP camera in order to fit it in the max size alowed by the rules.
with more pocket cameras as well as SLRs going far higher in resolution or MP size...this problem is only going to get worse in time.
You seem to think the rules are progressively getting worse. The contest rules have not changed significantly in years. As I always try to mention, I am open to suggestions.
personaly, no I don't think the rules are getting worse, just more and more unflexable.
Brad, you have to work within limits...I totaly understand.
but understand that the members here also have limits as to what they can and can't do in order to conform to the rules.
my point is maybe it's time to be a little flexable in what members are aloud to do, and what they can't.
fitting a full size image from a 20MP camera into a 2mb size image without artifacts is alot harder to do then from a camera with only a 6MP censor.
Are you suggesting that compression artifacts be ignored? If the quality of the photo is to be ignored, how do we decide who has the best photo?
not at all.
infact I think it's a good idea to judge all photos based on quality to a degree.
but understand that the rules can at times "tie the hands" of the photographer as to what he/she is able to submit.
let's take a look at rule #4, sec G "No image modifications besides cropping and resizing are allowed."
while I fully understand that many people here would clearly try to take advantage and totaly make their chameleon look far beyond what it normaly looks like...the fact remains that without a resonable amount of editing in order to make corections, not one photograph in the entrys are realistic.
(all of them have flaws or shortcommings in white balance, saturation, and other things...yet we can't edit them to make them better or more realistic.)
yet you do alow for image resizing...and this is something again that higher MP cameras will have a far harder time dealing with today and in the future.
yet my real point is...
if compression artifacts are so important, why isn't white balance?
why isn't color representation, such as tint and huges?
is noise a factor? if so, why can't we edit it out?
if the vibracy of the sky in an outdoor image is out of balance and looks "muddy" due to no falt of the photographer (but of the software built into the camera), why can't we edit it? isn't it just as important? (and why would you want us to post a photo with a fake looking sky?)
why, why, why, should we not be alowed to fix or get more detail in shadows and highlights due to poor dynamic range of our camera's pre-prossesing and censor.
...I could go on forever.
above all, why is compression artifacts far more important then the rest of the quality issues?
let's also remember that ALL .jpegs have been edited by the camera before it was recorded on the disk. so if pre prossesing is alowed, then why isn't "resonable" post prossesing alowed?
----------------------------
I also want to say to you Brad and others like Heika, that no matter what your thoughts are on the subject, I have no problem abiding by the rules that you make on such a contest.
I submit my photos for fun and to suport this great forum. I didn't even vote for my picture, and wont in the future.
I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else on this subject matter.
it's just that you can't have realism without digital editing, and it's my understanding that realism is what you are looking for.
maybe I'm wrong.
(side note: my simple compact point and shoot has far more features then most SLRs. so I'm in no way arguing the fact that my camera is poor in any way, and thus I can't shoot quality photos.
it's just that without "resonable" editing, NO CAMERA built today will save a .jpeg to disk with perfect pre-prossesing.
in fact, all photos, no matter how much you adjust the settings on your best camera, will never be perfect, or represent the subject in a realistic way.
it's not a matter that the camera in question has limits that can't be helped, it's that digital photography itself has limits that can't be avoided. thus the need to correct the filtered image from the camera is manditory in order for the final image to be close to perfect or realistic.)
one last thing before I go...
my thoughts on this subject are to be taken lightly.
I know full well that I don't always show enough politeness in the way I post.
please forgive me if at times I am posting something that seems harsh.
I mean no disrespect to you Brad, or anyone else.
one day I will learn how to post without seeming so rude at times.
with great respect,
Harry
