Processing-Challenge Sign-up

[jordan2240]

<p>If you've been following the threads in the casual forum and this one, you'll know what this is about. In order to maintain some organization to the challenge, we only want to have one challenge photo per week, so if you respond here that you'd like to post a challenge photo, I will create a schedule. I'll post a challenge the first week starting this Sunday/Monday, and others will follow.</p>

<p>I had a brainstorm this morning on how to keep this as flexible as possible and fun for all. The poster of the challenge photo will determine what the challenge should be. If you just want others to show how they would edit it 'normally,' then simply indicate 'edit for print' or the like. If you want to post a shot of an egg and have participants see how they could use it creatively in their own photo, then state such. If you want to post a shot of a flower and have participants do their best 'Picasso' using only elements from the image, then let them know. Just make sure any challenge image posted is your own, and any image you upload as a participant is also your own. </p>

<p>Those posting variants can spend as little or as much time as they'd like on the editing of course, but try to have all edits in by Friday based on the Easter Time Zone of the U.S. Then, by the following Monday, the challenge poster should identify the variant he/she likes the best (if comfortable doing it).</p>

<p>So if you want to post a challenge photo, indicate such below, and we'll see what kind of life this has. </p>

<p>Bill</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Bill maybe you should add some guidelines for mini/max format and size of the uploads. Lex gave some useful elements in the earlier thread. <br /> Count me in as poster. Almost all my modest photos have an urgent need for post-processing !<br /> "Easter time zone" might happen once a year :))</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Anders,<br>

Ha! Gotta love those typos. Someone should write a book of those.<br>

I tried to post a TIFF as an experiment in a different thread, but it was too large and wouldn't post. Was from a 16mp camera. My thinking is that the challenge photo should be posted as a full-sized jpeg (i.e. no resizing from the camera file) for download, which will post as a link, and also as a jpeg that will fit in-line (ie no more than 700 pixels on the long end) for ease of reference. Variants can then be posted back as in-line jpegs, though a larger link can be included if the poster desires. I've seen posts where you can click on the in-line pic to view a larger version, but I don't know how that's done (did I mention I still have a slider cell phone?)</p>

<p>Someone who is more tech-savvy can probably suggest the best way for posting shots. I was hoping to get some input on that with the 'guidelines' post, but no luck. I also don't know what's acceptable to the photo.net folk. Don't want to use all their server space for these threads.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I am in, thank you.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Count me in, too. Looking forward to this, Bill.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

The photo.net guideline for photos posted on threads is keep photos to no more than 700 pixels on the longest side and under 300 kb.

[AJHingel]

<p>Concerning size, the shots Lex uploaded in the other thread (Casual forum) on the subject were jpeg files of 951kb and 700 pixel, so maybe 1000kb is a limit in that forum at least.<br>

Bill why don't you make a few test uploads of alternative sizes, just to make things clearer.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>I'm not quite sure what the size refers to. For example, for the image below, I simply pulled a copy of the raw file into PSE and resized it to 700 pixels wide then saved it in JPEG format at maximum resolution. When I look at the image size dialog box in PSE, it says pixel dimensions are 956k, but when I look at the file in Windows Explorer, it says it is 53.5kb. So, I'm thinking it's the file size we're talking about and not image size.</p>

<p>But my thoughts are this, the 'challenge' image should be loaded full-sized so it posts as a link (i.e. just save it as a jpeg and post without doing any resizing). This could be used as the downloadable image for others to work on. But you should also post a re-sized image in-thread for quick reference.</p>

<p>Uploads should be sized to display in-line so we can see the variations without having to click a link for each one. I realize this might make it difficult to see all of the detail, but I'm not sure of a better way to do it. Those uploading images could link to a larger version if desired.</p>

<p>If there is enough interest, the process can be refined as we go.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p><div></div>

[James G. Dainis]

The only photos I see by Lex showing on that other thread are this one<P>

 

 

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00cqbA-551296484.jpg"><P>

 

which is 700px x 464px and 302.45 KB and is just a bit over the suggested guidelines<P>

 

and another of the unaltered image which is 700px x 464px and 284.53 KB which is within the suggested guidelines. <P>

[AJHingel]

<p>You are right, James: When I look at the file above it is 310KB (in finder), and when I open it in PS it has a resolution of 300 pixel/inch and 700 pixel wide and pixel dimension 951K.<br>

Anyway, i think what Bill is proposing above is the best way forward. Full size upload in jpeg and a second re-sixed upload, respecting the 700 pixel limit. </p>

<p>Not in order to complicate things further, but can the administration be persuaded to provide us with the possibility of choosing a watermark on full sized photos when uploading, in order to protect copy-rights ?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Regarding sizes of photos in pixel dimensions, the 700 pixel width limit only affects whether photos *directly uploaded* to photo.net discussion forum threads will appear inline with the threads. Anything larger in dimensions will appear as a link. Again, this affects only photos that are directly uploaded to the threads.</p>

<p>Embedded photos - those that are hosted elsewhere, whether our photo.net portfolios or off-site - may be larger in dimensions but will automatically be scaled down to fit the 700 pixel width limit. The original photo is not resized. Only its appearance is scaled down. If the photo is opened in another tab or photo viewing software the original photo dimensions will be displayed.</p>

<p>Here's a 1500 pixel wide JPEG in my <a href="/photo/17867314&size=lg">photo.net portfolio</a>, dragged and dropped into this thread. It will be scaled down to fit the forum's 700 pixel width limit for displaying inline photos. But if you open the image in a separate tab/window or download it, you'll see the 1500 pixel wide version:</p>

<hr />

<p>*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17867314-lg.jpg" alt="My egret photo_June 15, 2005_NIKON D2H_LR4" width="1500" height="994" border="0" /></p>

<hr />

<p>For most practical purposes, photos submitted as candidates for editing should probably be a bit larger than 700 pixels. I'd suggest 1000-1500 pixels. At around 80% or better JPEG quality the file sizes will probably range from 300 KB on up, depending on image content, noise, sharpening, etc. The larger photos will make it easier for others to produce editing results with more finesse and subtlety. It's very difficult to edit smaller, lower quality JPEGs, and the results probably won't make anyone happy or be useful for learning purposes.</p>

<p>Again, the same uploading guidelines apply. If the photo is larger than 700 pixels in dimensions and directly uploaded, it will appear as an attachment that others may click on to view and download. If the photo is embedded and hosted on our photo.net portfolio spaces (which I recommend), the photos may be up to 1500 pixels width, and will conveniently appear inline with the threads. Participants can still download these larger JPEGs easily enough.</p>

<p>And, as other folks have suggested, off-site cloud storage could be used to host even larger files, TIFFs, etc. I'd suggest that participants use their own discretion here.</p>

<p>Edited photos re-uploaded to show results should be resized to 700 pixels wide or less. That will make it easy for everyone to view.</p>

<p>Regarding copyrights, etc., use your own discretion. If you're concerned about commercial potential, theft, etc., don't post those photos to these threads. You're not relinquishing ownership, but you are giving up some control. Same as always on the web, so that hasn't changed. You may attach copyright watermarks, but the editing process may obscure or remove those entirely. And you may embed meta data, but the re-saved and uploaded edited photo may have the meta data stripped out, depending on the user's software. We can't realistically expect every participant to retain copyright watermarks and meta data. So, again, use your discretion. For purposes of these exercises, perhaps it's best to submit only photos that you consider to have little or no commercial value, etc.</p>

<p>And overall I'd advise following Bill Jordan's lead on this project. He has a very good handle on it. Keep it flexible to encourage participation.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd advise <strong>following Bill Jordan's lead on this project</strong>. He has <strong>a very good handle on it.</strong> Keep it<strong> flexible to encourage participation.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Hear, hear!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Dropbox and any cloud storage would work as well. If anyone else can pitch in with some links to simple stuff like that and/or very easy to follow guidelines for using 'em that may help other folks who may not be accustomed to uploading full resolution photo files online - JPEGs, TIFFs, even raw files.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that many freebie cloud storage accounts are temporary and may expire after a few months or years. I began with MediaFire and a couple other freebie file hosts a few years ago to share my off-air recordings with other shortwave radio hobbyists. Most of those links are dead now.</p>

<p>But for folks who'd like help with editing of full resolution TIFFs or raw files, a temporary cloud host might be ideal. They'd probably prefer those links to expire after awhile anyway. Otherwise, photo.net portfolio spaces will accommodate fairly large JPEGs. I'm pretty sure we can upload larger than 1500 pixel dimension JPEGs too, for the canvas printing partnership deal, but I don't recall whether that's tied in with our email photodrop option or not.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I think that there will NOT be much of a problem if we just get the idea going and change the hosting site or other minor matters as the weeks of the trial continues.<br>

I think that there is enough of a scaffold to start the thing going and, on the other hand we could sit around for weeks discussing how to get it right "in theory". It is not as if there will be any great failure if it is a bit rocky for the first few attempts.<br>

That’s not a nasty comment. I am like that generally with any idea: I want to get a rough but well thought out scaffold and test it sooner, rather than later. I think that we are at that stage now.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>All, thanks for the excellent comments. I'm not very familiar with the alternate methods of storage, so my intent, when we get this started on Sunday/Monday, is to load a full-sized jpeg as a link and a smaller one in-line. Anyone who starts the thread in subsequent weeks (I'll notify those who volunteered of the schedule) can determine how they'd best like to post. Hopefully we'll get enough interest to keep this going for a bit and refine the process. I'm looking forward to the possibilities of what we might learn while having a bit of fun.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[AmyHelmick]

Just lurking for now, but I'll probably want to jump in at some point. This is a great idea!

 

Amy

[jordan2240]

<p>I've sent emails to Anders, William, and Michael scheduling them for the first three weeks in October. In case you guys didn't get an email, the schedule is as follows for now:<br>

Me - Sep. 28<br>

Anders - Oct. 5<br>

William - Oct. 12<br>

Michael - Oct. 19</p>

<p>If anyone else showed interest in posting a challenge photo and I missed you, or is interested now or later, please let me know.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Michael, my email to you failed to go, so hopefully you're following this thread. Not sure if you have a bad email linked to your profile here or if something went wrong on my end.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Here's a 1500 pixel wide JPEG in my <a href="/photo/17867314&size=lg" rel="nofollow">photo.net portfolio</a>, dragged and dropped into this thread.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, I'm doing a test to see if this works...</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12340992-lg.jpg" alt="Deer Lick" width="510" height="700" border="0" /></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>It works, YIPPEE!</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Been wondering when someone was going to start a thread challenge centering around post processing. Thanks to Bill for his efforts.</p>

<p>However, after participating in a similar thread over at Luminous Landscape on Raw files in the past several days there doesn't seem to be much interest or participation going by views and post.</p>

<p>It seems most are interested in debating myths about working spaces which garnered 445 posts and 10433 views, a subject that's been beaten to death like a dead horse over ten years from my recollection. </p>

<p>I swear, after over ten years online it's still bewildering to me trying to figure out what drives folks to the internet.</p>