Re: Adjenda Setting (mostly on photo details)

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

I'm cool on A through C without any comments at all. I have a vote for D,
and some comments on E through G, since they were solicited. :)


On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, James Purchase wrote:

> D. Name of the Beast -

I like
> 2b. AGA International Aquascaping Competition & Showcase

> E. Entries - Acceptable Formats

> In the "small print" we can specify size ranges for both prints and slides -
> I suggest a range of 4"X6" - 8"X10" for prints and 35 mm - 120 mm for slides
> (that is, if Erik or someone else has the facilities to handle 120 mm
> slides - it would give me a chance to dust off my Rolliflex.)

I might know someone who can do this! :)

> Electonic images present a bit more of a problem. We are going to have to
> decide upon both maximum and minimum pixel size of entrant submitted
> material (I shudder to think of a 30 MB image file moving over the Internet)

If someone has the means to send it, I have the means to receive it, so I
wouldn't worry about specifying a max.  I will also be glad to process
CD's.

> and we are also going to have to specify a minimum bit-depth of image
> format, both for what may be submitted and for images that we shall convert
> ourselves (from any submitted prints or slides). Different computer systems
> have different "image format" standards - not all of them are compatible
> and/or easily convertible one to the other. Some formats, such as GIF images
> can hold only 256 colours, some formats, such as JPEG's, are compressed in a
> manner which drops information contained in the original image and can
> result in "blocky" images. 

I would suggest that we make *suggestions* or *guidelines* for good
digital submission (JPEG format, quality not below 75% (though 24-bit
TIFF, PPM, and Windows BMP are acceptable to me as an alternative; GIF is
to be avoided unless they have nothing better), minimum pixel resolution
640x480), and let people know that if they submit lousy quality scans,
they will be at a disadvantage for judging.

> The format/s we accept and/or use internally must
> be capable of holding full image information WITH NO LOSS, and should be

I beleive some loss is acceptable here; I often do re-JPEG of photos to
burn in a photo credit, so I think if they submit a 75% or better JPEG it
will be fine, especially if it's a large one to begin with.  Real-life
example: At 3500x2400 pixels, my slide/neg scanner pops out 25 meg TIFFs,
or 2.6 meg JPEGs that are very similar in quality.  I'd much prefer the
JPEGs in this case.

> common on Windows PC's, MAC's, and Unix/Linux systems (Erik, you run the
> KRIB using Linux don't you? With Gimp as your image processing software?)

Yes, the Gimp can pretty much read any format out there.  I think most
anything these days can spit out a JPEG.

> I don't want folks saying that they were planning on using their "Snappy"
> video camera to take the photos and that I am going overboard. I would
> _much_ rather see someone photograph their aquarium using traditional
> photographic equipment and leaving it up to Erik and the other scanning
> helpers to produce the required scans for use on the Web and in TAG.

I totally agree here; as a former experimental physicist, I'm a big fan of
unfiltered data.  I think we'll be able to do a good job with people's
photos (though you guys have grudgingly convinced me to give up the idea
of using & returning *original* negatives or slides;  it IS an accident
waiting to happen.)

> I have
> seen plenty of "electronic" images on people's websites which were taken
> with first or second generation video still cameras and they SUCK. They are
> blurry, blocky and not of "reproduction quality". You would be hard pressed
> with a video camera to match a 55mm Micro-Nikkor on 35mm Fujichrome or
> Kodachrome.

However, there are some people who don't have nice 35mm cameras either,
and others who have medium-resolution digital cams, so it will be a
balance.  Some of this will definitely be helped by getting the word out
to local clubs with a good photographer around.  I'm torn here, because I
don't want to intimidate anyone away from entering, but you're right, lots
of blurry things are no fun.

One nice thing, being this is an aquascaping contest rather than a fish
contest, is that people can take pictures of their tanks quite easily with
a tripod and bracketing the heck out of the shots with a manual camera We
could post some simple tips on getting good "still life" tank pictures
with the entry form (Oh, this is another topic isn't it... sorry!).

> F. Submission Elements / Constituents:
> 
> - Most folks have said that they favour multiple images per submission, in
> order to be able to get a better feel for the aquascape under consideration.
> Several gave specific numbers, both for maximum and minimum.

I think 3 is a reasonable average.  A hard limit of 5-10 will keep folks
from sending their entire roll to scan.

> species list, floor plan, etc. have been discussed. Jose (I think) doesn't
> like including a plan view but I think that from an educational aspect this
> will be vital

Jose, think of it less of a plan and more of a "legend" or "map". :)
It's more for the viewers, to see what plants are there.  Always drove me
nuts reading Amano's first book, you could never tell what the plants
were.

> G. Submitting Entries / Points of Contact
> 
> - All submissions are to go to ONE person/address. I believe that we have
> settled on Erik as that person.

Should be no problem with all the other volunteers we've got with
scanners.

> One thing which is not quite clear to me yet - for electronic images - do
> folks put them on disk and mail the disk to Erik, or send the images as
> e-mail attachments?

Yes.  Either is fine.

> Again, I'm concerned about huge image files moving over
> the Web, clogging Erik's in-basket. If we elect to have people put them on
> disk and mail them in, we will have to specify a compression format which is
> acceptable (like ZIP files).

Jpegs are usually already at max compression, so you can't zip them much
further. Don't worry about clogging that inbox; when you runs your own
hardware, you gets your own inbox.  I'll probably create a couple of
special accounts just for submissions and inquiries (the latter bouncing
to James).

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com