Re: Adjenda Items

["James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>]

Great feedback on the previously posted Adjenda Items.... keep it coming,
please... there are still a lot of folks who haven't given us their input,
please speak up and share your thoughts/opinions with the rest of us.

I know that I've already had _more_ than enough to say, but I'd just like to
update everyone on a few things:

D. Name of the Beast - We keep getting more and more suggestions - which of
course is great. Here is an updated list of what has been proposed to date:

1. The Aquatic Gardeners Association On-line Aquascaping Festival
2. AGA International Aquascaping Competition
2b. AGA International Aquascaping Competition & Showcase
2c. AGA International Aquascaping Showcase & Competition
2d. AGA International Aquascaping Showcase
2e. AGA International Aquascaping Festival
3. AGA International Millenium Aquascaping Competition
3a.The AGA International Aquascaping Show
3b. The AGA International Aquascaping Show 2000

Lots of variations - anyone have any others? Perhaps we should let it run
for today to get more input and then maybe I could ask everyone to do a
final vote via private e-mail tomorrow.

E. Entries - Acceptable Formats < warning - TECHNICAL >

Regarding my suggestion about 120 mm transparencies. This _really_ isn't a
big deal, as very few people will have SLR Rolliflexes or 'Blads. And while
I _have_ a 4"X5" View Camera, I seriously doubt that I'd attempt to
photograph an aquarium with it (although for 'Amano style' quality, it might
not be a bad idea...) So I'd have no problems if we specify that 35 mm
transparencies were the aim point if someone is thinking of submitting
slides.

On the issue of the format of Electronic Images, I wonder if everybody
_really_ knows what I'm talking about. This discussion started off as one of
a Web based contest. The Web, being still relatively young as a "medium", is
very limited as to the nature of the images which it can display (or should
I say that the Web browser software which most people use is limited?).
Computer monitors in common use usually display images at 96 dpi (dots per
inch - or, in computer terms, pixels per inch). The colour depth of the
monitor/operating system/browser are interdependent and range from 256
colours all the way up to millions of colours. The two most common Web based
image formats are the Compuserve developed GIF format, which is limited to
only storing and displaying 256 colours and the JPEG format which can
contain millions of colours within the image. For Web use, and for
photographic (continuous tone) images, JPEG is clearly the winner. But as
JPEG uses a "lossy compression" scheme/format for storing information,
opening and re-saving a JPEG format file multiple times can lead to very
quick deterioration of image quality. Not everyone knows this, and if
someone has a JPEG file and starts colour correcting it and adjusting the
brightness and contrast, re-saving it as a JPEG file multiple times inside
of their image enhancement software, each generation of the saved file will
contain less and less of the original information. I use Adobe Photoshop,
quite possibly one of the BEST pieces of graphic software made, and I can
see the difference for myself that even the top level of software suffers
from.

Again, for strictly Web use, this might not be much of a concern...nor
actually for publication on CD-ROM, as these are viewed using computer
monitors.

However, during our development of this idea, it was mentioned that we could
use these images (or rather, AGA could use these images) in other ways than
_just_ on the WWW. The AGA has a large percentage of members who do _not_
have Internet access, and the AGA's main vehicle is TAG, a printed
publication. In addition to publication in TAG, the issue of possible
publication of _some_ images in magazines like TFH, FAMA, AFM has been
discussed.

Print media enjoys a much longer history than electronic media, and has a
correspondingly higher level of technical quality associated with it. The
typical "Ink Jet" printer which most of us have sitting next to our
computers is capable of output at from anywhere from 300 dpi to 1200 dpi for
newer models. Professionally printed material, such as a glossy magazine,
might be printed at even higher resolutions. Both are _much_ higher in
potential quality than the typical computer monitor.

What this means for us, is that the image format we _start_ with should be
capable of meeting our needs for _whatever_ purpose we wish to put the
photos to. Erik or any of the folks with scanning equipment/image
enhancement software can always adjust an image _downwards_ in terms of size
and format, but it is _impossible_ to move in the other direction without
severely compromizing the clarity of the finished result.

Why I bring this up as an issue is the fact that many first and second
generation video still cameras, especially those models which were priced
within the range of the amateur, are designed to capture images intended
_solely_ for use on computer monitors/TV sets. The CCD's with which they
capture their images simply don't have the capacity to capture images which
can "cut the mustard" so to speak, when you start thinking about printed
copy, especially when compared to film format images. This situation is
rapidly improving however, and newer (and unfortunately more expensive)
cameras are getting awfully close in quality to more traditional formats.

Again, this is _really_ only an issue of me thinking ahead to what the AGA
_might_ wish to do with the photos. This contest is going to be a lot of
work to put together and to pull off, both for us and for the potential
contestants. I would hope that we want to be able to show people's
submissions in the _best_ possible light, in _whatever_ forum we decide to
display them in. As I think that a lot of folks might be kind of shocked to
see how poorly their image might reproduce in print (even though it might
have looked just fine on their computer monitor), I think that we have to
give very careful consideration to this point before we move on.

Erik obviously has much more experience than I do when dealing with Image
Enhancement software. I would like to hear from Neil Frank, Editor of TAG,
or possibly from Robert Day, who does the DTP for TAG, to get their take on
just what the minimum, as well as the optimum level of quality we should be
shooting for here.

It is either that, or forget the issue of printing the material after the
fact at all and just stick with a Web based contest. But there we run into
the inclusion/exclusion issue all over again and we have already had the
benefit of Karen's experience and opinion on _that_ matter.

None of this should be interpreted as me trying to cut people out because
their equipment is not "up to snuff", nor to intimidate people for a similar
reason. The people who enter this contest will be justifyably proud of their
aquascapes and want to show them off. They will have put a lot of effort and
thought into their submissions. It is up to us to think of things which
might not be obvious to them and to help them (and ourselves) avoid
embarrasing lapses down the road when it is too late to do anything about
it.

Remember as well that a number of folks have stated that they have
photographic equipment and would be willing to volunteer to take photos of
potential entrants in their area. We have folks in a lot of areas here and
there are lots more over on the APD who might be willing to help in a pinch.
Erik has also mentioned the fact that many clubs have members who are good
photographers.

That's more than enough from me for now.

James Purchase
Toronto