Winners of the December 'Tis the Season contest

GREAT photos! Thanks for sharing them.

These are great - Mary's "Bog Hockey" was very deserving of first place!

I voted 1 and 2 in the reverse, both are worthy. Good job.

Well done, congrats to the winners!

Bog Hockey is a great photo but I don't believe that "fulsome" means what you think it means.

Hi, Jeff -- this is the meaning I intended, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

"generous in amount, extent, or spirit, as in, 'the passengers were fulsome in praise of the plane's crew'."

It also can mean "copious" (also fits here); other meanings include "exceeding the bounds of good taste" and "excessively complimentary or flattering", but both are less common usages today, and certainly don't fit the context here.

Once again, just like the previous months' winners, the first two both have stories to tell. The rest are pretty, but lacking any stories behind them. Tip to the submitters (who want to WIN): the judges here are photojournalists whose work are primarily based on storytelling!

While I like both winners this month, my preference is the second place one. The composition with the stark background, the big tree and the tiny figures is simple yet strong. The figures' colorful outfits contrast nicely to the rest of the image, which is almost b/w. The focus and dof are well controlled to show all the elements in fine details, and so is the exposure to prevent blowing out the snow highlights. I think that this image was captured correctly in camera, and needing little or no post processing work.

If I were shooting the first place image, I would have stepped a few paces to the left and a step forward for a different composition. It will chop off 1/3 of the current image at the left, and add 1/5 or so to the right in the new image. The tiny background figures would then be at the left instead of the center, and there would be more space between them and the foreground figures.

I also think that this image has some post processing dodging and burning. The sky is burned in (darkened) nicely, but unfortunately so are all the tree tops (also darkened). Similarly, the foreground figures' caps are dodged (lightened), but also unfortunately so are the areas around the caps lightened to appear as halos.

Hi, fairnsquare -- I appreciate your efforts to help out your fellow photographers, but I'd like to point out that Melissa is not a photojournalist, and has never worked as one. Also, while I do use Globe photographers as judges, my goal is to expand the universe of professionals so that I don't tap that department too much (they already do tipsheets and critiques for me).

I'm not so sure you can credibly argue that all of the winning photos have told a story. I wouldn't necessarily say that about "Green Eye" -- the close-up of the cat -- for example.

I really wouldn't want to see our RAW Dawgs try to cater their photographs to the judges. Rather, they should apply the principles they learn here on RAW, in classes, from fellow photographers, and simply by experimenting, and submit what they think is the best shot to match the theme.

Thanks for braving the elements to produce some very nice shots.

Teresa, I stand corrected. In fact, I posted my message after viewing the images and BEFORE reading the message text. Now I realize that in addition to the errors you pointed out, my critique of the second place image has many points already in Melissa's. My bad.

I am no fan of contests, and in the past I had encouraged submitters to show their work for feedback, and discouraged them from expecting to win. So my "tip" was somewhat tongue in cheek.

Instead of the Green Eye image, I was referring to the second place image, the Dog Face.

But I do contend that images with stories behind them tend to get more emotional responses from the viewers, and stay with them longer. Pretty images without stories only get visual responses, and soon forgotten. That's why I think that MOST of the past months' winners/runner_ups have stories behind them, regardless of whether the judges are photojournalists or not. Whew, hope I've clarified myself this time.

Wonderful images. Congrats to all the winners.

Hi All - I'd like to say how delighted I am to win second place and I'd like to thank everyone for all of their kind comments. Personally, I loved Mary's shot and I voted for it. Apart from it's obvious qualities as photograph, I liked the fact that it had a distinctive New England theme. When I took my shot, I was trying to capture the sense of wide open space - apart from the tree, the universe of the skiers seemed both infinite and unknown. I wanted to convey that impression. Shooting in a snowstorm is difficult - when I took the picture (about a year ago) I had very little experience - and I underexposed it slightly so I had to correct for that. I also (ironically, given the seasonal theme of the contest) cloned out an annoying blob of mistletoe that was sticking out of the tree and a water drop that had settled on the lens, luckily in an insignificant place. Would that correspond to fairnsquare's concept of minimal processing? When I got home that day my camera (a Nikon D80) was as wet as could be and I had to let it dry out for 24 hours. I don't recommend this, but it was OK, and the pictures that I took have become some of my all time favorites.

In case anyone's wondering what I'm going to do with my prize money - it will help offset the cost of a new lens.

Once again, many thanks to all.

Jill (amythyst_lake)

congrats to the winners!

Many thanks to Melissa and others for the comments/votes. There were a lot of great photos so I feel honored to have mine chosen.

Also thanks to Teresa/RAW for motivating me to use my camera for something beyond kid/dog/vacation photos (not that there is anything wrong with kid/dog/vacation photos).

Thanks Again, Tom (tkane11)

Great photos. Can't wait for the next theme!

Hi, fairnsquare: Yup, you're right; images that tell a story do draw emotional responses. I think we've gotten a great mix of photos on RAW so far.

And pc, the next themes are Cold for January and Black & White for February. Look in the right column for links.

Mary, Jill and Tom - terrific photos...congratulations!

Jill, I am no purist when it comes to post processing of others' or my own work. Post processing is an art by itself, in either a traditional darkroom, or a digital one. The range of skill (or many would consider pain) is almost infinite. Therefore one person's "minimal" post processing can be a monumental task for someone else, and vice versa. Here are my personal views on post processing:

- The better an image is captured in camera (e.g. good lighting and composition, correct exposure and focus, etc.), the less amount of work is called for in post processing.

- It is the final image that counts, regardless of the amount of post processing is applied. More on this below.

In a digital darkroom, one can spend forever post processing an image. To keep myself sane in this regard, I have given myself the following criteria for post processing:

1. It must not distort the "truth", e.g. if Jane Fonda and John Kerry are not captured together in the same frame, they won't be in the final image.

2. It must not make one part of an image better while making another part worse, (and can be caught by a viewer).

3. The amount of effort must be justified by how the final image will be used.

4. I must possess the tool and skill to do the kind of correction WELL, i.e. not violating #2.

I would consider your exposure adjustment and cloning out the mistletoe well within these criteria, and something I do routinely.

Come to think of it, post processing is kind of like getting a cosmetic surgery or applying make up :-) Natural beauties don't need much, or any! And those who don't do it well or overdo it can end up with dire consequences.

Teresa, I don't know where else to post this, but the RAW Dawgs may find this interesting:

http://www.lowellphotographyweekend.com/

I am not associated with this event in any way, shape or form.

WOW ... these photos are absolutely delightful. My personal favorite is the one that came in 3rd place because it reminds me of those warm, special Christmas mornings from my youth. My life partner agrees with the voters that the hockey photo deserved to win. He is a huge sports fanatic (it is almost impossible to pry him away from the TV when the Bruins are on). Let me wrap this up before I start rambling again : ) All of the photos are FAB U LOUS!!! Congrats to the winners!

Hi fairnsquare - I couldn't agree with you more. Even the best shots sometimes need work and it's an aspect of my photography that I'm trying to improve (I'm one of the ones who enjoys it). The two phrases that you used that resonated most with me were "it's the final image that counts" and "it should not distort the truth". Of course, what "the truth" might be depends enormously on where the picture lies on the scale between Documentary and Art. We could discuss this for hours!

By its inherent technological nature, almost all digital image captures require some degree of post processing, such as sharpening and white balancing, etc. Beyond these, the possibilities are limitless. Things I would not dream of doing in a traditional darkroom are now possible in my digital darkroom. But it is also easy to overdo it, or do it wrong. Besides, after hours of blurry eyes in front of a monitor, it is no longer fun. I want to go out and shoot instead!

You are absolutely correct about "truth" cannot be taken at its face value, hence it is put in quotes in my post. Understanding and separating the INTENT of a manipulated image is the key. Some examples:

The Jane Fonda and John Kerry example I cited has the intent to be "true" and to deceive. As a result, many viewers did accept it as "true". That's the extreme end of manipulation that I will never do.

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/faculty/light/kerryphoto.html

Photos of our presidents shaking hands with aliens from another planet have no intent to be "true", and are meant to be humorous. Viewers would have no problem accepting them as such. I have done something similar with my friends' photos needling them. They are, of course, no longer my friends.

http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-ufo/im-aliens/aliens9.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22bill+clinton%22+alien+photo&btnG=Search

Then there is this couple whose collage works span the traditional and digital eras. Their exquisite works are meant to be art, and no one will mistake them to be "true".

http://www.uelsmann.com/
http://www.maggietaylor.com/flash.html

There is a wonderful chapter on image manipulation (issues and philosophy, not techniques) in this book. The author happens to be a purist.

http://www.sjphoto.com/on-digital-photo-ann.html