The 'May Flowers' contest Final 50

After being disappointed with last month's selection for the "April showers theme" final 50, I was not sure what to expect for this month's final 50. After looking through all 50 (but knowing my thought after the first few), I am very happy with this month's choices.....and no, my photo was not selected ;) Kudos to Pat who had a tough job this month! I look forward to voting but I know it'll be a difficult choice because there are many wonderful photos!

There are some beautiful pics in the top 50, gratz to those people that deserved it... but there are also a few that really make me question the judging of these photos.

I thought the emphasis was on creativity. Why do I even try? Seems like I could just enter any random photo and it would have just as good a chance as one that I really stretched the boundaries of creativity on. Wow, just wow.

All of the post production ones, although very nice, are questionable, too. It's a photography contest, not a Photoshop contest.

I have to admit, many of these photos seem shopped beyond belief, or maybe I am just naive to the possibilities of photography. I am drawn to the ones that look like the photographer really captured a moment, and didn't just crop, and add special effects after the fact.

I agree with Sean. The photos all seemed to have the same theme - lighting, up lighting, back lighting etc. I am a bit disappointed with the selection, and not due to my photo not be picked. i would have liked to seen some more diversity

I agree with all 4 comments. Although there are many beautiful photos that made the final 50, some look like they didn't even try. A few look like they were just walking down the street, and snapped a picture of a random road, that happened to have flowers there. I agree totally with all the photoshop comments. I always thought the photoshop was supposed to be subtle, so the viewer didn't know the photograph was played with after the fact.

I do agree with the fact that real photography has lost its value in the world. I just recently (this past Christmas) switched over from film to digital. I do not like the fact that people alter - I use this word rather than "enhance" because I feel it applies for most - their photos. Sadly, I have a feeling it is just the beginning of a new trend.

On another note, I'm glad this month there is discussion on the matter. I think that, for me, last month's photo choices were so disappointing I did not even want to touch upon the subject.

I agree with posts 2, 3, 4 & 5. I am disappointed with this month's selections.

I would agree with the "over-shopping" look to some of the images. What is more surprising though to me is that many of the selected photos seem to be rather mundane. Yes, maybe technically good, but on the rather trite side. My impression was that the image was to be of an abstract perspective of flowers. Many of the images seem to be quite commonplace.

Hello All,

As with anything in life, photography and its many variations of style is very subjective. For example, I drive through a very upscale neighborhood on my way to the office every morning and there is one house, probably 5,000 square feet, that looks like it belongs in Miami's South Beach more than a New England Colonial-style neighborhood. You can bet the owners think that it is a very beautiful home, as it has been this way for decades, and just as sure you can bet that there are others who think that it is an eyesore.

There are no right or wrong choices here. This is a subjective form of art and as so, is interpreted through biased eyes based on one's own experiences, likes and dislikes. Those who are charged with judging either by volunteering or by request are applying their perception of beauty, creativity and art to their choices. While I may not have chosen the same photographs as the sitting judge, I accept their decision as one based on their subjective opinion of what they felt matched the criteria for the challenge -- not as a skewed sense of right vs. wrong.

As for the post processing, I respect everyone's right to their own opinion. However, to be fair, post processing in the digital era, while offering many more features and capabilities than the chemical film process, is no different than someone performing the same effect in the chemical darkroom. Last time I checked, this isn't photojournalism where the shots must conform to strict rules on what can and can't be done to a photo because of the nature of the photograph. The name of this venue is RAW and by its very nature is the base foundation that allows for the most flexibility for expressing one's own beliefs as to what is art.

This is a hopefully a creative process for those who participate, and instead of creating a negative, judge-bashing blog, how about saying thanks for someone taking their own personal time to facilitate a learning tool for us all. After all, that is what this is supposed to be about, right?

Just a thought to ponder.

I wholeheartedly agree with Ponder This. It's very disconcerting to see all the negative comments posted, and it's hard to believe that the negativity isn't a result of your photo not being chosen.

I, for one, think the photos are amazing and beautiful. And I sincerely appreciate Teresa and Pat's hard work and effort to give some of us amateurs the opportunity to show our work.

I hope others of you out there will post some positive comments in support.

@Ponder this

Yes, photography like any art is very subjective, that much is obvious. That doesn't excuse some of the photos that made the top 50 this month. Here's a suggestion that I'm certain would result in a much more widely accepted top 50: Rather than getting a single judge (single opinion) to pick the top 50 from the initial pool of entries, have the community pick the top 50. Then, have your monthly judge pick the winners from what the community thought to be the cream of the crop. You're pretty much guaranteed to end up with winners that the majority of the community agrees on when your top 50 was chosen by a democracy and not a dictator. Why should someone miss out on the top 50 just because their entry didn't suite the taste of the judge, but was a favorite among the community? Seems a little back-asswards to me. It also eases the load on the judge, not having to look at and compare every single entry, I'm certain they all lead very busy lives like the rest of us.

And I'm not sure how you could possibly compare chemical film processing to digital editing. Yeah, a lot of the results are the same, but the steps from A to B are far from the same. If you rely on digital editing as a crutch to improve your lackluster photographs or hide the mistakes you made in-camera, don't call yourself a photographer, but rather a digital artist.

RAW (definition): (of a material or substance) in its natural state; not yet processed or purified.

I guess it was wrong to assume that a photography community with such a name didn't consider photos in their natural state to be the standard.

Haven't viewed the images yet, but agreed with Ponder this' comments.

Here are some of my old posts on post processing:

http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/2009/01/winners_of_the_december_tis_th.html

Some excerpts:

"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."

"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. "

"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!"

"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.

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

My guess that this blog's name RAW is in reference to the RAW mode available in the higher end digital cameras, and has no intent of wanting only "photos in their natural state to be the standard".

If so, a RAW capture MUST be post processed (even if it is perfectly captured in camera), before it can be used for any purpose. That's just the nature of the technology, and how RAW mode is designed and defined. I know of no photographer who shoots RAW, print from it or send it to a contest, without any post processing.

I prefer photo critiques over contests. With GOOD critiques, there can be a free flow of opinions and comments supported with reasons, however subjective. The submitters and critics can learn a whole lot more, without being bent out of shape by rankings, prizes, judges, etc.

@Sean
Having the initial judging done by "the community" at large in any of these contests only results in the initial 50 being a net result of those who could get the most people to cast their vote for their friend and would net you even more sporadic results. The whole point to this is to provide amateur photographers a venue to learn more about photography by connecting you to those who actually do this for a living. To learn, you must be willing to accept the fact that while you may think your work is terrific, the person charged with judging the challenge may not think so. If you don't like the process, then as with anything that you are voluntarily participating in, you can also choose to not participate.

As for the comparison of Digital and Film photography, if it weren't for those people who pushed the envelope of discovery, and from day 1, tried different chemicals, more exposure, and different bases, then the photography that you know today would be more like the camera featured in the Flintstones cartoon. I stated in my OP, RAW is the base format which gives you the flexibility to apply, nor NOT apply, any adjustments you wish. RAW is the base with which the most flexibility is achieved for modifications to be, or not be, applied. Just because it is the base does not mean that you should not grow.

Bottom line, no process is perfect. Personally, I don't think you should be able to submit a photo that isn't taken during the month of the challenge itself. Probably 50-75% of the photos posted are not within the month of the contest. By not requiring the photo to be taken in the time of the month it doesn't provide people incentive to go out and experience more and shoot, thus grow.

It is each person's choice to use tools available to enhance their photograph or not. It is NOT right or WRONG, but one's own choice. As such I think that those who berate and belittle people who use such processes are the ones who are WRONG in their approach.

People have a RIGHT to use techniques that are available and within the rules of the challenge they are entering. I don't have to agree with them, but it also doesn't mean that everyone else is confused and doing things the wrong way.

'nuff said.

I agree with 1-8 and think 9 & 10 misunderstand the others' comments.

It's not that we don't appreciate the efforts of those giving up their time to judge an admittedly difficult process, or that most of the final 50 are not very beautiful, because they are.

But there is also the kind of natural beauty that shows in a photo that was created without hours of photoshop work that seems to be missing. The best example I can think of is....if there were a beauty pageant, in which a few of the contestants appeared stunningly gorgeous without using ANY makeup, as opposed to the ones that spend hours and hours of work on their hair, face makeup, face lifts, etc. It's not that they are not all beautiful in some way. But the natural beauty in most people's opinions would usually win almost every time.

My sense is that you are hearing people expressing their lamentation of the loss of the talent and skills required to create art of natural photographic beauty that were prevalent before the digital age. Some digital touch up would be fine...maybe a little exposure adjustment here, or contrast adjustment there. Maybe even removing small blemishes. I have been into photography for over 35 years and had my own B&W and color darkroom. These are all adjustments that were normally made by photographers then, so I see no issue with doing the same now digitally. But I guess what we are all saying here is...enough ! Too much makeup ! : )

I love Sean's suggestion of getting the community to do the first picking, and the judge to select the winners from the top 50. Before the top 50 were posted I actually went through the 6 galleries and chose what I would consider the top photos of the nearly 300 entries -- amazingly, without intending to, I came up with 52. It helped me to really think about what I appreciate in a photo, and the process made me really LOOK. I would be hard pressed to narrow the group down to the top 10 or 3, and that's where I would like to hear the thoughts of a professional judge. Don't know if it's technically feasible to change how the process works, but it might be fun to test it out!

So sorry for assuming this community was for bringing together people that have a passion for the natural beauty that can be captured through the viewfinder. I guess I just feel photography and photo editing are not one and the same, and therefore shouldn't be treated the same. Obviously minor adjustments are often required to get the right white balance, etc., but that's different because it's stuff that could be done in-camera, just depends whether you prefer to spend your time in front of a keyboard & monitor, or with your nose pressed up against the back of a camera.

I'll take my photos elsewhere. I'm sure that's best for everyone. Good luck to all. Wasn't my intention to start such a heated discussion about what's right and wrong in the world of photography.

No need to leave, Sean -- such discussions are exactly what I want to see on this site, because they reflect the sorts of debates that go on in the world of photography all the time. There's room for everybody here.

Yes, the rules do state that photos entered in the contests can be post-processed, and some photographers, who like to experiment and create works of art that move beyond straight-forward photography, do more post-processing than some others do. And some months there will be judges who like the effects those photographers produce, and some months we'll have a judge who is less inclined to like such effects, much as you don't.

Nobody should read too much into the name RAW ... I didn't choose it because I wanted to encourage, or not encourage, a lot of post-processing. I don't really care how much post-processing anybody does -- it's an individual choice. I chose the name RAW partly because RAW is an increasingly popular file format -- still not widely used, but gaining -- and partly because JPEG was already taken! (JPEG Magazine is a great site, by the way.)

The bottom line is that there is no right or wrong here. Not to be cliched, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some like photo enhancements and manipulation; some don't. The site is designed to give serious amateur photographers a place to show off their work -- a place that gets a lot of traffic so their work is seen by many -- as well as allow us to see others' work.

I think we can do that while respecting each others' choices even when they differ from our own.

Huh. I thought the photos were amazing. Some better than others, but all in all, very nicely done.

Rock on shutterbug/shoppers.

Looks like Sean thinks he got a RAW deal...

I think # 16 explains the issue perfectly. I fully agree.

Hey, guys, complain a little bit more. It's not annoying at all.
lol @ Sean. What I take from his posts is: "I'M TAKING MY TOYS AND GOING HOME!" Good riddance then.

And really, aside from a few selective color photos (which, in my opinion, are quite clichéd and uncreative), there is some degree of post-processing in most of these. And really, none of those is very drastically "altered," as someone put it, at all.

Agreed with above.

I think the field is pretty great here. Someone said it lacks a lot of variety, I don't think that's true. I'd rather have most of this field than the 100 or so dewdrops+flower shots. I wouldn't have made all the same choices, no one may have. But I feel like this is a pretty good showing!

Thanks to Pat Greenhouse, whose job has been on the line as the Globe employees struggle with owners, for taking on this task. Thanks, too, for having a collection that is varied and, as suggested, creative. I am surprised there have been no comments about scans vs camera produced images. That's an issue for me, but an image captured by light is an image captured by light. I am more of a documentary photographer, but I loved watching this collection "develop" (pun), as I do every month. Visiting this site adds a bit of fun to my day, including the post selection comments. Stick with the current format. It works.

I like acoustic and studio music -- it's all music. With photography, I'm looking for the final, stunning result when it comes to images -- no matter how you get there. I loved the final 50 for the most part.

I recently came across a wildlife photographer while visiting Plum Island, He had a mega lens hanging from his camera and I commented on it. He replied that it's not the equipment used that makes a good photo, it's the photographer.

I think people are taking this and themselves a little too seriously. Hopefully Sean's departure will provide some much needed levity.

I agree with some of the suggestions for improvements but more importantly BIG thanks to Teresa and the Globe Staff for maintaining this blog.

It has been a very helpful source of information for an aspiring photog like myself. I love the contest element and while I may be a little peeved my photo didn't make the top 50 for this month, I'm past it and hopeful for my June entry.

How long before the voting machine will be up?

HI, wanting to vote:

Every month, when we pull the 50 Finalists into our Voting Machine using the Flickr API, there are always one or two photographers who have a setting on their Flickr account that prevents their photos from being found by the API. It's true this month as well -- there are two photos not showing up in the VM because of restrictions on the accounts.

(If you want to check your own settings for future reference, all the boxes on this page should be UNchecked:

http://www.flickr.com/account/prefs/optout/

I've written to both photographers asking them to change that setting, and as soon as they do, we'll be good to go.

I am amazed with this group of shots. I didn't even enter this month as I don't find myself to shooting flowers myself, but I absolutely appreciate the work of those who made the cut. Usually when I look at a top 50 there are one or two shots that jump out at me, this time there are a dozen or more that I would consider cream of the crop.

As to post processing and its use/overuse as my Dad says, you can’t polish a turd (only he’s a bit more blunt about it). It’s unlikely that a inferior image will become an award winning image thanks to post.

Well done to all. And I do hope that Pat Greenhouse does have a chance to share her comments/thoughts/insight about the 50 she selected.