Please find me over there.

3 were rejected because they were of limited commercial value
4 were rejected due to excessive noise or digital artefacts.

So, now I have a much clearer idea of what standard and quality they are after. It is essential to view the images at 100% (or maybe more), remove all traces of noise (or better still, don’t shoot with any noise!) and really watch out for any artefacts. I suspect most problems were with my workflow and working with JPEG files. I’ve never had any need for higher quality than that, but i guess now I do.

So, for my resubmission, i’ll be selecting some alternative images that may have better commercial value, and for the remainder, taking the original RAW image, saving as a TIFF, and working on that, before finally saving as a JPEG as the last step of all.

Onwards and upwards, it’s all a good learning experience.

Also, today, i found another new stock site : www.picturenation.com I’ll sign up with them too.

So far, I’ve signed up for:

• Fotolia: http://en.fotolia.com/p/200767634/partner/200767634
  
• IStockPhoto
  
• ShutterStock
  ShutterStock – Check out My Gallery Here
• DreamsTime
  

I’ve also found some pages and software that look like they might be useful:

• Software for uploading to multiple microstock sites in one go : http://www.prostockmaster.com/
• Java script for resizing images : http://www.phototechniqueswiki.com/Article.aspx?articleID=34

I’ll update again when i’ve uploaded some photos for each of these sites.

Another good resource with some interesting pages and lots of helpful hints is Erin’s http://digitalphotographyformoms.net/ – with especially good instructions for installing actions for all versions of PSE.

So, the RPS Distinctions Advisory Day, what was it like?  In a word : Awesome

The day started with informal chat and introductions. It was great to meet some of the people with whom I had previously exchanged emails, and put some faces to names. Everybody was very kind and welcoming, and reassuring (I was very nervous).  There were about 40 people there in total, about 25 of whom were showing prints or slides, and the rest of whom were either judging, organising, or spectating.

I was informed that I would be the fifth person of the day, so I took a seat near the front and waited for things to get started.

The day started with each of the ‘judges’ (Vanessa, Nick and Tom) talking about what they are looking for when assessing L, A and F panels, as well as an introduction from the organizors.  This was an interesting insight into what is expected of applicants in terms of technical quality, visual awareness and presentation.  We then progressed onto viewing each of the participants panels.  As each person was called, their images were placed on a stand at the front, lit by two powerful lights to give a clear and bright view of the images.  Once the images were displayed to the participant’s satisfaction, the judges each took a turn in discussing the panel.  They were able to make suggestions about presentation and ‘panelling’, as well as technical quality of individual images, and help identify the stronger and the weaker images for each panel.

This feedback was fascinating and a source of excellent information – regardless of who’s panel was being discussed. I took several pages of notes from the day.  I found the advice to be both honest and critical, as well as supportive and encouraging. All of the judges found the time to speak to individuals during the breaks to provide further feedback and support.

I put forward the first panel below, along with four ‘spare’ images.  I was aware that as printed images, the 2nd and 4th on the top row were technically weaker than others, as they were a little soft in the main point of focus.  Vanessa noted this immediately, which confirmed my suspicion that I should consider replacing these, although she suggested perhaps image 4 (dandelions) could be reshot if possible.  She also made positive comments on my ‘spare’ image of the 3 Giraffes.

As well as the feedback and information from the experts, the other highlight of the day for me was seeing so many fantastic panels, particularly the A and F panels on display.  It provided a real insight as to what is required for the A and F distinctions, and how to start on the path towards these.  I came away inspired and motivated, and with a much clearer understanding of what will happen on the L Assessment day (and, I think, of what is required of me as an L applicant).

It was an exhausting day, but well worth it – I can thorougly recommend an advisory day to anybody considering applying for a Licentiate.

These are my two ‘alternative’ panels:

and

I’ve set up:

a gallery at www.ImageKind.com :

this one is kinda nice – it allows you to select images from your Flickr photostream and grabs the images over the Flickr API for your gallery, saving on tiresome uploading/organising time.

An account with RedBubble :

And a new BubbleSite gallery from RedBubble:

http://kajo.redbubble.com/

I particularly like the clean layout offered on the BubbleSites, and the fact that it integrates beautifully with the RedBubble shop for purchasing prints.

Two rows of five images

==========================================

ROW 1 : http://www.flickr.com/photos/kate-and-andrew/sets/72157606589841797/detail/

==========================================

ROW 2 : http://www.flickr.com/photos/kate-and-andrew/sets/72157606589878467/detail/

==========================================

What i do like:

• these are all, i think, representativeof my general style (in so far as I have any style)
• colours and light being big features
• they demonstrate a reasonable range of techniques and (i hope) technical competences

What i don’t like:

• the ‘bobbing up and down’ of the bottom row in particular
• combination of portrait and landscape format feels ‘uncomfortable’ to me.   I wonder if i can rotate the lighthouse steps (image 3, row 2) to be landscape?
• i’m not sure about image 1 on row 2
• I scored highly with this image on the OU ECA panel, but to me, it just feels like a lucky snapshot, nothing else. I’m unsure whether to include it.
• the dandelion isn’t technically great, i don’t think, the detail in the fluffy bits could be better, and i’m not sure this’ll blow up to A3 size particularly well.
• is the purple flower macro (row 1, image 2) too abstract?

So, i’d appreciate comments, all and any comments, any feedback or suggestions. Be as harsh as you want. I’m quite sure that this panel is nowhere near the standard of an L panel for the RPS yet, but i hope that i’m heading in the right direction. All and any comments, suggestions and constructive criticisms welcome!

I’ve had a little time to peruse it, and had a look at what I get for my membership. I was excited to find that I can choose one of the ‘special interest groups’ to join for the year (I’ll be going for the Nature group), and I’ll automatically become a member of my local Regional Group – and that my Regional Group seems pretty active, with plenty of events organised fairly locally.

I’m hoping it’ll be a great opportunity to really push on and improve my photograpy, keep me inspired and motivated, and broaden my photographic horizons. And of course, there are the distinctions.

On the OU T189 course, it said that those who do well in T189 may want to consider submitting a panel for the RPS Licentiate (LRPS) distinction. I’d already looked at many of the successful LRPS panels on the rps website and was in awe of them – they seem to far above where I am at the moment. But, having looked again, and looked at the support and encouragement offered by other RPS members, as well as the opportunity to attend local assessment days, I’m starting to think that this could be my major challenge of the year: To put together a panel for the ‘L’ distinction, attend an assessment day/workshop, and finally submit the panel to see if I can achieve the Licentiate distinction. I wonder….? What do you think?

I was totally shocked by my results. I was hoping for something between 70 and 80%, and for some decent feedback on what are my next steps to improve.

my thoughts on the my results are:

• I’d have liked an explanation/definition of what the ticks, blanks or crosses meant, for each of the categories.
• I got crosses for one image that the marker didn’t feel worked for them (image 7, the colourized berries image). I wonder, given that i got crosses, how could 100% be justified? Or was it that it was technically OK, but just that the marker didn’t like it? Even so, i’m surprised at 100% given the evident dislike for that image, or what i did to it.
• I’d have liked a little more general feedback on ‘what to do next’ – how to improve my images, do i have a ‘developing personal style’ that i could work on? (i don’t think i have yet),
• I didn’t understand the blanks/ticks/crosses for “Digital Artefacts”. It perhaps would have been clearer to break this down into two categories : “Good use of digital manipulation” (ticks for good use, cross when it should have been used and wasn’t, or was used badly) and “No Evidence of Digital Artefacts” (ticks when it was digitally sound, and crosses when there was evidence of unsolicited noise, bad cloning, etc)
• I’ve had flickr comments back from a couple of members who also mark on T189 (but didn’t mark my panel) who suggested they might have marked differently… I really appreciate them having taken the time to look at my images and comment. But I do wonder how consistent the marking was?
• The detailed feedback made a comment that “this feedback doesn’t reflect upon your overall score” (or words to that effect) – I don’t understand how it can be separate from the overall score – i’d have liked a bit more of an explanation of this.

I originally took the course because i wanted to improve my photography. I wanted a motivation and purpose for taking photos, and I wanted to be able to see where I was going wrong, and how to capture those stunning images we see so often in explore.

Did the course achieve this for me? Yes, for definite. I now am much more critical of my own images, and can go some way to explaining why some photos ‘work’ for me, and others don’t. I feel i’m still lacking the artistic skill to produce really outstanding images, but I suspect much of that is down to some innate artistic talen, ‘an eye for it’, that i’m not sure i have. But i’ve definitely imrpoved my technical skills and ability to look critically at my own images, and those of others. And i’m definitely more motivated. For me, it was £165 well-spent.

The course had its problems, and there were definitely areas for improvement. But the course team are keen to hear feedback and use that to improve the course for the next lot of T189-ers. In a year or two’s time, it’ll be a fantastic course.

And…if there was to be a T289 (second level) course, i’ll be signing up for it like a shot!