THE PP GAME!

Nope.. same message displayed. Oh well.
 
Yep.. that worked. thanks. NO idea why the other wouldn't.

:)
 
I opened 26, 28 and 30 straight into Photomatrix and played with the sliders until I ended up with an image that I was happy with.
Then in PS I straightened it and the damped down the sun with some clouds.
There was a bit of sharpening and then cropped a bit off the bottom.

Here is my go, nice shot Nick by the way:)

Click for larger

P1800826_28_30_tonemapped by Farmejim, on Flickr
 
As usual... priority one is to do nothing that destroys quality, no matter how cool it may look.

Exported darkest and lightest RAWs out of Lightroom 5.3 as 16bit TIFFs

Loaded light RAW into PS CC, and then the darkest one as a layer over it.
Selected Darker Colour as the layer blend
Added a levels layer to restore brightness
Added gradient over sky
Manual dodging and burning with Wacom Intuos 4 tablet

Flattened

Back into Lightroom 5.3

Perspective correct
Added +20 clarity
Added a custom Ektachrome Profile
Added 35mm film grain

Exported as JPEG 8 bit sRGB




Click for big
 
Last edited:
Well done Nick. (y)
I’m not very good at this HDR malarkey, so it a straight forward edit from me.

Using the midway image I opened in ACR, increased the sat to max, hit auto and opened in PS.
Entered crop, set to 4x5 and moved the main boat onto the third, cropped. Straightened up with the transform tools. Filled in the blank bits left from the crop with content aware.
SAVE.
Selected a bit of sky and copied and pasted into a new layer, stretched it a bit and moved it over the hot spot. Tidied up.
Flattened.
With an adjustment layer, I made a slight level adjustment.
Applied a layer adjustment with the photo filter adding a warm 85 at 40%.
SAVE.
Did a lot of dodging and burning.
Emphasized the sunbeams with the brush tool and a soft pressure sensitive brush. Using the colour of the orange glow on the skyline.
In a new layer added a grey grad form the bottom up to the buildings.
Flatten.
Reduced noise.
Made a border using stroke.
SAVE.
Save for web.


CLICKFURABIGUN. ANDAGENTAZOOM.

Rhodese.
 
Last edited:
Well this was challenging! :lol:

I've made a bit of a mess but it's all for fun and to learn more PP skills along the way :)


Post Processing Game by joshwainwrightphotography, on Flickr

Opened all in Lightroom to adjust WB and shadows/highlights, saved as TIFFs
Opened all in PS with Merge to HDR Pro, played about a bit with the sliders
Brightness, saturation, etc. (said I would take notes last time, woops!)
Cloned out a ghostly looking gull :p
Detail extractor & gradual ND filter with color efex pro
A little sponge saturation on boat
Ermmm.... oh yeah, obviously a crop at some point :lol:

That's about it, I think :p
I'll definitely take notes next time!
 
tried using ALL 5 files, converted with minimal adjustments, plus made 2 more from the darkest and lightest developesd at -2EV and +2EV respectively.

merged, but found this gave severe ghosting from the movement of the clouds and masts
ZefwYar.jpg


So went with my usual way, making 5 exposures from the 0EV file
-3, -1.5, 0, +1.5 and +3 EV
merged with SNS-HDR
X2WgDZS.jpg


Then PS to straighten and correct vertical perpective distortion

Lightzone to boost vibrance and lower luminosity in the blues

Giving this

CLICK FOR BIG
 
I kept the gull :)
 
I bet Jim has made a note for a future judging. Ay Jim. ;)

Rhodese.
 
Nick, what a nightmare I've had this round :bat: :LOL:

I still have no idea how to layer or blend two images together so I've just worked with one image.........

What did I alter in ACR?..............sorry, I forget to make a note or take a screen shot, so I'm not sure :banghead:

Anyway, I went for a bit of a 'moody' look to the sky

Then, because I was working with only one image I thought I'd crop a bit off the top, then clone some cloud over the blown sun and try balance the reflection on the water. All didn't seem to go too bad :)

Saved the image to jpeg only to realise, that for some reason, I'd cropped a bit from the left at same time as cropping a bit of the sky off the top :banghead: :LOL:

I can't be a**ed to do it all again...............

so here we have it, minus the front of the main subject, what a t***, don't ya just love the swear filter :ROFLMAO:


PP game by Phil D 245, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
A rarity for me this time...I've not cloned anything out - not even a gull. There wasn't one in the shot I used :(
 
I didn't see a gull .......................was it on the front of the boat? :whistle:
 
I edited P1800828 :p :D
 
Rhodese said:
I bet Jim has made a note for a future judging. Ay Jim. ;)

Rhodese.
Click to expand...
My lack of deep love for the flying rats will not influence any decisions in the future, especially as I don't intend to inherit PP King title any time soon, it's much tooo hard a job!:)
 
I didn't mean anything sinister Jim. :)
 
Last edited:
It has been a pleasure and a privelege to be able to enjoy, ponder and write freely and in detail about such a variety of renditions of one of my photos. Thank you all. For me as for everyone else in this position, personal preference obviously plays its part in what follows; I just hope not to offend anyone along the way.

Even after a lot of looking, comparing, analysing and enjoying, I still found it difficult to pick a winner and runner-up.


Preliminaries

I resized all the images to my normal viewing size of 1100 pixels high so I could compare them on a like for like basis.

After doing my initial assessment I listened (without any hints or comments) to what my wife said about each of the images apart from Phil's which had not been posted at that point; she partly confirmed and partly challenged some of my thinking, and where challenged I went back, looked again and reconsidered.

I uploaded several differently-exposed images and together with my comment about using as many or few images as you liked this seemed to me an invitation to try various approaches, including of course HDR, as indeed it turned out. This raised a couple of issues for me about which I took decisions before seeing any of the entries.

First, there was the issue of "realism". A rendition might look "realistic", like a photo, or might look "artistic", like a work of graphic art, or somewhere on a spectrum between the two. I decided to (at least try to) not favour any particular degree of realism, but to assess each image in its own right as an example of a particular type.

Separately, there was the issue "veracity", of being "true to life". Whether or not an image was realistic or artistic, it might to a greater or lesser extent seem to capture, or completely miss, some essential quality of the scene, at least as I perceived it. I did give a hint about the nature of the day and how it looked, but I decided just to observe out of interest whether any of the renditions did capture this in some way, but not to use this as a decision criterion. If a rendition looked good to me, I would not be troubled as to whether that was how I remember seeing the scene at the time.

Establishing verticals in the image was extremely difficult. Especially with all the masts and rigging at different angles, and the fact that some of the buildings have faces which step inwards slightly as they rise, establishing verticals for the buildings that are (a) actually vertical and (b) look like they are vertical, may in fact be impossible. These odd-angles issue seemed least apparent, and perhaps entirely absent, in David's, Rhodese's and Graham's versions. In thinking beforehand about what I would look for, I did hope to see the verticality issues dealt with, but when push came to shove it turned out to be a relatively minor issue compared to issues of light, colour, artefacts, clarity and the handling (or absence) of smaller scale detail.

Two of the reworks had white borders. I normally view images on a black background, but I found the white borders distracting against a black background. I tried changing the background to white. This made the borders disappear, but made all the images look less vibrant in terms of light and colour, and significantly less pleasing. It was similar, although less so, with a grey background. I wanted to give all the images the best opportunity to "shine" at their best, especially with the quality of light being such an important aspect of the image, so I reverted to a black background.


Your renditions of the scene

Neil - Flying Giraffe

Neil's version had a strong initial visual impact for me. That broiling sky! It looks like I imagine the sky might look on another, turbulent planet.
On closer examination I noticed a number of things that detracted from my enjoyment. There seemed to be a strange unevenness to the illumination especially in the white areas on some of the buildings (on the right, and centre left – the ones with vertical whites). This didn't seem to match the light sources. The illumination around the lifeboat looked a bit strange to my eye too, as if the light level and possibly saturation inside of an oval area had been boosted, affecting not just the boat and the water around it, but also the lower parts of the building behind it.

Even at 1100 pixels high I could see artefacts in sky in the centre above the buildings, and also a ghost seagull. I saw artefacts in the near water, a bit like sharpening halos, around the nearer half of the bright area cast by the sun.

I saw vignetting in the corners, especially at the top but also visible at the bottom, that I suspected had not been introduced to achieve a visually "focusing" effect, but was rather vignetting that is in the originals and emphasised by the processing.

My overall impression was that for my taste at least it had been "overcooked", producing some side-effects of the processing that I wasn't keen on.


Darren – Proud2btaff

I found Darren's version rather appealing from a distance. From one side to the other the sky had plenty going on by way of shape, light and colour. I liked the softness of the edge of the bright area in the sky. And I liked the gull being there amongst the masts. Overall the distribution of light in the image and the muted colours seemed tocapture something of the essence of the reality, which was of light breaking into a nonetheless still rather gloomy day.

Looked at from a normal viewing distance my eyes felt a bit uncomfortable. There seemed to be a softness across much of the image, especially in the sky and some of the buildings, that made parts of it feel almost "smudged. And below the sky the darker areas seemed too near to black and a bit too featureless for my liking. (Interestingly though, as I looked at the picture for longer these smudging and blackness effects receded – brain adjusting I suppose. But after going away and coming back to it later the uncomfortable feeling returned.)


Jim - FarmerJim

I very much liked the way the lifeboat looked in Jim's version – plenty of detail and realistic colours. The level of detail and sharpness was good for all the buildings and boats.

I sensed a slightly eye-troubling contrast between the buildings on the left, which seemed clear and detailed, like the lifeboat, and the buildings on the right, which seemed to have a lower contrast, less detailed look to them. (Perhaps wrongly) I couldn't convince myself that the illumination on them would have been different enough to cause that difference in appearance. "Almost like the two halves of the image were taken on different days" was the way my wife put it. I went back and looked at the originals, and although the lightest two of them did have a softer (and somewhat over-exposed) look to the buildings on the right, it seemed to me that by a judicious use of the middle image, in which the right hand side seemed better exposed, it might well to be possible to produce a more balanced and natural appearance.

If I covered up the bright area in the sky I liked the sky- nice variety of light, colour, shapes and amounts of detail. But I had trouble "reading" the bright area. I suppose it could read as a hole in the clouds behind which there were some further away clouds that were being brightly illuminated by the sun behind them. But I had trouble convincing myself about that interpretation.

Like Darren's version, Jim's captured something of the essential feel of the moment, light in amongst the murkiness, but with more more detail and micro-contrast than Darren had achieved, and holding up much better to closer scrutiny.

The nearer sunlit water appeared to have small-scale halos like I saw in Neil's version.


David - Pookeyhead

I very much liked the way David handled the bright area in the sky, seamlessly merging it in with its surroundings. A lot of the rest of the sky was quite high key, and low on detail and micro-contrast, but not necessarily the worse for that because of the many subtle gradations of light giving texture to the clouds. I did see graininess in the sky, especially towards the left edge and above the buildings on the left.

Nice again to see the gull, in this case with the lesser contrast moving a bit more towards texture than towards silhouette as in Darren's higher contrast version of the bird.

The image generally seemed to lack a bit of the clarity and sharpness of Jim's and Josh's versions. Some detail got lost in darker areas, for example the (in this case very dark) blue hull of the lifeboat.

The degree of lightness of the much of the clouds and water took the image away a bit from the "truth" of a "gloomy day with some light breaking through" view of things. However, my wife and I came independently to the view that overall this seemed the most realistic-looking of the renditions.


Rhodese

My first reaction to Rhodese's version was "Wow, I like that!" I was reacting to the sky, which I think is beautiful in its light and colours, with the bright area handled superbly in its content and its transition to the rest of the sky. The "god rays" stand out very well even though not of huge contrast with their immediate background – presumably their colouration is helping with this.

After the initial buzz I realised that things were generally rather dark beneath the sky, with a great deal of detail being lost in the darkness.
Was this a realistic image? I think it was credible, in the sense that it might in reality have looked like that. But I don't think it captured the essence of the look of the day, in terms of light or the colour; which involved some light and subdued colours amidst a low contrast gloom. In that sense I think Jim's version (bright area apart) captured more of the essence of it, as did (albeit more "artistically" than "photographically", and when seen from a distance) Darren's version.

A couple of other thoughts.
Although the white frame was narrow, I found it distracting.
I was fascinated that Rhodese achieved this result using just one of the images.


Josh – Joshwain

When looked at closely I thought Josh's version had good clarity, detail and sharpness in the boats and buildings.

My overall impression was of an image that sat somewhat ambiguously on the spectrum between photo-realistic and slightly painterly. My brain seemed unable to settle on a way of looking at it. This feeling was enhanced by a similar right to left asymmetry in the look of the buildings as I noticed in Jim's version. The building with all the glass on the left had great clarity and ("photographic") detail, and the building to its right only appeared less so I suspect because it didn't have such large areas of glass. In contrast the buildings on the right seemed lower contrast, more muted in colour, a bit "hazy" perhaps, with more of a "painterly" feel to them.

When I first looked at Josh's version my eye was immediately drawn to the lifeboat. It seemed to stand out, much more colourful than the rest of the image. Overall, my immediate impresion was of a picture of a lifeboat, with a supporting cast of smaller boats, buildings and sky, rather than an essay on light, colour and/or shape in an interesting sky. I don't have a problem with such an interpretation (if that was what was intended), but it didn't quite work for me, I think because as I looked at it more it seemed to me that the clarity and detail of the lifeboat was more to do with a left/right split in the image rather than a particular focus on the boat. Indeed, I increasingly found my eyes drawn to the truncated building on the left, for its even greater clarity and the interest of its reflecting windows.

Unprompted by me, my wife put her hand up and covered the lifeboat and the building on the left. "I like the look of that," she said of what she could now see. And I have to agree. And interestingly (and a bit confusingly given my earlier perceptions of a "painterly" look over on the right), looked at like that the image looked quite (photo) realistic. It didn't capture the overall look of the day, but it did look very credible, especially according to my wife in the "Scandanavian" colours of some of the buildings in the distance.


Graham – overbez

From a distance I liked the look of Graham's version. Like David's version, the sky was quite high-key, but with more colour and a little more detail and micro-contrast in some areas. This was another pretty realistic-looking image, apart from the quite strong magenta hue in the bright area of the water, which I didn't feel comfortable with, and which in turn led me to notice a magenta tint in some areas of the sky. This magenta tint was very much milder than on the water, but I still didn't find it a convincing addition to the colouration.

Looking at normal viewing distance I found the amount of noise distracting. There was pronounced luminance noise in the clouds to the left and and along the top of the low building behind the lifeboat, and on the white areas of several of the boats, including the lifeboat, there was heavy and very visible chroma noise. The white areas of the large buildings on the right were also very noisy.

I found the wide white frame very distracting.


Phil - Phil-D

I very much liked the initial overall impression I got from Phil's version. The colours are not true to life, but I found them very appealing, somewhat similar to Rhodese's colours, but coupled with a more even distribution of light around the image, leaving much more detail in the darker areas and a much lighter feel to everything beneath the sky. The clarity, detail and sharpness of the boats and buildings was good, with none of the left/right imbalance of Josh's and Jim's versions.

I really liked the handling of the bright area in the sky. The God Rays were relatively weak, but I suppose that was consistent with the moderation of the lightness remaining in the bright area. The rest of the sky was low in interesting shapes, contrast and details, not helped by the large crop at the top, which took out the area of the sky with most interest in these respects.

I felt the size of the crop at the top stopped the image being a sky study, turning it into a more "intimate"/"local" image of part of the harbour. This made cropping off the front of the lifeboat particularly unfortunate. With buildings and boats truncated to the left and right, including the lifeboat, and with the sky so reduced in scope, I couldn't really find any "compositional anchorage" in the image.

There was an apparent oddity in the bottom part of the image, at least to my eye – the bright area on the water. This looked rather unlike bright and potentially dazzling reflections of sunlight hitting water. In principle this was not problematic, given the extent of the "dampening" that had been applied to the bright area of the sky. However, it looked to me as if, in the midst of water rippling in the wind, here was a still area of water reflecting trees or bushes at the edge of a lake. I had a look at the originals, and couldn't see anything like this, and also noticed that the shadow cast on that area by at least one of the masts had gone missing.

As with Rhodese, I found the achievement from a single image fascinating.


Decision time

So, after all that, who were my winner and runner-up?

Winner, Rhodese. I could wish for the darker areas to be lighter, but nonetheless I think it is a very attractive rendition of the scene.

Runner-up, David, with a nicely balanced and executed, realistic-looking rendition.

Thanks again everyone. Over to you again Rhodese.
 
Here is my version, done before seeing anyone else's. It is one of six from that day, five captured in a 15 minute session at the Marina and one prior to that of a local church, in very dull light. All are multi-image HDR, and not really my sort of subject, captured as a quick technical exercise to give me something to work with to try out Photomatix Essentials, which I had just purchased. (I suppose I could post them if anyone is interested, although I'm not sure where. Urban I suppose. Or here perhaps.)

(For 1100 pixel high version click on image then right click and select "Original")


0514 3 2014_01_03 P1800826_27_28_29_30_fused2-Edit PS1 PSS3.19 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Put 5 images into Photomatix Essentials.

Set Remove Ghosts to No. (Odd that it worked. Don't know how come the gulls disappeared.)
Select Natural preset.
Set Blending Point 3.7, Accentuation 2.7.
Set Remove Noise to Yes
Generate image and save as 16-bit tiff.

Open generated image in Lightroom.
Contrast +20.
Highlights -55, Shadows +62, Blacks -15.
Vibrance +25
Remove Chromatic Aberration.
Lens Correction: Vertical -5, Rotate -0.3.


Send image to CS2 as 16-bit tiff in ProPhoto RGB colour space.
Warp bottom right hand and left hand edges to fill in missing triangles.

Standard finishing.
Slight defog: USM Amount 7%, Radius 30 pixels. Threshold 0.
Slight S Curve: 3 down at 25% across, 1 up at 75% across.
Resize to 1100 pixels high.
Smart sharpen, in this case Radius 0.3 pixels, Amount 35%.
Convert to RGB colour profile.
Convert mode to 8-bit.
Save as JPEG compression 10.
 
Well done Rhodese :clap:

Nick, thanks for the feedback :) Excellent write up again :clap:

I'm starting to think you get far too much pleasure out of this judging lark :D
 
Well done Rhodese :banana:and thanks Nick for what must be about the most detailed critique yet of the game :)
I liked that test Nick.
 
Well done Rhodese!!

Feed us with RAW goodness :)


Thanks for crit Nick.

One thing.. re: noise.. I did actually add a scan of 35mm film grain :)
 
Last edited:
I liked the cooler tones of the Ektachrome preset I used, so if you're going to make an image look like it was shot on Ektachrome, it may as well have the grain a 35mm Ektachrome would have :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
I liked the cooler tones of the Ektachrome preset I used, so if you're going to make an image look like it was shot on Ektachrome, it may as well have the grain a 35mm Ektachrome would have :)
Click to expand...

That's reasonable. I have no knowledge of what Ektachrome looked like, so it's all a bit lost on me. :)

As to the resultant look, it's a personal taste thing I think. It seems my desire for/tolerance of grain/luminance noise is less than yours. Not absent by the way, but less.
 
Aahh.... I cut my teeth on 35mm film. I think it boils down to that. Grain can be beautiful :)
 
Gosh, Nick what can I say that hasn’t been said before by winners other than thank you, thank you very much.
Yesterday morning when I had a look, I thought what chance do I have against this lot, some good techniques being used, and here’s me plodding on with an old school arty look.
Nick that has to be the best review ever. Thanks for making such an in depth critique.
Have you been a club judge at any time, your remarks have that feel about them, something nice followed by a but, and there’s always a but is there not.
Thanks again.
On to my challenge, another boat one, is it a B&W, well is it.
Over

2153-1389694593-1178504f8916b7319688da6f64371026.jpg


LINK.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6yqustadcv820xk/BOATS17.NEF

Rhodese.

EDIT...I was so overcome with winning I forgot to give a finishing line, I’ll call it late on Thursday morning.:)
 
Last edited:
Rhodese said:
Gosh, Nick what can I say that hasn’t been said before by winners other than thank you, thank you very much.
Yesterday morning when I had a look, I thought what chance do I have against this lot, some good techniques being used, and here’s me plodding on with an old school arty look.
Click to expand...

"Old school arty look", interesting. When I first saw your rendition the term "Old Masters" did drift into my mind for some reason (appropriately or not I'm not sure, I'm no expert on these things). I was thinking interiors and bowls of fruit, but there seemed to be a resonance all the same - colours and shadows I suppose.

Rhodese said:
Nick that has to be the best review ever. Thanks for making such an in depth critique.
Have you been a club judge at any time, your remarks have that feel about them, something nice followed by a but, and there’s always a but is there not.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've never been involved with clubs. I went to the local camera club once, but didn't like the atmosphere (starting with women sitting on one side and men on the other, which struck me as very strange. I noticed it straight away and didn't want to play that game, so I went and sat amongst the women. I think they all thought that was pretty strange!).

I have read several quite detailed discussions about critique over the past six or seven years (there's one going on here at the moment as it happens) and hopefully I have taken on board some of the sensible suggestions I read along the way.

One of the things that attracts me to this thread is the way people seem to be free and willing to speak their mind about both the technical and aesthetic aspects of images without rancour. In my experience that is unusual.

The first, small, forum I spent a lot of time on (defunct now unfortunately) had a really good atmosphere from this point of view. We discussed "CC", and came to use the term "Constructive Comments", which ever since has struck me as a good mindset to go into this with.

As to the amount of critique, well, I have the time and I can touch type, which helps. More importantly perhaps, I find it incredibly instructive to slow down and take the time to look, carefully, at other people's work. And with everyone tackling the same image you can keep going back and forth doing comparisons, seeing new things, and trying to work out why some things came out as they did. (And sometimes missing the point even when you've been told what was going on! As I did this time round. :oops: :$) Another thing is that I sometimes need to try things for myself, or go and do some research, to work out what is going on, or to get an idea about how to use a new (to me) technique for my own purposes; and that expands my photographic toolkit, which is great.

Someone in the thread I linked to said how instructive giving constructive comments can be; I agree, wholeheartedly (including when you are challenged in something you suggest). It can also (Phil :)) be enjoyable to give constructive comments; my wife has found that in responding to my images over the years, and now she loves this game.
 
(For 1100 pixel high version click on image then right click and select “Original”)


NOT MY IMAGE Rhodese BOATS Original-Edit PS2a Cl(boat)(post)WaCrPSS3.19 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

In Lightroom.

Exposure +0.60
Highlights +5, Shadows +100, Whites -7, Blacks -24
Clarity +25, Vibrance +25

Sharpening: Amount 54%, Radius 1.0, Detail 25, Masking 100
Noise Reduction:
Luminance 25, Detail 50, Contrast 0
Color 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50

Remove Chromatic aberration

Rotate -0.1
Vignetting +40, Midpoint 50 (to remove vignetting)

Send image to CS2 as 16-bit tiff in ProPhoto RGB colour space.

Clone out truncated boat on the right.
With a very small clone brush, reduce white-ish “halo” at the top of each of the three red sections on the pole.

Expand canvas on the left and the top.
Use Scale to expand the white areas up and to the left.
Crop

Standard finishing.
Slight defog: USM Amount 7%, Radius 30 pixels. Threshold 0.
Slight S Curve: 3 down at 25% across, 1 up at 75% across.
Resize to 1100 pixels high.
Smart sharpen, in this case Radius 0.3 pixels, Amount 19%.
Convert to RGB colour profile.
Convert mode to 8-bit.
Save as JPEG compression 10.
 
GardenersHelper said:
It can also (Phil :)) be enjoyable to give constructive comments; my wife has found that in responding to my images over the years, and now she loves this game.
Click to expand...

Nick, take my comment about 'you taking pleasure from judging' as a compliment mate, because that's how it was meant.:)

I'll be honest, being new to E11 and pp in general, winning the PP game a couple of times and the positive comments I've had, is very rewarding :ty:

Its already been said earlier in the thread, playing the game is a lot easier than judging. One of the main reasons for me is, I never really feel 'qualified'
if that's the right word, you just seem to do it with so much ease and enjoyment, hence the comment about the pleasure ;) :D
 
Hi all again, not had time for the game recently but thought I would dip a toe back in.

ppboat%20%281%20of%201%29.jpg


Initially tried recovering lost detail in the sky etc. but that didn't really work so took the opposite approach.

In LR4
boosted whites
increased clarity and added sharpness
lightened shadows a bit
used a brush to remove noise in the hulls and lightened them a little
played with exposure, whites and highlights until the sky and sea were nearly seamless.
cropped (after various experiments this central portrait crop seemed to work best)
resized and exported

In Faststone
Cloned out remaining horizon, stray duck and the two pink buoys.

That's it, lovely image to work on.
 
Phil-D said:
Nick, take my comment about 'you taking pleasure from judging' as a compliment mate, because that's how it was meant.:)

I'll be honest, being new to E11 and pp in general, winning the PP game a couple of times and the positive comments I've had, is very rewarding :ty:

Its already been said earlier in the thread, playing the game is a lot easier than judging. One of the main reasons for me is, I never really feel 'qualified'
if that's the right word, you just seem to do it with so much ease and enjoyment, hence the comment about the pleasure ;) :D
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top