Your pictures of the week: Derelict
How quickly the weeks pass. This time round I've been loooking at your pictures on the theme of derelict.
You can view the 10 that I've selected to show in a picture gallery here.
Let me know what you think by using the comments box below.
Congratulations to those whose pictures have been chosen - and if your picture didn't make it then why not try this week.
This time, we are asking you to send us your pictures on the theme: Uplifting.
Interpret this in any way you see fit and send your pictures to us at yourpics@bbc.co.uk or upload them directly from your computer.
Please include the word "Uplifting" in subject line of your message.
The deadline is midnight BST Tuesday 9 June, and remember to add your name and a caption: who, what, where and when should be enough, though the more details you give, the better your chance of being selected.
We will publish a selection of your photos this time next week.
Files should be sent as JPEGs. They shouldn't be larger than 10Mb and ideally much smaller: around 1Mb is fine, or you can resize your pictures to 1000 pixels across.
Please see our terms and conditions, but remember that the copyright remains with you. The pictures will only be used by the BBC for the purposes of this project. Finally, when taking photos, please do not endanger yourself or others, take unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.
Any questions or suggestions for future themes, please use the comment form and I'll get back to you.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Derelict is an adjective: try dereliction?
Complain about this comment
Why do you ask for JPEGs? These already have compression artifacts which will be added to when you compress them again. It would make more sense for people to send in pictures in camera raw or a lossless compression format.
I am amazed that nobody at the BBC understands how to prepare graphics for the web. Actually no, I'm not amazed.
Complain about this comment
maijajohnstone asks why JREGs?
Not to anticipate the BBC's answer, but I suspect two things:
1) not everyone understands the different file formats, or has a camera that takes RAW; and
2) given that the request is for files of about 10MB (which I completely forgot about in my rush to submit last week - sorry, guys), I suspect that in re-saving the file as (say) a TIFF would make other users forget compressing them at all.
I've never shot in RAW anyway, as when I started in digital in 2002, not all cameras could generate the RAW files; and even when I acquired a camera that did, I didn't have access to RAW converters. Plus I tend to take a lot of images when I'm out in the field, and half-way up an Alp is no place to fill up your last memory card.
I assume that the 10 MB limit is file size when the image is opened, of course...
Complain about this comment
All serious photographers use camera raw, and all serious cameras can save in it. The only reason why a professional photographer would save in JPEG is because - like the BBC - he or she doesn't understand what the JPEG algorithm does to images.
Complain about this comment
I shoot both RAW and JPEG. RAW allows me to keep the original image that I captured, while JPEG allows me to send work away instantly to whoever has commissioned it, and like has been been said, you don't want to be in the field and have to delete photographs because you've run out of space. There are positive and negative sides to every file type.
Let's face it though, not everyone who enters this competition will have the ability to take RAW. The BBC must accommodate those who would like to submit their pictures, but aren't a professional photographer. Whereas RAW is normally only found on either the latest, or high specification cameras, JPEG is universally available on all digital cameras and has been for several years.
Also, from what can be seen with the naked eye, there are no compression artefacts on the pictures in any of the projects, so it really doesn't matter.
Complain about this comment
So maijajohnstone - are you seriously suggesting only serious photographers are allowed to submit photos. Guess I am seriously excluded since my 10MP camera does not do RAW. I am seriously shocked and saddened by this. :-(
Complain about this comment
Thanks for all your comments.
maijajohnstone asks why we request JPEG files?
The reason we ask for pictures in JPEG format is simply that it allows relatively large pictures to be sent easily and quickly via email. You are free to shoot in RAW format, or indeed any format you like, including on film, but prior to sending to us you need to convert it to a JPEG. Yes I agree that JPEG removes data as it compresses and obviously this affects the quality of the image, but if used correctly it will be undetectable when the image is shown on screen.
All press photographers transmit their pictures as JPEGs. They may shoot in RAW, but the files they send back to their editors, and those we receive from the wire agencies, are all JPEGs. The loss of data this causes will only be relevant if the picture is over compressed, or you want to create a large print or use on the front cover of a magazine for example.
The pictures we are using here are 766x511 pixels which when saved via JPEG will result in a file at around 100-150K on the site. This means that virtually all cameras on sale today will produce images of sufficient quality.
Complain about this comment
The very fact that you expect people to send such large files by email is amazing. Don't you have an FTP site? I have a Nikon D50 which produces camera raw files which are about 8MB each, so this isn't really an issue.
"but if used correctly it will be undetectable when the image is shown on screen." I am not sure what this means. JPEG always removes information from the image: there is no way to get this information back. In any case, you have no control over the compression ratio which people are using.
"All press photographers transmit their pictures as JPEGs." That is even more amazing. It shows what a poor grasp of technology British newspaper editors have.
"The loss of data this causes will only be relevant if the picture is over compressed". As I mentioned above, you have no control over this, so yes, it is a problem.
"This means that virtually all cameras on sale today will produce images of sufficient quality." Any micky-mouse camera can produce images at that resolution. The quality is usually limited by the quality of the lens.
It still isn't quite clear why the BBC can't ask for its files in a form which doesn't damage the quality of the images - especially for a presentation using relatively large images where the defects will be obvious.
Complain about this comment
"are you seriously suggesting only serious photographers are allowed to submit photos?"
No, I am suggesting that photographers who are able to submit their files in a more sensible format are able to do so.
Complain about this comment
Hi !
Mmmm, the whole file format discussion it's kind of interesting...
Anyway... I like Choong Moon Ting and Caroline McArthurs work XD, those are the best, at least for me, of this theme.
Complain about this comment
Didn't realize that my photos were up against so many professional photographers with fancy cameras! However, I will keep trying with my Canon Sure Shot.
Complain about this comment
Dorothy - Don't worry about it: It doesn't matter! Your spirit and vision of the world supersede any pathetic raw HD result! Mainly at 766x511/150K! Don't let yourself put down by that "maijajohnstone" guy who by the way reveals not to be a professional nor very experienced either.
Signed: A pro (if photography as the only income means that).
Complain about this comment
"by that "maijajohnstone" guy who by the way reveals not to be a professional nor very experienced either."
Eh..Maija is a woman's name.
BTW, perhaps you could be a little more specific about what "reveals not to be a professional nor very experienced either" is supposed to mean. I presume that you are trying to write English.
Complain about this comment
Maija - Nice meeting you.
Complain about this comment
To Maija and other interested parties:
May I suggest that you experiment with resizing JPEG files and looking at the result?
My experience is that one can get very good results when resizing JPEG files to smaller sizes, even if the output is for print, although starting from the RAW files is certainly better.
For computer screen display, I doubt you could could tell the difference between a display-size JPEG that was made from camera-original JPEG or RAW files. (Then again, I have a high resolution digital camera.) ;-)
When I shoot for the web, I give the customer the JPEGs from the camera. This saves them the trouble of using whatever software is needed to decode the RAW files (there are differences in RAW files produced by different cameras) and they are always pleased with the result.
RAW files are the gold standard for large prints or magazine/catalog production, but I suggest that JPEG or PNG are fine for computer display.
A fun, free tool to play with is Irfanview (Google for it). Use the JPEG converter and play with the quality (compression) settings. See how much you can compress an image before you see artifacts. I do this kind of tuning on images meant to go on heavily-trafficked web pages so that they load quickly.
The nature of the source image will affect how much you can compress; text and high-contrast edges give the JPEG algorithm the most trouble.
Look at the file sizes of images used in web pages; you will get a good sense of how small the file size can get while still looking good.
Have fun exploring,
Dave
Complain about this comment
I agree with Mgp-Mapu, Choog Moon Ting and Caroline McArthur shots are my favorite.
My next exhibit will be with JPGs shots I took with my old Nikon D40, while a Metro (free paper) international photo contest was won by a man who shot JPG with a point-and-shoot camera. Cameras and formats don't matter; the brain behind the camera does (and so does efficiency in photojournalism's case).
Complain about this comment
The pictures seem to have dipped down into the typical camera club repeats and back slapping - and the comments worse than a FarceBook conversation. Oh dear - back to the darkroom.
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised people are demanding to send their photos in in RAW format. Being a web developer I would never use RAW on a website for several reasons. Size. They would take ages to view useless you have a T1 connection. Readability. Not every computer has the necessary codecs to view RAW. Size again. Web servers don't have unlimited space as for ever 1 RAW file you can have about 16 jpegs.
On a computer it doesn't really matter since your average monitor doesn't view greater than 72 dpi. Printing on the other hand then it's better to use RAW but you still have to convert to Tiff anyway or the printing presses might not read it. Besides who would want to give their original negatives away anyway?
I use RAW and covert for web purposes. No problem with it. Sounds like snobbery to me.
Complain about this comment
As a regular viewer to this page, thank you all for your comments on RAW & JPEG! As a complete amateur photographer it made interesting reading! And for those worried that the 'professionals' are getting in on the act, I can tell you all that amateurs do get their pictures shown on here as an ex-colleague of mine had hers chosen last week under the title of 'Hidden'! Well done the BBC!
Complain about this comment
What's with the bickering over irrelevant technology maijajohnstone? The BBC is a public service and serves the whole public not just the pretentious technocrats!
Complain about this comment
I think it would dull down the tone and make it less interesting if only photos from dlsr cameras by so-called professional photographers were used but I don't believe that ever would be the case. Anyone can take amazing photos with pretty much any camera out there on the market right now. I do use a DLSR but my most favourite photo I've ever taken was on a 2 megapix cameraphone!
I must say I do agree with other posters about Choong Moon Ting and Caroline McArthurs. Lovely work.
Complain about this comment
I feel that maijajohnstone has missed the point of this blog. It is to take great pictures and share them. It is not to do with the technology but rather the content. A great picture can be taken with a phone, a happy snaps, a D50 or even a professional camera. It is all about the content not if there is some digital blocking.
On the Jpeg front I do agree that submitting your pictures at the highest quality is a good idea. But for the BBC to ask for Jpegs just makes life simpler for them and everyone else.
The only real problem with the compressed format is re-compression (or digital concophany), as the BBC is only re-compressing the picture once, if at all, this again is not a problem.
Also as a final comment the BBC really does know what it is doing technically. It has set high standards that most other broadcast companies around the world try to follow, please don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise.
Complain about this comment
I believe that it doesn't matter what the format of a photo is (especially when viewed on screen), a photo is either great or its not. However If anyone thinks the format is important then i think it is only fair that we should all use the same then?
No one should be excluded from the competition.
I really like the photos of Linda Loughead, Choong Moon Ting and Jillian Russo.
Complain about this comment
Hi Phil - Congratulations for the fun you're providing! The way you address us seems personal, and we learn a lot from your choices.
_ I couldn't help noticing these 2 empty places at the end of the 10 thumbnails row, why don't you make it 12...
Cheers!
Dan
Complain about this comment
I love to watch these conversations unravel.
RAW - yes, they are the top rate 'format', purely because they are simply the 'raw' data from the cameras optical sensor, but however, is NOT a file format, it's the RGB values the sensor sees on individual pixels. EVERY camera interperets this differently, therefore the BBC would need to have EVERY proprietary peice of software from camera manuf's to interperet these as the camera engines would.
Anyone spending time with raw files will appreciate how flat they look, they don't haver white-balance applied, etc so suffer from color casts until corrected, have really poor contrast and saturation ( visually to the viewer at least ).
The in-camera JPEG processing resolves this, producing pleasing pictures for none photographers.
I use a 10mp Digital SLR, and you would really struggle to determine the difference between a RAW and JPEG in terms of quality until your looking at 30" prints.
In the same principle as a higher MP count does NOT make a better camera ( generally the opposite on cropped sensors ), shooting Raw does not immediately and undoubtedly give you clearer / better pics, a Jpeg through a highpass sharpening process in photoshop can give a much higher impression of sharpness than a raw file.
Therefore, send jpeg, everyone from beginner to pro can send in pics they are proud of, and as such trivially low res, you really are nit-picking over sharpness, how many people know the proper way to reduce the res and keep sharpness ?
So Maija, to me, in my personal opinion, you appear to be someone who's splashed out on a dslr and cheap glass, and found some article on the internet "shoot nothing but raw, blah" and swear by it without spending time behind the lens.
Everyone else, keep up the good pics !
Complain about this comment
This discussion is ludicrous, thank you ShampooMohawkMedia for putting the record straight!
I'd pity the poor BBC employee who opens his inbox to find it full of RAW images!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS