PDA

View Full Version : You be the judge


Lake Dogs
09-16-2009, 12:46 PM
Assume they smell the same, taste the same, and we have only the 1
category anyway, appearance. You be the judge. Judge ONLY the
meat. Dont take anything else (including garnish) into account. Think
to yourself, judging only the meat, score them on "how appetizing is it".
Does it look appetizing? Would it be something that I'd want to eat?


Picture 1:


http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss141/hance_patrick/Pickin_Chicken.jpg



Ok, now, Picture 2:

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss141/hance_patrick/Pickin_Chicken2.jpg



It's tough, isn't it? I try hard to be as fair and unbiased as I can
be, but honestly, it's tough not to say that one isn't more appetizing
than another... Mind you, not by a dramatic amount (they all look like
tasty chicken to me), but I think one is slightly more appealing...

Your honest first thought would be appreciated.

Midnight Smoke
09-16-2009, 12:48 PM
Both look good but the Pic 2 would look better with a colored background of some sort! Styrofoam only comes in white though I guess.

KC_Bobby
09-16-2009, 01:16 PM
I can't put my finger on it, but they look the same.

Skip
09-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Actually as shown there is no difference. I would score the same but this has the benefit of being propped up by the parsley in both pictures. What would the chicken look like if it was placed lower in the styrofoam. Would it be as neat?

lunchlady
09-16-2009, 01:21 PM
not to stick ya, Skip BUT...

"being propped up" or "placed lower" matters?

Funny, I thought it was about the meat.

Lake Dogs
09-16-2009, 01:23 PM
Maybe I'm wrong. To me, if I look at the pictures independently from one another,
I score one a 9, the other an 8. Personally, as to why, both look very good, but one
looks a little *light*, perhaps not color-rich enough for my personal palate. But,
that's me judging. I'm not trying to skew your opinion either way. Seriously.

Being accustomed to seeing more ungarnished (MIM/MBA), the prop up, IMHO, doesn't
change much if any. However, having a nicely framed piece of meat, framed in a
wonderfully contrasting green color, is . . . . . more appetizing. To me, anyway.
I'll try my hardest to not take it into account, but . . .

SmokeInDaEye
09-16-2009, 01:30 PM
Yeah, for better or worse the green does provide a nice contrast, plus I'm sure you'd be a lot more conscious of the amount of wet sauce on the chicken after seeing how it marks up the sides of a naked box. Interesting comparison.

bam
09-16-2009, 01:40 PM
Pic 2 9's pic 1 dq temp. rule change.

Dustaway
09-16-2009, 01:54 PM
This looks much better
http://www.lonestarbarbecue.com/images/turninchicken.jpg

BBQ Grail
09-16-2009, 02:04 PM
I don't think either is good. The pieces are not uniform and the sauce looks clumpy, especially when compared with the nice sauce job on the "half chicken" shot.

The other problem you have and why this isn't a fair comparison is that you have photoshopped the "greens" out of the second picture instead of replacing them on the plate. By doing this you have placed a black border around the chicken which to the human eye will cause a much more dramatic effect that just having it on the white plate.

With a sauce that is a shade of red it's going to have a much nicer look against the green which is a complimentary color to red. The human eye is going to wash out, especially on an RGB computer screen with the white plate.

But then again what do I know...

Lake Dogs
09-16-2009, 02:07 PM
Didnt use photoshop, but ok, I'll take the black out. We'll get less contrast.

For me, I didnt notice the sauce clumpy in the first shot nearly as much as I did
the 2nd. I didnt perceive it as light, either.

BBQ Grail
09-16-2009, 02:09 PM
Didnt use photoshop, but ok, I'll take the black out. We'll get less contrast.

For me, I didnt notice the sauce clumpy in the first shot nearly as much as I did
the 2nd. I didnt perceive it as light, either.

Maybe not "photoshop" but the photo was edited, this is what I meant.

Bastey Boy
09-16-2009, 02:18 PM
As for the comments about the pieces not being uniform, and the sauce looking clumpy...see why we hate judges?!

The questions were "Does it look appetizing?" and "Does it look like something I'd want to eat?"

My answer to both are "Yes."

As to how the 2 compare to one another, and/or whether the chicken would look better if it were framed by the greens; It's irrelevant if no garnish is allowed.

Of course garnish makes things look better, that's it's purpose, but if nobody is using garnish, then everybody is on a level playing feild.

Alexa RnQ
09-16-2009, 02:23 PM
As for the comments about the pieces not being uniform, and the sauce looking clumpy...see why we hate judges?!

The questions were "Does it look appetizing?" and "Does it look like something I'd want to eat?"

And my answer to both would be no, for exactly the reasons stated, so no judge-hating over here.

jerryz
09-16-2009, 02:24 PM
I'd eat on either one of them. Looks mighty good.......

BBQ Grail
09-16-2009, 02:25 PM
As for the comments about the pieces not being uniform, and the sauce looking clumpy...see why we hate judges?!

The questions were "Does it look appetizing?" and "Does it look like something I'd want to eat?"

My answer to both are "Yes."

As to how the 2 compare to one another, and/or whether the chicken would look better if it were framed by the greens; It's irrelevant if no garnish is allowed.

Of course garnish makes things look better, that's it's purpose, but if nobody is using garnish, then everybody is on a level playing feild.

Hate! What a strong word. But in order to appease you...

NO it doesn't look appetizing because the sauce is clumpy. No I wouldn't want to eat it. I would however want to chow down on the second picture with the half chicken. It has nothing to do with JUDGES.

I really wanted to get my point across without sounding harsh and mean, like some people around here. I figured instead of saying it's not appetizing I would just try to get my point across without coming right out and saying it. It's my effort to be a kinder, gentler Larry.

Again, a thread with nice banter back and forth and a reasonable discussion with people opinion turns into a chance to bash judges.

Life is to short to HATE anyone, especially for something like BBQ. Have a great day, since this thread has already turned into this, I will add it to my threads not to go back to.

Have a happy day...

Lake Dogs
09-16-2009, 02:27 PM
Picture 3 - cleaned up to get rid of some of the black:

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss141/hance_patrick/Pickin_Chicken3.jpg

Lake Dogs
09-16-2009, 02:28 PM
As for the comments about the pieces not being uniform, and the sauce looking clumpy...see why we hate judges?!

The questions were "Does it look appetizing?" and "Does it look like something I'd want to eat?"

My answer to both are "Yes."

As to how the 2 compare to one another, and/or whether the chicken would look better if it were framed by the greens; It's irrelevant if no garnish is allowed.

Of course garnish makes things look better, that's it's purpose, but if nobody is using garnish, then everybody is on a level playing feild.


> It's irrelevant if no garnish is allowed.


B I N G O. My point exactly.

Midnight Smoke
09-16-2009, 02:31 PM
The other problem you have and why this isn't a fair comparison is that you have photoshopped the "greens" out of the second picture instead of replacing them on the plate. By doing this you have placed a black border around the chicken which to the human eye will cause a much more dramatic effect that just having it on the white plate.But then again what do I know...

I did not notice the edit until you mentioned it. Looks like you called it, sure looks like the very same piece placement.

Lake Dogs
09-16-2009, 02:35 PM
Its the exact same picture, same / same. If there, in your mind, is even the slightest
difference, then somehow garnish came in to play in your mind. Even trying to give
them the same score, you noticed something different in one picture vs. the other.
Doesn't matter as to whether it looked better, or worse. It was different. Therefore,
garnish came in to play. The allowance of garnish is based on judges not taking the
garnish into account. However, even the most critical, the most fair judge on earth,
is none the less, human.

Remove the garnish altogether; that's a level playing field.

Bastey Boy
09-16-2009, 02:45 PM
Yes, you are correct, hate was definitely the wrong word to use, and I take it back, and fully apologize for using it in this context. It is word I should reserve for Al Qaida, and such vermin.

I certainly did not mean that I actually HATE judges, just was trying to be tongue-in-cheek if you will...next time I'll try and remember to use a little smiley face, or a LOL or whatever is popular this week.

I do, however think that the chicken in those pics looks completely appetizing, and if you don't because the sauce looks clumpy, you have every right. However, the fact that the pieces aren't uniform in size and shape, would never affect my opinion of whether or not meat looks appetizing.

I also firmly believe that if someone writes "I don't like either" on a public forum, regarding pictures of someone's hard work, they oghtta be able to handle a bit of a rebuttal, but that could be just me.

I give both boxes a 9

Midnight Smoke
09-16-2009, 02:48 PM
I also firmly believe that if someone writes "I don't like either" on a public forum, regarding pictures of someone's hard work, they oghtta be able to handle a bit of a rebuttal, but that could be just me.

Turn in box was someones else's anyway.

Bastey Boy
09-16-2009, 02:59 PM
Turn in box was someones else's anyway.

It's all good. Didn't mean to get into a whizzing contest.

Back to the subject at hand, I do agree that yes, a box looks better with garnish, but if garnish is not allowed, comparing a box with garnish against one without won't come into play.

Think about how much time, effort and money we all spend looking for, buying and prepping garnish, for a meat contest where the judges are taught to judge the meat, and not the garnish.

And then it all goes to waste, with the exception of a few contests who save the leftovers for the local farmers pigs, or what-not.

The Pickled Pig
09-16-2009, 03:08 PM
Remove the garnish altogether; that's a level playing field.


The KCBS garnish rules apply to everyone equally. What's not level about that?

Bastey Boy
09-16-2009, 03:11 PM
The KCBS garnish rules apply to everyone equally. What's not level about that?

The level playing field term came up when we were comparing a garnished box against an un-garnished box.

Skip
09-16-2009, 03:13 PM
not to stick ya, Skip BUT...

"being propped up" or "placed lower" matters?

Funny, I thought it was about the meat.


Doesn't neatness count? if the meat were lower in the box it would be closer together due to the taper of the box. Would the pieces appear the same if the meat was more closely placed? Would the meat be somewhat on top of each other due to space constraint? That is what I meant. If the outside was bunched together I would imagine it just wouldn't look as nice.

Bentley
09-16-2009, 03:43 PM
You be the judge. Judge ONLY the
meat.

It's tough, isn't it?


Wow, judge only the meat what a novel thought.

It isn't tough for me.

Lake Dogs
09-16-2009, 05:21 PM
The level playing field term came up when we were comparing a garnished box against an un-garnished box.

Actually, not. Simply, if there is any judging difference from the same
Q, one garnished, the other not, then the entire argument for garnishment
is proven wrong. Therefore (as a result), if we're in a BBQ contest, the
only level playing field is to allow ONLY BBQ in the turn in box.

I was not saying that one garnished has anything over another. That'sa
a different argument. The argument FOR garnishment hinges on that it's
always judged the same. The problem is, last I checked, we're all human,
subject to human flaws. Our eyes cannot screen out the garnishment,
no matter how much we try, no matter how objective we strive to be.
Therefore, if there is even the slightest variance in how those were viewed
(as they are exactly the same BBQ; same picture), then the argument
for allowing garnishment is moot.

HBMTN
09-16-2009, 05:51 PM
IMO the garnish helps a lot even if they say it is not judged. Bull crap, if it make it look better then it helps and is judged by many. I would be interested in seeing scores of that chicken with a messy lettuce under it vs. a perfect putting green.

Lake Dogs
09-16-2009, 06:07 PM
IMO the garnish helps a lot even if they say it is not judged. Bull crap, if it make it look better then it helps and is judged by many. I would be interested in seeing scores of that chicken with a messy lettuce under it vs. a perfect putting green.

Yep, excellent point. Unfortunately I DONT have photoshop, otherwise
I could've done that (put some messy greens underneath).

Meat Burner
09-16-2009, 06:55 PM
We present at whatever the sanctioning event allows. We also don't bash any of them.

Weiss Mountain Smoke
09-16-2009, 09:03 PM
Hey! Who gave you the right to use my chicken picture?!?


Just kiddin, good experiment...

BRBBQ
09-16-2009, 10:16 PM
Even though the pics are the same but without greens, I would say greens might get a little higher score but not much from me. I wish KCBS would get rid of greens.

Lake Dogs
09-17-2009, 06:34 AM
We present at whatever the sanctioning event allows. We also don't bash any of them.

I think most here also present whatever is allowed, and I dont think
in this thread there's an ounce of bashing KCBS. KCBS is a wonderful
org. I think we're just trying to present a point that we're all human
and there is no way for a judge (being human) to truly disregard the
garnish, no matter how hard they try, or how objective they think they're
being. It is, technically, impossible. I think if you read most of the
posters comments above, you'll see there is no bashing KCBS.