First, thanks to everyone who voted and who gave thoughtful comments.
I agree that the choice comes down to the ‘Marriotta’ spray versus the ‘Gemini’ spray.
I was surprised that no one commented that the ‘Gemini’ spray was in an 8×12 ratio rather than an 8×10 ratio, which, of course, affects some very important things, such as how large the blooms appear in relationship to the space the leaves in the background appear to take up. I am going to repost the ‘Marriotta’ spray and the correctly sized ‘Gemini’ spray.

'Gemini' spray

Class 5 - Mini Spray Marriotta
Let’s start by looking at the roses themselves. We’ll get to photography in a bit.
The blooms in the ‘Gemini’ spray are fresh and have good form. The leaves appear fresh and disease-free. It could be argued the bud should have been removed. I’ve seen hybrid tea sprays with fewer open blooms plus buds win in the Horticulture Division at both District and National Shows; but, if someone wanted to argue that the bud should have been removed, I couldn’t fault the argument. Overall, however, this is an excellent hybrid tea spray that would do well in any Horticulture Division in a rose show.
A close look at the blooms on ‘Marriotta’ reveals them to be past their prime. All have lost the characteristic symmetry of a fresh ‘Marriotta’ bloom, and the few stamens visible are dark. The leaves here also appear healthy and disease-free. However, in a Horticulture Division, this spray would lose some points for the blooms being past their prime.
Using the Score Card, the ‘Gemini’ spray beats the ‘Marriotta’ spray in the points allotted to horticulture, using the Guidelines for Judging Roses.
Now, lets look at the photographic points. On the ‘Gemini’ spray the fourth bloom is out of focus, and a maximum of five points could be lost for that. No points should be taken off for the leaves; in fact, they provide a soft background against which the blooms stand out. Although composition at first glance does not appear to be significant, there is a strong left-to-right diagonal from bottom to top, and a weaker left-to-right diagonal from top to bottom. There are no glaring lighting issues; indeed, this is soft natural light. It is a great horticultural specimen with some photographic issues with focus.
(Just as an aside, this was taken on a hot summer afternoon, when the wind was blowing. I used me to provide shade to the bloom, so that there would not be shadows in the photo. Camera settings were f/9, ISO 125, 1/250 sec, focal length 105 mm. This photo has been cropped from the original 8×12 ratio, and a watermark added, but otherwise there has been virtually no photoshopping.)
Let’s now look at the photographic qualities of the ‘Marriotta’ spray. First, I am really happy that no one dinged me for poor photoshopping, because this is one of the most digitally manipulated rose photographs I have ever done. But, the manipulation started before the photography. This spray’s lead bud had not been pinched, and was totally bloomed out. I wanted to see what I could do with it. So, I removed the main bud, which at this stage, if course, left a huge disbud mark. Oh, well. . .I set up a black background in the shade in the morning, put the camera on a tripod, and shot this image at f/22 (wanted to be sure it was in focus!
), ISO 800, 1/4 sec, focal length 105 mm. Oh, I had it in a glass vase.
I downloaded it, and began setting about to see how I could make this a workable image. It was easy enough to cover the disbud mark. It took a lot more work to make the rim of the glass vase disappear. Then I did a little color manipulation to make the roses “pop.”
In terms of composition, there is pleasing rhythm to this photo, at least as far as the blooms are concerned. The leaves in the lower left-hand corner do not bother me as much as the void in the lower right-hand corner, which does present a problem for this image. However, this would probably lose fewer points than the ‘Gemini’ spray for the fourth bloom being out of focus.
When these photographs are looked at carefully, considering all the criteria of the score card, it is basically a draw. The winner will be decided by the judges, after careful consideration and discussion, deciding which one is going to get the extra half point in distinction that will make it the winner. But that cannot be determined in a “shoot from the hip” manner before careful consideration. I can guarantee you that if two photographs like these are judged in show and one is declared the winner, the photographer of the other is going to hunt the judges down and ask “why was that other photograph judged better?” (Or, they might email me.) If the response to the loser is, “well, can’t you see the other one just has the ‘wow’ factor?” we are going to lose a lot of credibility as judges. We must be prepared to explain why we made the choices we did. “The decision of the judges is final” does not mean we cannot be held accountable for our judging decisions, and they must be based on the use of the Score Card, which is the promise we make to our exhibitors when they enter their photographs using a schedule based on our Master Schedule and containing the Score Card on which the committee has worked so hard.
Again, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this little exercise, and especially those who made carefully considered and thoughtful comments.
Susan Graham
Chair, PSWD Photography Committee