| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2003 10:28:16 AM · #1 |
I was so proud of this photo I took for the Life challenge. It was my first staged photo. It barely scored a 5.0. It kept going bouncing between 5.0 and 4.9.
What is wrong with this photo?
While I don't care if I win, when I can't figure out why my photos are scoring as low as they do, it is de-motivating me completely. My current entry for At Rest is at a 4.3. Technically, I feel this photo is very sound too -- much improved from my higher scoring entries in the past.
Oh well. I'm very frustrated and think I am out of the contests for a while. My attitude isn't healthy right now.
Renee
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:37:29 AM · #2 |
I dont feel WOWed by the picture - If I do look closely I find the background which appears matted very distracting, a black background would have been better. The DoF should have been more decisive with either all the pieces in sharp focus OR only the knight is sharp focus...
I would have given it a 5
BUT hey it is only a picture - don't be so upset about your scores |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:38:17 AM · #3 |
Hmm. Great shot, nicely lit and set up. I just don't see it conveying "Life" to me. I think everyone has preconceived notions of what they're going to see in a Challenge, and maybe others didn't see this the way you did. I really like this shot and would give it a 8 on its own, but in the Life challenge - probably a 4 or 5. I also know of some members who automatically rate chess shots low because they're sort of cliche and sometimes overdone. If you play with the settings in PS, you should be able to get a completely dark background and not affect the rest of the image too much.
Message edited by author 2003-09-24 10:45:38. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:38:45 AM · #4 |
I like to read the titles of entries, but in this case the title was way too long and killed the photo for me. This photo is wonderful and speaks for itself, so no title would have been better. Maybe it got voted down because there were several entries in the sports challenge using chess and some people though it was an extra from that challenge.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:38:50 AM · #5 |
Its a nice photo but there are 2 reasons i think it scored low.
1) It's a chess shot, and they are very very cliché.
2) I've looked at it for some time and still any 'Life'.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:39:27 AM · #6 |
I am upset about not knowing *why*. That is the biggest thing... winning or loosing doesn't matter so much but not understanding does...
How do you get a black background? I tried to use poster-board here. That is why it looks the way it does.
Thanks for your comments. They are appreciated.
Renee
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:39:40 AM · #7 |
I didn't submit or vote in the life challenge. I like the composition and focus of your shot. There are a couple of things I don't care too much about. First and foremost, this doesn't really represent "life" for me. Now, this is the most personal part of the vote, since you submitted the image, it obviously represents life to you, but that doesn't come across to me. Also, the tonality range seems overall a bit gray, I'd like to see more blacks and more whites. Playing around with brightness, contrast, and gamma can solve some of that. Lastly, while the frame isn't huge and distracting, I sitll don't like it much. I think a simple black or white border would've been more fitting here.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:40:16 AM · #8 |
I dont think the problem is with the picture itself in this case Renee. Im sure it has to do with peoples interpetation of life and whether or not they fely it strongly met the challenge or not.
Personally I like the pic.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:40:43 AM · #9 |
I thought it was a great picture with good DOF but it did not really seem to meet the challenge of life. I don't remeber how I voted, but usually vote lower if I don't see a real connection to the challenge. Keep trying. Your picture is of good quality and sharp. I like the composition. If I can ever figure out what people like in a photo, I will quit my day job and shoot pictures. I shoot what I like and submit to learn, but have only just placed at 5.0 on one shot. That is what the site is about for me, learning.
David P
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:40:44 AM · #10 |
I do think this is a reasonably nice photo. For me, however, it has two issues:
1) Doesn't say "Life", and
2) Border is over-done
I'm doing pretty badly in At Rest too.. Don't be too disheartened. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:40:54 AM · #11 |
My first 10 entry's where disappointing also with an average of 4.4 points.My last 10 entry's are average 5.6 points.
You just have to give a time and try your best, there is always room for improvement.Your talent is great just need more practice and learning from others.
I have noticed on lot of your flower photos there is too much sunlight.
Look for overcast day to do flowers.Your pets and human photos are much better because you get into the eye level with the camera to the subject.
Kosta |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:43:24 AM · #12 |
[quote=Everyday Renee]I was so proud of this photo I took for the Life challenge. It was my first staged photo. It barely scored a 5.0. It kept going bouncing between 5.0 and 4.9.
What is wrong with this photo?
While I don't care if I win, when I can't figure out why my photos are scoring as low as they do, it is de-motivating me completely. My current entry for At Rest is at a 4.3. Technically, I feel this photo is very sound too -- much improved from my higher scoring entries in the past.
Oh well. I'm very frustrated and think I am out of the contests for a while. My attitude isn't healthy right now.
Renee
I liked your shot Renee. I voted it a 7. I thought the tones were very nice. I liked the focus and DOF.
My guess is that we have had so many chess shots that some thought it was repetitious or they didn't like chess. :)
I understand your feelings of disappointment and discouragement. Taking a break is a good idea. Don't get mad get even. Keep shooting. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:47:38 AM · #13 |
I think it's a good photo... the composition is fine but the image is a little 'soft' for my taste on a shot like this. I think another problem you may have suffered is the challenge topic.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:52:45 AM · #14 |
Hi Renee,
I think this is a great shot, and I scored it well. I felt it was a bit of a stretch for the Life challenge, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt based on merit. I do agree with some previous comments. The ones I feel most in agreement about are 1) the background would be better completely black. As is, it appears to be a little fuzzy and its tone does not provide the best contrast with the pieces. 2) The title, which was alot to read and didn't really tie in with the life challenge (at least for me). I think the technical aspect of the photo, and the composition are great! Your depth of field is a little wishy-washy. It is not deep or shallow, and in itself does not add to the photo. I would suggest shooting this again, with both deep and shallow DOF and see how it impacts the mood of the shot.
Keep shooting and keep submitting... don't get discouraged! I have been much happier here since I've been submitting shots that I like and ignoring the scores. My current entry for the At Rest challenge is hovering around 4.9, as I knew it would, but I submitted it anyway because I liked the shot! I am at much more peace with a 4.9 now than when I was submitting shots to 'please the voters'.
It bums me out when I see people get discouraged and stop participating as a result of scores... I hope you keep at it!!
Take care,
JD Anderson
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 11:03:34 AM · #15 |
i agree with everyone who said nice shot but relation to challenge felt tenuous ..
also the chess theme may be a little played out unless it's a very original take ...
keep shooting!
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 11:15:57 AM · #16 |
I actually like the background - gives it some texture compared to the boring all black or all white backgrounds so many over-use. The pieces are well lit and good control shown for the exposure.
It just doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the challenge in my view. I could probably manufacture some link and I'm sure there is actually a good reason but to me this shot doesn't communicate anything at all about life.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 11:47:12 AM · #17 |
Thank you to all for making me understand! I really appreciate it.
I feel so much better just understanding and you all made good points that I can agree with. I can see why I got the score I got. It feel so much better.
Thanks heaps for the encouragement too.
Renee
P.S. Before, when I was weak technically, I had good subjects. Now that I am improving technically, I am weaker on the subject matter!
Message edited by author 2003-09-24 11:48:18.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 11:48:55 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Everyday Renee:
How do you get a black background? I tried to use poster-board here. That is why it looks the way it does. |
Go to Michaels, Value Craft, etc., and look for 11x17 sheets of foam rubber. The kind I got goes by the brand name Zippy Foam. It works great as a background for tight macro shots (too small for anything wider, like a portrait. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 01:35:03 PM · #19 |
Hi Renee
I am new member here doing my second challenge and my score is settling out at approx just over 5.
When I comment, I try to address my feeling for the aesthetics in the comment as much as the "quality" of the image.
My vote scoring is IMHO a cross between the photographic aspects (composition, exposure, effect) and the "meeting the challenge".
When I see an image that is good in both senses I score highly >5 if one area lets it down I tend to score <5.
But sadly life is too short for me to comment on every shot I vote on - will try harder next time. However, when I do comment I follow the outline described above. Which I hope is always constructive and helpful.
As a point of note in the current challenge I am up to 61 votes 5.0984 score and 3 comments. The comments - 2 of which expressed exact opposite image related views (so who do you please?) and the third liked what I was offering but felt that the image content could easily be voted down because viewers would not take enough time to appreciate its merits. At the end of the day, I try to offer an image that meets the remit and has photographic value to me.
Incidently, I changed my pic at the last minute from a baby portrait - perhaps that would had more appeal compared to the artistic and possibly obscure.
Please do not be down - as for your chess shot, sorry to say that it is not exactly my cup of tea but it comes across as well executed and for me I would have liked to have seen (as mentioned above) a real solid black background and harder lighting on all the pieces to give the whole picture an "edge" like a battlefield. Just possibly such a still life is hard to create under the stringent Challenge Rules?
PS In the sense of meeting the Life - a thought would be to have tipped the pawn over, more Life & Death perhaps, one pointing up the other!
HTH :~)
Message edited by author 2003-09-24 13:37:31. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 01:43:52 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Everyday Renee:
I am upset about not knowing *why*. That is the biggest thing... winning or loosing doesn't matter so much but not understanding does...
How do you get a black background? I tried to use poster-board here. That is why it looks the way it does.
Thanks for your comments. They are appreciated.
Renee |
I think there are some minor issues with this shot the combination of which led to a poor score. You should not place too much emphasis on scores, we all know that some great shots get low scores in challenges.
The issues as I see them:
1) The black pieces don't seem black and the white ones don't seem white, same for the chessboard. This give the appearance of low contrast and the pieces don't "pop".
2) This just doesn't say "Life". I know that there are many ways to interpret an image, but everyone sees images through the filter of their own experiences and life. It could be that not so many people see this the same way you do.
3) The "chess" thing, IMHO, is way overdone, that may have contributed to your low score. It would take something spectacular to make a real impression.
To address your question about the background. You need something less reflective (like black velvet or other fabric) and you need to keep your lighting off of it. Try moving it farther away from the foreground and if you need to, re-direct or otherwise block illumination of your background.
I hope this helps, and please don't get too discouraged. You should be making images to satisfy yourself first and not worry too much about scores.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 02:04:18 PM · #21 |
| I agree, this lighting is very bland. Look at some great black and white work, and see how dynamic it is. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 02:18:10 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The issues as I see them:
1) The black pieces don't seem black and the white ones don't seem white, same for the chessboard. This give the appearance of low contrast and the pieces don't "pop".
|
These pieces were not black or white. They were gray and dark brown -- plastic. They are made to look like steel and bronze. The only black were the squares and the poster board. I converted the photo to black and white.
I appreciate the comments. Every-one helps...
Renee
Message edited by author 2003-09-24 14:18:28.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 06:02:01 PM · #23 |
for me, lighting is the base of the problem. That, and of course, the subject: we've seen lots of chess shots, and whilst there is an easy interpretation of the challenge theme here, I rather think people will have been looking for shots of living things, at least.
But to return to the lighting: it's so shallow - there's no real depth to anything here. My first reaction was that it was contrast that was the problem, but on a closer look there is the full range from black to white here, so it cannot be that. Look at the shadows on those pieces: there are hardly any - how are we to know about the three-dimensionality of them without any visual clues? How are we to know about the texture of the board, and of the pieces, without the shoadows to tell us about those shapes? And what else is there to look at?
and then there's the background: for all its being out of focus, there's light and shade there, and hat draws the eye, bu it isn't the point of the photo, and so there's nothing to learn there, and there's a small feeling of being lead away from the point, rather than toward it.
I never reall know what to say to help people toward a better understanding of light, and how it works in photographs ... but there are a couple of things worth repeating: the point is not to illuminate equally every millimemetre of an image - that's just boring. Areas of light and dark should be used: the eye is always drawn to the brightest thing in one's vision. Try to look at your photos without any preconceptions, and let your vision be taken where it wants to go - and if that isn't your subject, think about whether that was the photograph you really wanted to take.
And secondly, texture, and depth, and distance. The ONLY means of communicating these details that you have is through light and shade. The only way people can percieve a rough texture in a photograph is because they can see the highlights and the shadows on that surface: and the only way you can photograph that is by lighting to ccentuate those differences, and the only way you can do that is by lighting across the surface, rather that directly toward it. Three dimensional subjects should not be evenly lit from the angle of the camera: all one sees is the equivalent of a cut-out. Light across the thing, then we can see where the shadows form, from that our eyes deduce the shape of a thing in the real world, not just as presented in two dimensions.
Lookmcarefully at the work of the people who regularly score highly here - at David Sidwell's work, at JJ Beguin's, and John Setzlers, at Jacko's, at Franziska Lang's, and many others - and remember the Galen Rowell line that someone uses as there tag-line: 'my first thougt it always of light' - and remember that what that really means is 'of light and shadow'.
Ed
|
|
|
|
10/06/2003 03:12:42 PM · #24 |
| Not being very technically minded or in touch with the workings of photography, forgive me for this simple observation. I would would have given this shot a six or seven because of content alone. I see how it fits life, having heard the oft used cliche of life is like a chess board and I like how the position shows a check mate...I think. I can't tell without the rest of the board. The use of black and white says something along the lines of right/wrong or color lines but I can't be sure which. Over all I like the image and didn't feel distracted by the background but rather centered on the main subject. I wonder, though, are you saying something particular by using a pawn and the knight as the ones that corner the king and queen? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 11:03:16 AM EDT.
