Is this photo just a 5.3? - DPChallenge Forums

Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f/1.7

02/07/2007 10:53:15 AM · #1

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=461507
Sorry for just the link. I tried posting the photo but just got the "x" instead. Anyway...
2 issues -->
This image scored 5.3 in the challange, but the breakdown of scores is as follows:
Avg (commenters): 5.7500
Avg (camera): 5.2907
Avg (no camera): 5.6667
Which averages to 5.5666 when added together and divided by 3.
So how is 5.3 arrived?

also...
this photo along with most of my entries score in the low 5's. I sincerely believe that some of them really belong there. This photo, in particular I feel does not. The (few)comments I received, not a one made any technical comments or suggestions. I requested, as I do on all of my submissions, an in depth critique of my submission, but have yet to receive one on this photo of any other.
I humbly ask for some to look at this photo and give a serious review. I want to improve my technique but am frustrated over constantly low scores with minimal feedback.
Thanks in advance for your constructive critisms and feedback.
-Brian

tryals15

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/07/2007 10:55:54 AM · #2

Those averages aren't weighted. The score is an average of all the votes you see listed on the right.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

02/07/2007 10:55:57 AM · #3

The score isn't calculated by averaging those three amounts. It's calculated as follows:

add all the individual votes together and divide by the number of votes

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/07/2007 10:56:21 AM · #4

The only number that matters is this one:

Avg (all users): 5.3034

The other numbers are for informational purposes only.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/07/2007 10:59:46 AM · #5

Originally posted by RazorsEdge:

Okay the votes from comments isnt a seperate score at all. The commenters scores are also figured into the camera/no camera scores.

These scores are NOT what makes up your score.

Your score is ofcourse all the actual votes devided by the number of voters.

The seperated scores are for your convienence. Look at any other image and do the math the way you did it youll see what ur doing doesnt work.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/07/2007 11:00:26 AM · #6

First, the overall average is an average of ALL the votes. In your formula, the commenters vote is skewed higher.

Second, on the picture,

I didn't vote on this one. I like the idea, but you have a major noise issue going on the dark areas of the image. This probably lowered your score more than anything else.

The greenish tone probably didn't help much but that might just be me.

The base of the black king is out of focus. I know this is a shallow DOF challenge, but the base is in the foreground and quite big. Distracting to me.

I think the score is pretty much right on considering the technical issues.

Again, clever idea!

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

02/07/2007 11:04:20 AM · #7

To make it easier. :D

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

02/07/2007 11:06:34 AM · #8

Left you the reasons for my score on the photo comments section.

SandyP

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 USM

02/07/2007 11:23:32 AM · #9

I think its a nice photo. I probably would have voted it a 6, but I didn't get to finish all the photos in the challenge. I think the thing to remember about challenge photos is that even if you have a technically perfect photo, so much of your score is based on that intangible appeal to the voters. If there are any technical issues, then it better be one of those phenomenal "right place at the right time" wow photos. Unfortunately, with a set-up shot like this, and unfortunately also, others have done photos like this that were absolutely technically flawless. . .the voters are going to therefore demand absolute perfection to give it one of those top notch scores.

Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f/1.7

02/07/2007 11:24:10 AM · #10

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I didn't vote on this one. I like the idea, but you have a major noise issue going on the dark areas of the image.

How do I take care of the noise issue? ALot of people comment on that in my photos. I dont use high iso's and my exposure times are not that long. COuld it be from 'over-baking' in photoshop?

Thanks for all comments so far. I really do apprieciate the feedback. Please keep it coming :)

yann

02/07/2007 11:28:06 AM · #11

When do you see the noise appearing?

tryals15

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/07/2007 11:30:38 AM · #12

Originally posted by RazorsEdge:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I didn't vote on this one. I like the idea, but you have a major noise issue going on the dark areas of the image.

How do I take care of the noise issue? ALot of people comment on that in my photos. I dont use high iso's and my exposure times are not that long. COuld it be from 'over-baking' in photoshop?

Thanks for all comments so far. I really do apprieciate the feedback. Please keep it coming :)

I don't know what you mean by 'over-baking', but is it possible that you significantly brightened the image? That would cause the noise to become much more prevalent...

voxpop78

Nikon Z6II

02/07/2007 11:33:30 AM · #13

Here are my suggestions:

-The noise is a big factor for me. Lowering the ISO will reduce the noise. You can get that ISO down by putting more light on your subject.

-The subject of your photo could be in better focus. You should use a tripod whenever possible, especially when shooting macro.

I see you are using PSCS2. Have you tried out the Unsharp Mask Filter? I always run this filter over my images to sharpen them up, especially when they are going to be on the web.

-Finally, if your camera has a preset white balance feature, I would explore it. You can use a gray card and manually set the white balance of your photos. This will help clear up color casts. The preset feature will almost always do a better job than the auto white balance on your camera.

In my opinion, you have the hardest things about photography already down. Your composition is strong and your subject matter is interesting. I think if you just play around will your camera and PSCS2 settings you could really take off.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/07/2007 11:35:11 AM · #14

Originally posted by RazorsEdge:

The noise looks like the noise you get when your image is underexposed and you make up for it in post processing.

There is noise reduction software out there. I use Neat Image. Noise Ninja is also popular.

Be careful with this software, less is more. Over doing the noise reduction can give a plastic unnatural look and the vote could suffer. Of course some folks way over do the noise reduction for effect and have done quite well.

The best place to start is with the initial exposure. Make sure it's right and you won't have to rely on post processing to save it.

salmiakki

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

02/07/2007 11:47:06 AM · #15

In addition to all the other comments made, did you notice how many people took pictures of Chess Boards for this challenge? There were quite a few.

I think whenever a subject is repeated often during a challenge the scores can end up a bit lower than if the subject was unique to the specific challenge being voted on. Even if the picture itself is very good, a lack of originality in subject matter can end up making the score lower than you would expect. This at least is my personal observation over the months being on DPC.

Falc

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

02/07/2007 12:35:10 PM · #16

Originally posted by salmiakki:

I think you have hit the real problem here. Chess men, especially the glass ones are a little tired. I guess the voters are just indicating that this was not an outstanding image of the genre.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2007 12:46:05 PM · #17

Originally posted by RazorsEdge:

... The (few)comments I received, not a one made any technical comments or suggestions. I requested, as I do on all of my submissions, an in depth critique of my submission, but have yet to receive one on this photo of any other.
I humbly ask for some to look at this photo and give a serious review. I want to improve my technique...

I note that 'technical comments and suggestions' have been made here and left with the image in the meantime.

There are, however, various other observations one could make regarding the context, range and 'feel' of this entry.

The obvious context is a game of chess, less trivial than many other games perhaps, but, as a subject, hardly enough to arouse more than an aesthetic interest. The aesthetics, here (as has already been pointed out), suffer from technical defects significant enough to prevent this sort of pleasant distraction. Chess players, too, have insufficient information to visualize that which the game is about -strategy. All this

reduces the potential 'range' of a shot like this one to near nil, and it does so before being able to attach any real latency, except for the one alluded to by the title. Most viewers, to my sense of it and also as evidenced by several comments, would perceive the title to be a stretch, put up as an addendum or afterthought rather than having any allegorical or symbolic qualities, given the image it is supposed to 'charge'. It rather weakens it, which is unfortunate, considering the meagre premise it presents without the help of a title relating credibly what the image 'is' or, more ambitiously, could be.

A 'good' photograph is one in which the technical aspects are subordinated to its inherent demands. A 'better' photo is one that radiates 'energy'. This capture, IMHO, fails on both counts. It fails auntie Peggy as much as it wouldn't rouse Bobby Fisher. The attempt at a gender-specific humour, too, can all too easily perceived as cliché and lack-luster causing no twitch or distortion of a facial-muscle when associated with a fallen chess piece rendered 'recognizable' at best.

This genre of photograph, IMO (and I swear, I rarely act as a proponent of technical aspects of a picture), would benefit immensely from aesthetic properties created via a discriminating eye for lighting and careful technical treatment during processing. At least, in this way, the lack of 'emotional charge' can be well hidden under a shiny hood.

May I be forgiven for what I have tried, here, to so frankly say.

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/07/2007 12:47:06 PM · #18

left you a comment

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

02/07/2007 12:55:25 PM · #19

Man - don't you just love Zeus's comments? Great reading.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/07/2007 02:02:22 PM · #20

Thanks to Zeus I feel small...but in a good way. 8^)

I am still not understanding the whole noise issue in this photo. I just do not see it and the camera settings that where used should not warrent noise in the photo-imo. Granted there is always some noise with digital, I do not see it here. I went back to the orig photo and it looks clean.
If folks are referring to the color variations at the top part of the queen to be noise, that is not the case. These are wooden pieces and there are color natural color variations. Same with the king, those small highlights are nicks, not noise.

The lighting is harsh I agree. I am limited with a halogen desk lamp and a shoe mounted flash. Out approx 100 shots with various lighting, this was (believe it or not)the best, or at least most dramatic.

to address other items suggested.
-did use a tripod (always do with macro)
-did use unsharp mask (I forgot to put in description listing)
-camera is set for center weighted metering, further white balance done using Curves

scarbrd

Leica M10

02/07/2007 02:22:32 PM · #21

Originally posted by RazorsEdge:

The noise is most visable in the black and darker parts of the image, especially in the background. You monitor may not be calibrated proeprly, turn up the brightness on your monitor and see if you can see the noise.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 14:24:05.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/07/2007 03:09:56 PM · #22

The image is extremely noisy. We'd have to see an original to figure out why, but it's most likely the noise came in as an artifact of the B/W conversion. When you use tungsten light to shoot, which I am guessing you did here, and channel mixer to convert, which you say in your noted you did, the easiest way to get a high-contrast look (which is what you have) is by emphasizing the blue channel in the mix; and the blue channel, in a tungsten shot, is almost ALWAYS very underexposed � hence, the noise.

An easy way to tell if you have noise in even, dark areas is to set the magic wand to a tolerance of, say, 12-18 and click in the dark area. If you get a "mosaic" of selected/unselected, that's your noise...

Here's a version of the image that's more "expressive", accomplished by using a touch of shadow/highlight compensation. I fiddled with noise removal via neat image, but it cannot cope. As an aside, noise should be removed BEFORE making a B/W conversion or, for that matter, before any levels/contrast adjustments or sharpening are done.