Unthinkable 100 Years Ago
by Tiberius

Comment:
Tiberius, I may not be the best person to comment on your image, because actually I gave this a highish score (7). I think possibly the one comment you did get is helpful from a technical point of view. You could have cropped it a bit differently to exclude the foreground. As you said in the forum post,I think most people probably did not recognise it as Tian'an Men Square and as you say, focused on the picture of Mao, thus not finding the connection to 100 years old very easily.

I personally thought it was an interesting take on the challenge and am sorry and surprised it did not do better for you.

W. W. and Euphemia Wood
by sher

Comment:
Expected this to score a bit higher. Nicely done

Rainforests: Millions of Years Old
by manic35

Comment:
Really sorry this didn't score higher for you. It deserved to.

1000 years old
by Melethia

Comment:
Figured this one was yours Deb! Getting good at guessing now. Probably it was the German look that gave it away this time :) Nice score, well done.

Sphere
by IreneM

Comment:
Curious and clever. I found myself bumping this up a few times.

Going Green
by Adamsw216

Comment:
Greetings from the Critique Club

I saw you had posted this for further comment at the end of the challenge. I have to say, there is nothing that I can add to the comments you received post challenge. I have no idea why this did not score higher. It not only meets the challenge, but is one of the most creative entries in the challenge. I swear I will never fully understand the mentality of some of the DPC voters.

The only thing I can think is that some of the technical aspects hurt you slightly. For example, the highlights are a little bit blown out and you can see the flash reflected in the light bulbs. I suspect you got dinged a bit for that.

I didn't vote on this challenge, but probably would have given a 6 or 7.

A Day At The Beach
by Drake

Comment:
Greetings from the Critic Club

Well, there is certainly nothing wrong with this image from a technical point of view. Composition is great as well.

Clearly the primary reason for the low score is due to people not finding it to meet the challenge. I do think in a different challenge you would have had a much much higher score. I can see where you are going with this, but it is just a bit too out of the box.

The Yellow Magic
by diverss

Comment:
Greetings from the Critique Club

I think trying to do a drop of any kind is challenging, so kudos to you for giving it a go. However, this is a rather over done subject on DPC and as such, it would need to REALLY stand out to score well.

I believe this suffers quite a lot from a technical perspective. The composition could be improved by not having the drop so centered. A little to the left or right would work better and could be achieved in photoshop, although it would be better in camera.

The image could do with being sharper. Based on the Exif data you chose 1/250, so it should be a bit sharper than it is. Did you use a tripod? (You state that you used 1/4000, but the exif data in the image itself does not show that, so I am wondering what happened here?) Incidentally, the file size is really small at 82kb, so likely you are losing detail when resizing. Have you tried resizing using Save for Web? This is probably the preferred way of saving images for use on DPC as it gives slightly larger file sizes without reducing the quality.

So, I believe the primary reason for the low score relates to subject matter combined with the technical issues.

Keep practicing and you may be the next IreneM

Steps
by Melethia

Comment:
Deb, love the blurry leg, it's cool.

"Shell Game"
by jdixonsd

Comment:
Greetings from the Critique Club

I really like the idea you have here, it is very creative.

I believe the technical aspects of this image prevented it from scoring higher, certainly the subject was a good one. From a compositional point of view I think this is spot on. The shells are placed well and lead the eye nicely through the picture. I would quite like to see it the other way round, ie the smaller shell at the front, but that is only for the sake of curiosity nothing more!

What I think hurts this the most is the lighting and your exposure. You have over exposed the image to try and emphasise the white in the background. Fully understand why you would do that, but in so doing, you have also blown out the highlights on the shells, which means you have lost a lot of detail.

It's quite possible your original photo was not over exposed and the overexposure has only taken place during post processing. You state you have just adjusted the brightness, so perhaps (given this was an advanced challenge) you could have used a bit more of a sophisticated post processing technique to help keep the detail in the subject. I do not know what software you use, but for example a levels adjustment layer would give you a little more control when trying to adjust the highlights, then using the brightness only. (Curves would also work if you have the full version of Photoshop). One technique I have used is to adjust the levels and then duplicate the background layer, adjust the mode to soft light, then play with the opacity of this layer. That way you can get a bit more contrast and detail in the subject. (I am not a great Photoshop technician, so it must be relatively simple if I can do it!)

Somebody else also mentioned the focus. Again, I do believe that hurt your score a bit too.

Like I said in the beginning, I think this was a great idea and it's only a pity that the technical aspects let you down.

Sarah