Gemini twins bicker in the house of Aquarius
by ccraft

Comment:
I guess you were only able to get one crack at this. - in which case it worked out very well. managing to get their wings moving so much when the heads stayed relativly still... A rel challenge would be to reapeat it.
Great

My Flashlight Smiley - (at least it's funny)
by oskar

Comment:
No need to appear to apologise in the title!.
I went to a gallery last night specifically because there happened to be a "PWL" exhibition.
Your picyure is far better than many that were on display + you have got the essentials of PWL.

Electric Laces
by Geo_Griffin

Comment:
In the true tradition of painting with light. I like this one . My only crit is the missing toe of each boot. My assumption is that it was intentional but I think it would be that !tad" better with it.
The wispy light on the toes is particularly effective

Painting by Candlelight
by ladpupmoe

Comment:
Nice "lost - soleful" expression - with interesting illumination to front and rear. The angled candles also pull it out from the ordinary - but
I am copying in some text that I have also sent to some of the other entries.
-----
I would like to explain a little more my reasons for reducing the score on this entry. That way even if you disagree/agree, you will understand my rationale.

Firstly, -
I have been lucky for the last 25 years of my 30 in photography to have been able to judge (I dread to think) many hundred competitions for local photographic societies, magazines, industry and professional photographic organisations some with very considerable prizemoney/professional awards/photographic qualifications. The method I and other judges are enforced to use is the method I continue to use. This has its limitations. Normally with a competition it would be that you were looking at a print or slide. That makes a huge difference. In many competitions the opportunity is there to see (handwritten) exposure times, details, technique etc. That also helps.The DPchallenge forum is the first time I have judged photographs on-line. There are many problems with this. Different monitor calibrations being possibly the most problematical. Lower resolution of photographs remove some of the subtlety and nuance of a picture which may be apparent in a print. This results in having to make a "what you see is what you get" judgement. Not ideal in any way.

Normally in competitions, many hundreds of photographs are placed in front of you and you have only 2 or 3 seconds to eliminate the first batch it is important that it "appears" to fit the criteria. This is the sticking point. You may have used the correct method/technique and the picture could be 100% but if in that 2/3 seconds it did not "appear" to be painted with light - thats where the rejection comes. Very unfair I know, but can you see where I am coming from?

Having to check techniques where there was ambiguity would make the task impossible.
I also think it fair to say that in an educational setting - when teaching photographic technique - "painting with light" does still have a very narrow definition. That is not to say that the end photograph has to look like it has been "PWL". The end result could, if that is the required end, still look ordinary. Interiors are a classic example. In order to get sufficent illumination of a large auditorium for example, painting with light would almost certainly be used but you would not want the end result to look as if it had been "PWL". That picture could therefore be a classic example of "PWL" but in a competition could be about as much use as a chocolate tea-pot!

The problem with this sort of competition is that two people could submit almost identical photographs, Both beautiful, both appearing to be lit in the same way - One may have thought of "PWL" in the photographic sense (moving light or built up light source) the second thinking of "PWL" in the artistic sense - (a beautiful picture simply using light to make an object the image) - How do you judge these? Do you see my difficulty - It is almost a case of asking you "Please don't do it so well so I can see how you did it!"

I do hope I have been able to put my point of view across and that I have not been misunderstood.
Text is difficult to write without sometimes it being read in a harsh way when in fact had the words been spoken, it would have been interpreted in the way it was meant.

David

Three of Me
by BethEspinoza

Comment:
I do like this - Onl one thing that would improve it for me. the image on the left and right are more illuminated than the centre image.
I dragged this into photshop and switched the order - lightest first - middle middle - darkest to the right.
It appeared to produce more consistency and stopped the eye darting from face to face.
In general I think the jumper on the right is just a "tad" over-exposed" and takes the eye a little too much.
Nice picture though and good to see it is within the "photographic" definition of "PWL"

Aura
by nsoroma79

Comment:
A classic "PWL" picture. Very nice. I am only bothered by the blue in it.
To check, I pulled it into photshop and colour replaced the blue with the green from the throat. Doing that seemed to create a "consistency" I think I am trying to say I love the picture but where is the blue light coming from. To do a quick check on what I mean - cover the area of the picture just above across the area just above the tip of her nose so you primarily only see the green.....
Love the hint of the jewellry round the neck

Painted Ceiling
by paganini

Comment:
A very beautiful picture with a lot too see - strangely such a busy picture does not look cluttered. There is a small area of black at the bottom left side spreading about one third across the frame. Cover that and it looks even better.
I am copying in some text that I have also sent to some of the other entries.
-----
I would like to explain a little more my reasons for reducing the score on this entry. That way even if you disagree/agree, you will understand my rationale.

Firstly, -
I have been lucky for the last 25 years of my 30 in photography to have been able to judge (I dread to think) many hundred competitions for local photographic societies, magazines, industry and professional photographic organisations some with very considerable prizemoney/professional awards/photographic qualifications. The method I and other judges are enforced to use is the method I continue to use. This has its limitations. Normally with a competition it would be that you were looking at a print or slide. That makes a huge difference. In many competitions the opportunity is there to see (handwritten) exposure times, details, technique etc. That also helps.The DPchallenge forum is the first time I have judged photographs on-line. There are many problems with this. Different monitor calibrations being possibly the most problematical. Lower resolution of photographs remove some of the subtlety and nuance of a picture which may be apparent in a print. This results in having to make a "what you see is what you get" judgement. Not ideal in any way.

Normally in competitions, many hundreds of photographs are placed in front of you and you have only 2 or 3 seconds to eliminate the first batch it is important that it "appears" to fit the criteria. This is the sticking point. You may have used the correct method/technique and the picture could be 100% but if in that 2/3 seconds it did not "appear" to be painted with light - thats where the rejection comes. Very unfair I know, but can you see where I am coming from?

Having to check techniques where there was ambiguity would make the task impossible.
I also think it fair to say that in an educational setting - when teaching photographic technique - "painting with light" does still have a very narrow definition. That is not to say that the end photograph has to look like it has been "PWL". The end result could, if that is the required end, still look ordinary. Interiors are a classic example. In order to get sufficent illumination of a large auditorium for example, painting with light would almost certainly be used but you would not want the end result to look as if it had been "PWL". That picture could therefore be a classic example of "PWL" but in a competition could be about as much use as a chocolate tea-pot!

The problem with this sort of competition is that two people could submit almost identical photographs, Both beautiful, both appearing to be lit in the same way - One may have thought of "PWL" in the photographic sense (moving light or built up light source) the second thinking of "PWL" in the artistic sense - (a beautiful picture simply using light to make an object the image) - How do you judge these? Do you see my difficulty - It is almost a case of asking you "Please don't do it so well so I can see how you did it!"

I do hope I have been able to put my point of view across and that I have not been misunderstood.
Text is difficult to write without sometimes it being read in a harsh way when in fact had the words been spoken, it would have been interpreted in the way it was meant.

David

3 Filters and a Flashlight
by drgsoell

Comment:
Clearly painted with light (one of the few that appear to be). Good equal exposure of2 colours which could have gone wildly astray but the red seems too have burned out just a tad. It may have been intentional but for me it is that bit too much.
Good solid colours - in no way wishy washy leave a dramatic picture. I am not convinced about the shadow on the guys left eye. Very much like the subtle "heart on the lips"

Insiders
by ellamay

Comment:
Very good that you have managed to get so many shades of yellow into the picture including the background. had the background been poorly thought out it would have been ruined. However
I am copying in some text that I have also sent to some of the other entries.
-----
I would like to explain a little more my reasons for reducing the score on this entry. That way even if you disagree/agree, you will understand my rationale.

Firstly, -
I have been lucky for the last 25 years of my 30 in photography to have been able to judge (I dread to think) many hundred competitions for local photographic societies, magazines, industry and professional photographic organisations some with very considerable prizemoney/professional awards/photographic qualifications. The method I and other judges are enforced to use is the method I continue to use. This has its limitations. Normally with a competition it would be that you were looking at a print or slide. That makes a huge difference. In many competitions the opportunity is there to see (handwritten) exposure times, details, technique etc. That also helps.The DPchallenge forum is the first time I have judged photographs on-line. There are many problems with this. Different monitor calibrations being possibly the most problematical. Lower resolution of photographs remove some of the subtlety and nuance of a picture which may be apparent in a print. This results in having to make a "what you see is what you get" judgement. Not ideal in any way.

Normally in competitions, many hundreds of photographs are placed in front of you and you have only 2 or 3 seconds to eliminate the first batch it is important that it "appears" to fit the criteria. This is the sticking point. You may have used the correct method/technique and the picture could be 100% but if in that 2/3 seconds it did not "appear" to be painted with light - thats where the rejection comes. Very unfair I know, but can you see where I am coming from?

Having to check techniques where there was ambiguity would make the task impossible.
I also think it fair to say that in an educational setting - when teaching photographic technique - "painting with light" does still have a very narrow definition. That is not to say that the end photograph has to look like it has been "PWL". The end result could, if that is the required end, still look ordinary. Interiors are a classic example. In order to get sufficent illumination of a large auditorium for example, painting with light would almost certainly be used but you would not want the end result to look as if it had been "PWL". That picture could therefore be a classic example of "PWL" but in a competition could be about as much use as a chocolate tea-pot!

The problem with this sort of competition is that two people could submit almost identical photographs, Both beautiful, both appearing to be lit in the same way - One may have thought of "PWL" in the photographic sense (moving light or built up light source) the second thinking of "PWL" in the artistic sense - (a beautiful picture simply using light to make an object the image) - How do you judge these? Do you see my difficulty - It is almost a case of asking you "Please don't do it so well so I can see how you did it!"

I do hope I have been able to put my point of view across and that I have not been misunderstood.
Text is difficult to write without sometimes it being read in a harsh way when in fact had the words been spoken, it would have been interpreted in the way it was meant.

David

Painting with Light
by eaphelps

Comment:
So far I have seen 2 other pictures using the same "take" on the theme. I think this is a good thing as it allows the photographer to compare similar pictures to their own.
You have managed to get the "light" into the picture without relying on a black background and have done it well - So well, it is let down a little by the unconvincing contents of the pot. I think the pot could have contained more" light". The light also seems to be on the paper rather than the brush.
I have cheated and tried something in photoshop which should be achievable using your technique. Give it a quick try and see what you think.
Clone the very bright area repetedly to fill the paintpot with light. clone the very bright area further up the brush. and most importantly clone the dribble down the side. It pulls the whole "painting with light" theme out of the picture
David