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

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

Seasonal Bouquet
by RHoldenSr

Comment:
I like it - I don't - I like it - I don't -I like it - I dont - Then I realise I do!
I have had such a job deciding whether I like this or not. Unfortunatly I cannot decide why I do and can't see why I didn't which is not constructive at all and for that I apologise.
If I had to pick a thing that I had a problem with is that quite a few areas seem to have burned out and they may be catching my eye too much.
The rush on the right for example, looks good but the too on the left have a tad too much illumination.
I am intrigued as to why the picture had to be validated.

I have just noticed why I couldn't make up my mind. There could (in my opinion) be a "point of focus". Something that the eye is led towards. All the "lines seem to be leading to a point near the centre of the picture bnut there is no" focus object" apparent there.
I have whipped this into photoshop and made that centre flower a vivid horrible green to see what happened and it lifted the picture out and gave those lines purpose.
I am not suggesting that the flower should have been a vivid horrible green :-) just that that is where either a considerably bigger flower head or a very different head could have been.
David

Crystal Fire
by drydoc

Comment:
Clearly stuck to the "rules" of the challenge. Good. For me it did not quite work so I pulled it into photoshop to see if I could change it but in a way it could still have been done "realtime". I got rid of the majority of the red "outside the glass on the right hand-side below the main "flame leaving a large black area. and added a few extra flames closer to the top to "join them a little to what was already there. This the looked more like "a cup of fire".
David

Painting With Light
by Catherine

Comment:
Good to see one of the few where it is easy to see if someone has stuck to the "category" requirements.
I like this one - obvious interpretation of the category. Unusual but very effective composition. I think one thing would have pulled this right out of the page though. If the brush and bristle holder "called something like the ferrule" had been uniformly lit to make it appear that only the "light had been painted".
David

Silhouette
by Firstrich1

Comment:
One of the most interesting silhouettes I have seen for some tim - particularly managing to get the hint of light in the central reflection 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

Merlin
by sleekr

Comment:
Nice dramatic lighting. A shame the crop was not more even. I like how the statuette appears to be "floating above the floor".
However I have marked it down somewhat and I hope the following, which I have sent to some other entries helps explain why.
-----
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 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