Old Boots
by agwright

Comment:
Another of the few "painting with light" entries. This has worked so well
It would definately have had a 10 if you had not got the shaky hand but I can imagine how hard it must have been.
Definately one of my favourites in this section.

Nature's Light
by justine

Comment:
I love the - asymetry of such a symetrical subject. The pull and cord break the picture up just right. Normally this would be too abstract for me but I think it is the pull and cord that change that. But there only appears to be one static light source
but I will copy in some text I have added to a few other pictures in this category
-----
My only concern is, as you may have guessed from the amount of discussion on the forum re "painting with light" is whether it is "painting with light". It is not obviously so.
Having been lucky enough to judge what is now a few hundred competitions in the last 30 years I feel I should say the first thing that happens is that they are sorted and any that do not immediatly seem to fit the category are dumped (hard but a fact). This is why so many competitions also run an "open category". Your picture, as impressive as it is, would, I feel have been rejected at this stage. "Painting with Light" has a fairly tight definition in photography but still allows a lot of lattitude for creativity.
I suspect that your scores may not reflect what the picture is worth which is a great shame. I believe if I was judging in another category I would have marked higher.
I do hope you understand my reasons for marking it down
David

Bedtime Stories
by sher

Comment:
Beautifully lit, moody image which I could see as a book cover or magazine cover. I have had far worse pictures that this earn substantial amounts as covers. One good thing when taking pictures of books in a setting like this is to have the pages towards the lens - it
A: gives anonymity (spelling?)
B: should it be submitted to a magazine for publication it retains that anonimity.
c: in this case would have given a small highlight
I really do like this - the anon (now using abbreviations to save trying to spell it again) of the bear would blend with the anon of the book.
But I will copy in some text I have added to a few other pictures in this category
-----
My only concern is, as you may have guessed from the amount of discussion on the forum re "painting with light" is whether it is "painting with light". It is not obviously so.
Having been lucky enough to judge what is now a few hundred competitions in the last 30 years I feel I should say the first thing that happens is that they are sorted and any that do not immediatly seem to fit the category are dumped (hard but a fact). This is why so many competitions also run an "open category". Your picture, as impressive as it is, would, I feel have been rejected at this stage. "Painting with Light" has a fairly tight definition in photography but still allows a lot of lattitude for creativity.
I suspect that your scores may not reflect what the picture is worth which is a great shame. I believe if I was judging in another category I would have marked higher and probably a 10.
I do hope you understand my reasons for marking it down
David

Winter Morning on the Dock
by inspzil

Comment:
A terrific photograph with one of the most beautiful sky transitions I have seen for a long time. I did wonder about cropping the foreground but you are clearly right - it needs it. Reminds me of Salvador Dali. Totally beautiful.
But I will copy in some text I have added to a few other pictures in this category
-----
My only concern is, as you may have guessed from the amount of discussion on the forum re "painting with light" is whether it is "painting with light". It is not obviously so.
Having been lucky enough to judge what is now a few hundred competitions in the last 30 years I feel I should say the first thing that happens is that they are sorted and any that do not immediatly seem to fit the category are dumped (hard but a fact). This is why so many competitions also run an "open category". Your picture, as impressive as it is, would, I feel have been rejected at this stage. "Painting with Light" has a fairly tight definition in photography but still allows a lot of lattitude for creativity.
I suspect that your scores may not reflect what the picture is worth which is a great shame. I believe if I was judging in another category I would have marked 10.
I do hope you understand my reasons for marking it down
David

Renaissance
by KarenB

Comment:
Another good fruit shot. This time not having the fruit shiny has really worked. The only part I find disruptive is the horizontal dark line where the reflections are. I prefer it cropped right up to that and the black area at the top really gives it "lift"
But I will copy in some text I have added to a few other pictures in this category
-----
My only concern is, as you may have guessed from the amount of discussion on the forum re "painting with light" is whether it is "painting with light". It is not obviously so.
Having been lucky enough to judge what is now a few hundred competitions in the last 30 years I feel I should say the first thing that happens is that they are sorted and any that do not immediatly seem to fit the category are dumped (hard but a fact). This is why so many competitions also run an "open category". Your picture, as impressive as it is, would, I feel have been rejected at this stage. "Painting with Light" has a fairly tight definition in photography but still allows a lot of lattitude for creativity.
I suspect that your scores may not reflect what the picture is worth which is a great shame. I believe if I was judging in another category I would have marked it a 9.
I do hope you understand my reasons for marking it down
David

Different
by Chiqui

Comment:
Good food shot - but try it again after giving the peppers a polish or a spray with a mister. It pulls the picture right out and gives a couple of highlights.
But I will copy in some text I have added to a few other pictures in this category
-----
My only concern is, as you may have guessed from the amount of discussion on the forum re "painting with light" is whether it is "painting with light". It is not obviously so.
Having been lucky enough to judge what is now a few hundred competitions in the last 30 years I feel I should say the first thing that happens is that they are sorted and any that do not immediatly seem to fit the category are dumped (hard but a fact). This is why so many competitions also run an "open category". Your picture, as impressive as it is, would, I feel have been rejected at this stage. "Painting with Light" has a fairly tight definition in photography but still allows a lot of lattitude for creativity.
I suspect that your scores may not reflect what the picture is worth which is a great shame. I believe if I was judging in another category I would have marked higher.
I do hope you understand my reasons for marking it down
David

Laser Painted Crystal
by cbeller

Comment:
At last - someone painting with light in the true photographic sense.

CLASSIC by BANANA REPUBLIC
by Jeileen

Comment:
A great shot - nicely lit and showing real clarity. The texture of everything has been retained - even the clear liquid.
But I will copy in some text I have added to a few other pictures in this category
-----
My only concern is, as you may have guessed from the amount of discussion on the forum re "painting with light" is whether it is "painting with light". It is not obviously so.
Having been lucky enough to judge what is now a few hundred competitions in the last 30 years I feel I should say the first thing that happens is that they are sorted and any that do not immediatly seem to fit the category are dumped (hard but a fact). This is why so many competitions also run an "open category". Your picture, as impressive as it is, would, I feel have been rejected at this stage. "Painting with Light" has a fairly tight definition in photography but still allows a lot of lattitude for creativity.
I suspect that your scores may not reflect what the picture is worth which is a great shame. I believe if I was judging in another category I would have marked higher.
I do hope you understand my reasons for marking it down
David

Cheese and Crackers
by Neuferland

Comment:
Shame about the "horizon" background - would have "lifted the picture if it had been consistent instead of split.
Unfortunatly the cheese looks a bit dry. If I was submitting this as my work for publication (though I try and avoid food shots, they are hard) I would have put glycerine/water on it to get it looking fresh.
I do like the shot though - the lighting from the back works for me.
But
I will copy a note I have copied to many entries in this category.
-----
My only concern is, as you may have guessed from the amount of discussion on the forum re "painting with light" is whether it is "painting with light". It is not obviously so.
Having been lucky enough to judge what is now a few hundred competitions in the last 30 years I feel I should say the first thing that happens is that they are sorted and any that do not immediatly seem to fit the category are dumped (hard but a fact). This is why so many competitions also run an "open category". Your picture, as impressive as it is, would, I feel have been rejected at this stage. "Painting with Light" has a fairly tight definition in photography but still allows a lot of lattitude for creativity.
I suspect that your scores may not reflect what the picture is worth which is a great shame. I believe if I was judging in another category I would have marked higher.
I do hope you understand my reasons for marking it down
David

Night Rider
by Fibre Optix

Comment:
Fascinated to know what vehicles caused such consistently high lights and love the reflection - lower ledt.
The only thing I do find distracting is the pavement (sidewalk) and its litter. I would be tempted to crop that out