You'll never drink alone.
by k4rp

Comment:
Very well lit. Nice quality mood about it. Two things may work against a high score - the accidental scum mark from moving the glass is beautifully lit and so is a problem. second thing is the glass (or parts of it) look to be out of focus

Powerful
by idnic

Comment:
An on-camera flash this close in shouldn't have worked as well as this has. Wel done.

Elephant at Night
by Gatorguy

Comment:
Strong silhouette and I love the colouring. "The Ground Up" part is a little obscure and could cost you a few points in the challenge

Up the neck
by geirigusa

Comment:
Nice and sharp at the business end. I'm not sure this meets the challenge very well. Also consider de-centralising the main interest point in your photos, they are more pleasing to the eye that way.

A better place
by Montereykiddo

Comment:
::: Critique Club ::::
Wow, the colours in this image are so strong. It stands out even in thumbnail form. From the score it is easy to see that it evoked the same reaction from a lot of people. What is particualrly appealing is that the backlight is not from directly behind but off to one side. This has thrown a subtle but very important (for the image) fringe of light on the female form.

The subject matter is well done for the image too as the models look casual, carefree and are interacting for real. The shot doesn't look posed and stiff. How can we tell? The feet. The feet are in motion. If this was simply posed, the feet of the models would be flat on the sand. It's even possible to surmise that she is anchored and is swinging him around. She's digging in the heel of her left foot and has balanced against the swing with her right. His right foot is very light on the ground so he is on the move.

You might well ask if this is an arty-farty over the top analysis. The answer of course is no. People viewing an image don't notice all the detail about the feet but they _do_ instantly get an impression of what is happening. They don't know why the picture conveys those things but they are certain of them. If you took this exact same shot with the models posed feet flat on the ground and then asked people to pick their favourite, this one would win hands down yet nobody could tell you specifically why.

It meets the challenge well, it has that dreamy far away feel that as you say is of a place special to you. Does it convey that to the viewer? Maybe not. Something is missing from the overall vitaly important first-impression that doesn't draw you into the destination. The impact on the viewer is about the colour and the drama rather than the destination. You can see this from the comments below. This is in all probability why it didn't break the 6.5+ threshold.

So why didn't it ribbon? Noone can say for sure, these things can be fickle but here's some observations ...

- Colour: The gold of the beach is everything to this image. You have pushed it as far as you could, maybe in the end a little too far. Striking that balance is so difficult. Back off and it looses its punch, take it too far and you get what has happened here. The red sand has almost started to break down and the breaking water has gone way too far. By that I mean that it has ceased to be part of a destination and has become a piece of art.

- Composition: I'm sorry to be like a broken record when it comes to composition but the number one 'rule' is the rule of thirds. Nobody knows technically why it works but there's enough evidence to suggest you ignore it at your peril. Many photographers reaction to Thirds is "yeah, that's fine but I have a really god shot here anyway". Maybe so but thirds will make it even better. The balance of images using thirds is like the discussion about the feet. People don't analyse technically but they know what they "like". This image is symetrical and nothing sits on either a thirds line or intersection. That doesn't make it a bad image, it just makes it one that hasn't twanged a heart string or three.

- Cropping: There is no right answer to this. It's no good me saying the heads should be in there to make it better because we can't see the original image and don't know if that's true. Without heads, this image is ageless and it can appeal to anyone from 20-90yrs because the models could be anywhere in that age bracket. That is smart money where the intention of the image is to say to the viewer, [Italic]"come with me, I will take you there"[/italic]

So we've had the priviledge of having shared in an image with WOW factor but perhaps missing the MMM emotive factor - the difference is never far away and is sometimes subtle. That's why we're here and still taking photographs :)

Road to heaven
by ingib

Comment:
:::: Critique Club ::::

This is a lovely image to receive to critique and my pleasure to do so. That it scored above average is testament to an image that stands out but it didn't make ribbon. The reason for it not ribboning is what we all like to explore.

First impressions are usually the most telling in any image. After all, it's exactly how we judge the people we meet. First impression here is of a powerful landscape well captured and slightly unreal. There's a sort of double-take as to whether it is a painting or a photograph. Art or a representation? That's not a bad thing, in fact it may be a very good thing. It largely depends on the context of the usage at the time.

We do get involved in this image. Why is that? The colouring is strong, it requires an emotional response from the viewer. The road leads us into the picture it gives us somewhere to go. Where the road merges into the heather is right on the bottom-right thirds intersection which aids in a comfortable familiarity. The sky is dramatic and because it fans out towards you, you are drawn to it. The sky doesn't look real, the result of that is that the viewer is involved in deciding if it is or not.

Any viewer involvement more than an uninvolved or impassive viewing means that an image has gone beyond "ordinary".

To get to the next level then an image needs to be "liked". Is this a likeable image? Probably not. It has a solidity and darkness that neither excites nor frightens. It's probably somewhere in the middle. It's not bright and happy, insightful or dark & foreboding. It tends to be the extremes of these emotions which score well. So what might be perceived barriers to a higher score?

The location is interesting but not spectacular. The sky is slightly bothersome. It has almost a false painted look to it. That is a real problem if it is actually a faithful shot of the actual sky because you're stuck with it :) There is a feeling of over saturation and the flattening effect of the high sun probably robs you of the great drama of low early or late light.

Only one other trick which may be worth a try is the composition rule which suggests the eye always begins bottom-left and travels to the top-right of an image. I tried a mirror on this image and the result is interesting. Although the foreground road goes left to right, the dominating feature is the skyline. The mirror works on that viewer comfort of bottom left to top right.

plasmic
by ursula

Comment:
Told ya it would ribbon .... LOL

Now how about paying us back for voting for you by adding an explanation under Photographers Comments.

If I take the time to review your photo and give it a 10, we at least are owed your time to explain and share your methodology

Towering Giant
by Dseale

Comment:
Great structure well photographed for this challenge

Refreshes Like Nothing on Earth
by danica22

Comment:
Terrific setup with under-lit bottles like that. Focus and composition are an issue for me.

Dolcino
by Chiqui

Comment:
So moody, the wait for the sun in the right place was worth it. The dirty glass bugs me because it doesn't look like it's just been drunk from, looks like the splashes of pouring.