| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2005 01:08:36 PM · #26 |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 02:58:02 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by buzzmom:
i would like an honest review of this shot so i can grow and understand better....if anyone has time can you please critique my entry...thanks i really have learned alot so far and what to continue to do so
hugs to all
 |
I would say this image suffered as a result of being shot in full auto mode. Because the exposure setting “brains” in a camera look at the entire frame to average out the lighting, and because half the frame is made up of black around the subject, the results are “blown” LED’s and over-exposed flaring. Had you manually set the shutter speed and aperature, you could have insured comfortable yet well saturated illumination. The auto focus (if used) was fooled by the LED’s also. It is difficult for a camera to auto focus on a light source with accuracy. You could have done better if focusing manually. The subject does not fill the frame and the border does not highlight or add information about the subject. Had you filled the frame with the phone and even framed it on a slightly or greater diagonal (to add tension), you might have added interest to the shot. Recapping, this image’s deficiencies are: poor exposure, framing and focus.Any one of these areas would likely reduce the score of any image. All three being less than good resulted in this shot’s placement near last. On the positive side, you did nail the theme of Lighting ... totally.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 06:31:53 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by tsheets:
I am curious what people thought about this entry from lighting. It finished with a 4.8, and while I didn't expect to be at the top, I thought it would at least be a 5+. I only got one comment, which of course, was positive.
Any suggestions or comments as to why this wasn't a stronger entry, or ways to improve??
Thanks! |
While the lighting itself is creative & interesting, the image is rather dark and muddy; the end result being that the lighting you created and put in effect is not really well-featured in your entry. Lack of clarity and detail cost you points on this one.
Robt. |
Thanks, Bear for the comments/critique. Also, thanks to RGO, who commented on the photo's page.
Maybe if I would have cropped differently so you could see a bit more vase and the water line, it would have helped. Also, tried some different lighting or post-processing to add some definition as to what the source of the water stream is. I wondered if part of the problem was that people didn't know what the picture was, therefore didn't connect with it. The lighting could have played a big factor in that aspect.
Thanks again guys, that really helps me.
Tim |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 07:13:45 PM · #29 |
I liked your photo and rated it fairly high. It was a good shot and you should be happy with it.
Message edited by author 2005-05-30 19:14:08.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 12:39:27 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
*snipped*
Oh, btw, the reason the damned duckie shows so-called "noise" is because he's backlit and his physical structure is manifesting itself since he's somewhat translucent to this strong backlighting. I'm beginning to get a bit teed off at this apparent fetish DPC-as-a-whole has against ANY visible manifestation of "graininess" in photographs. There's only so much a guy can DO with a camera like mine; it's a tiny little sensor and a noisy little beast.
R. |
Hi, now see, I love that image actually. I love the contrast of the colors, but I think it also shows the difference of how lighting effects different things.
And as for the noise of the duck, isn't that the way he is made? I know some are super smooth, but others have a slight texture to them. I think if too much noise, graininess is taken away from an image, it looks fake, plastic... at least to me.
And... btw... I have a CP5700 and love it! Love that it is so easy to carry and the macro shots that can be achieved with it are amazing.
*Stepping off my list-owner of CP5700 group box* ;)
-Christine |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 01:13:06 AM · #31 |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 01:20:33 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by buzzmom:
i would like an honest review of this shot so i can grow and understand better....if anyone has time can you please critique my entry...thanks i really have learned alot so far and what to continue to do so
hugs to all
|
I did not rate it high only because the challenge was about lighting, not lights.
Hell, if it was about lights, I have examples of lights that the average person, the joe on the streets has never seen, or probly won't ever see. I could of received 10's across the board if this was about lights.
But it was on lighting. The use of those lights.
Unfortunetly, alot of submissions that had lights, or light bulbs were rated high, and that to me was not the theme, and unfortunete.
Hope I didn't piss you off.
Message edited by author 2005-05-31 01:21:51.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 01:21:57 AM · #33 |
| Intolerance is not something which aids progression. Every person here began shooting shots that were fairly poor. Every month we welcome in new photographers of differing skill levels and they will march through the very same progression of skills, talents, tastes and polish. To say there is to much of a subject shows intolerance of other peoples tastes and smacks of elitism. Too many flowers not well thought out, yes. Too many flowers out of focus, yes. Too many flowers which do not try to see a different angle of a oft repeated subject, yes. Too many perfect flowers, never. Just as there will never be too many of any perfect shot no matter the subject. Keep your minds open every challenge, for when you vote down a photo solely for its subject matter, or lash out at other photographers for what their choice is, you diminsh youself. Sorry, that has been building for a bit. Be hard on yourself to improve, not hard on others for what they like or choose. [/rant] |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 01:29:57 AM · #34 |
Robt, FWIW the noise comment was a post-analysis observation. But looking at it again, I can see it's part of the duck.
As to the noise issue and a P&S, I've observed SLRs have quite a bit of noise as well, including the Rebel series, especially in dark areas of the photos. Though if you are careful not to underexpose, you have less problems with this. I rarely use Neatimage anymore (though I do apply some noise reduction in conversion from RAW). My lighting entry was a 4 second exposure too.
As to my own "opinion" of noise in shots, I guess it's how it comes across more than anything. Sometimes, I think it can be integral to a shot. But it's just one of the facets of each shot that moves voters subjectively. As I am sure you know by now, there are many biases that will come across in the average vote and which have nothing to do with the overall merit of the photo. Well, I certainly got killed for the intentional noise on this:
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 01:35:32 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by rblanton:
Intolerance is not something which aids progression. Every person here began shooting shots that were fairly poor. Every month we welcome in new photographers of differing skill levels and they will march through the very same progression of skills, talents, tastes and polish. To say there is to much of a subject shows intolerance of other peoples tastes and smacks of elitism. Too many flowers not well thought out, yes. Too many flowers out of focus, yes. Too many flowers which do not try to see a different angle of a oft repeated subject, yes. Too many perfect flowers, never. Just as there will never be too many of any perfect shot no matter the subject. Keep your minds open every challenge, for when you vote down a photo solely for its subject matter, or lash out at other photographers for what their choice is, you diminsh youself. Sorry, that has been building for a bit. Be hard on yourself to improve, not hard on others for what they like or choose. [/rant] |
Good points. I do keep in mind that these may be the first flowers ever entered by any particular member - who knows. And I score them based on their merits and according to my tastes, as I believe most people do. Subject matter is always a consideration - I don't know how you can exclude it.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 02:19:45 AM · #36 |
To say there is to much of a subject shows intolerance of other peoples tastes and smacks of elitism.
sigh....it is not about intolerance or elitism or even about flowers...my original point was about the KEY element of the challenge. How a picture of flower in daylight is the KEY element and yet many were voted highly.
Why bother having a challenge subject at all? If they are all free studies as someone else said this one was, why bother saying 'Lighting'? Why not 'Just go out and shoot what appeals to you'..
Why should I bother trying to fit the challenge when I can just shoot my navel, enter it whatever the subject, and people will still vote for it...it's about the spirit of the challenge - finding the image that FITS, and is appealing...it's not shoot your favourite topic... |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 02:31:22 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by amber:
To say there is to much of a subject shows intolerance of other peoples tastes and smacks of elitism.
sigh....it is not about intolerance or elitism or even about flowers...my original point was about the KEY element of the challenge. How a picture of flower in daylight is the KEY element and yet many were voted highly.
Why bother having a challenge subject at all? If they are all free studies as someone else said this one was, why bother saying 'Lighting'? Why not 'Just go out and shoot what appeals to you'..
Why should I bother trying to fit the challenge when I can just shoot my navel, enter it whatever the subject, and people will still vote for it...it's about the spirit of the challenge - finding the image that FITS, and is appealing...it's not shoot your favourite topic... |
I'm not sure I understand this comment, in relationship to the challenge. Here it is, verbatim:
Lighting is arguably the most important element in photography. Without light, you can't capture an image. Use lighting in a creative fashion this week so that the lighting itself is A key factor in your composition.
Note that it doesn't say "the" key factor, it says "a" key factor. It does not say, "shoot a picture *of* lighting", it asks for a shot using "creative lighting" that is "a key factor" in the success of the shot. Given that mandat, how ANY photographic subject can be seen not to meet the challenge ina nd of itself is beyond me.
For what its worth, there's perhaps no readily accessible subject matter that's MORE sisceptible to being enhanced by well-seen light than flowers, combining as they do color, opacity, and translucence in such delightful variation. I weasn't the least surprised to see a ton of flowers in this challenge; it seemed tailor-made for them
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-05-31 02:32:19.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 02:38:05 AM · #38 |
I thought this was a great entry and voted it a 8Originally posted by bear_music:
As long as we're speaking about "lighting", the following shot is ALL about lighting, and very careful lighting at that. It's crisp and sharp, the colors are strong, the composition is good. I didn't expect a top 10 or anything, but does anyone care to comment as to why this image finished in the 45th percentile, below the middle of the pack? I'm not whining, I'm just curious...
Robt. |
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 03:37:40 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by amber:
it's about the spirit of the challenge - finding the image that FITS, and is appealing...it's not shoot your favourite topic... |
The flower shots fitted the challenge. Many, many of the flowers were well lit. The lighting challenge was about technique. It's different from say "Bored," where a specific situation was asked for, or "Lines" where lines were asked for. There is no limiting factor in terms of subject choice. All the image had to do to meet the challenge criteria was to show good lighting, or as in the case of some images that actually were entered, to show good editing/dodge and burn skills to create dramatic lighting effects. |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 07:53:00 AM · #40 |
Amber - you are new on this site. I would not worry about how people vote or what they shoot. You must do your own thing and be happy with what you shoot. Its like I have said before, providing a photo meets the challenge then you should vote on the merits of that photo, be it a bird, flower, apple, banna, horse, cat, dog, baby or whatever. I would not get concerned with what other people shoot.
Had a look at your website and liked your photos very much. I bet you cant wait the 'de-saturated' challnge...
oh, and welcome to DPC, some great talent here, I am certain you will enjoy it.
Mike
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 08:08:45 AM · #41 |
Thanks Mike;)
I hear what you are saying.
I've given flowers 10 in some of the challenges BTW. Meeting the challenge seems to be subjective.
But the horse is officially dead.
I only know how to do de-saturation in a way that I don't think is allowed in the rules, so I'm not holding my breath:)) Thanks again.
Message edited by author 2005-05-31 08:10:02. |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 08:29:03 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by amber:
Thanks Mike;)
I hear what you are saying.
I've given flowers 10 in some of the challenges BTW. Meeting the challenge seems to be subjective.
But the horse is officially dead.
I only know how to do de-saturation in a way that I don't think is allowed in the rules, so I'm not holding my breath:)) Thanks again. |
Amber, in Advanced Editing there are many legal ways to desat. In Basic it's much more difficult, but advanced allows selections, layer masks, history brush, all sorts of goodies.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 08:34:05 AM · #43 |
My PS skills are slowly growing. The way I have learned to do selective colour is this:
Layer
New adjustment layer
Hue/sat
OK
Sat down to -100
press d and x
then use a brush to 'paint' the colour with opacity at 100%
That's not legal is it? |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 08:37:14 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by amber:
My PS skills are slowly growing. The way I have learned to do selective colour is this:
Layer
New adjustment layer
Hue/sat
OK
Sat down to -100
press d and x
then use a brush to 'paint' the colour with opacity at 100%
That's not legal is it? |
In advanced editing, perfectly legal. In basic editing, no. The only way to desat in basic is to use hue/saturation and desat individual color channels, it's a sketchy process but works ok if there's one dominant color you can preserve.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 08:42:58 AM · #45 |
Great!
Although I have cured myself of using it in every image:)
Thanks for the information and for taking the time;) |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 09:09:00 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The only way to desat in basic is to use hue/saturation and desat individual color channels, it's a sketchy process but works ok if there's one dominant color you can preserve.
Robt. |
Coincidentally, my last entry (for APPLE) used this technique, which I just stumbled upon. The old building in the back is an even gray, and by removing the blues and cyans to zero I was able to achieve a desat look. The leaves at top left were my bugaboo... I tried toying with tweeking yellows and greens but that began to effect the look of the apple. In fact, the desaturated look - I'm guessing - caused someone to request a validation of my photo, a first for me. Fortunately it all went smoothly. Actually I'm glad to have the experience, JUST IN CASE I ever swerve into a ribbon and have to have that shot validated!
 |
|
|
|
05/31/2005 09:15:23 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by 4N4M:
Originally posted by bear_music:
The only way to desat in basic is to use hue/saturation and desat individual color channels, it's a sketchy process but works ok if there's one dominant color you can preserve.
Robt. |
Coincidentally, my last entry (for APPLE) used this technique, which I just stumbled upon. The old building in the back is an even gray, and by removing the blues and cyans to zero I was able to achieve a desat look. The leaves at top left were my bugaboo... I tried toying with tweeking yellows and greens but that began to effect the look of the apple. In fact, the desaturated look - I'm guessing - caused someone to request a validation of my photo, a first for me. Fortunately it all went smoothly. Actually I'm glad to have the experience, JUST IN CASE I ever swerve into a ribbon and have to have that shot validated!
|
Oddly enough, I requested validation for that shot, and the reason was the possibility the text had been added. I was pretty sure it was part of the sculpture, but I figured others would think the same thing so asked for a validation thinking the shot might need that little red stamp on it :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 09:18:42 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by amber:
If there were a challenge that said shoot a picture on the moon...flowers would still be there and everyone would vote them into the top 20. |
This is what I'm feeling about all the "Duck" pictures in all the challenges...Am I the only one that notices all the Ducks & Geese?!?!
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 09:21:00 AM · #49 |
I get more irritated by the constant shots of the Golden Gate Bridge from exactly the same angle. I guess that it must be a well known vantage point, but I do hope that everyone exhausts themselves of this particular shot in the near future.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2005 09:24:02 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I get more irritated by the constant shots of the Golden Gate Bridge from exactly the same angle. I guess that it must be a well known vantage point, but I do hope that everyone exhausts themselves of this particular shot in the near future. |
Not only well-known, but literally the ONLY vantage point that allows you to see the SF skyline behind the bridge. It's a high point in the military reservation on the Marin Headlands side of the bridge, immediately after you get across the span.
Robt.
|
|
