| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2005 09:05:48 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I think Skip makes a very valid point, and you drove it home even more with this...
Originally posted by amber:
...but when it comes to your own entry (I'm speaking generally) you are blind to a certain extent, if that makes sense. |
Personally, I fall into the same trap you mention amber more times than I care to admit. It's easy to fall in love (or least really, really like) the image you are posting for a challenge. Forget the rules. It IS hard to critique your own work subjectively.
I think it is this gift of sight that make the repeat ribbon winners rise to the top again and again. Of course photography skills are a primary key too! ;^) I wonder how much comments really mean to this top level of performers - really, honestly. |
Agreed;)
I also think that (ribbon winners aside) you become so familiar with your image - I mean it sits there forever on the left side of the home page- that it becomes like cheering on your favourite sports team. And if it is an underdog - you cheer louder:)) Psychologists have done various studies on the effects of your team losing or winning on your physical and mental health - blood pressure, endorphins, immune system, psychological wellbeing. Even though it is just a game, it has a huge impact on your health that lasts for days. I'd loved to see similar research done here:)) |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 09:41:17 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by carlos:
I didn't voted (I cannot actually, I'm not a member...yet!), but let me comment on your pic anyway
It's a nice portrait, sure, but it isn't what I see as "naturally framed" but more like "artificially framed". I think you used a little too munch Neat, as the face looks too "plastic" to me. I don't mean OOF or soft focus, as the hair is sharp, but texture less.
I'd voted it on the 5-6 range.
Carlos.
Edit: I'm copying the comment on your pic too. |
natrually framed as in an item from nature, or framed by some element in the photo - I can understand your interpretation. Fine, give me a 1 for that reason, but please leave me a comment to that effect is all i am asking.
Yes, i went heavey on the neatimage. I think that is part of the reason i scored as well as i did. There was a thread where a poster observed that the pics that \look too plasticy do well here...so i gave it a shot and beat my average score by a good margin with a cute kid pic. It was a test...and seems to prove the theory.
Bearmusic - the NI was probably what you notice as soft. I now have a better lens and while technically sharper, it is also more contrasty and gives me an image I like better with no processing! Softness in portraits is usually a wanted thing - they make a lens for it, and filters and people pay for the effect (in wedding pics at least). It makes the old look young. Ok, younger.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 09:49:55 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
It's funny that very often scores of 1, that are irrationally low, are complained about, and scores of 10, that are irrationally high, are not. |
My framing photo is proof of this too... check out my frame scores. I didn't think it would do that well (I wasn't even convinced it met the challenge 100%), but entered it anyway.
It did OK, but the weird thing is that I got a real spread of votes. Most were in the mid range, but I was amazed to get four 2's, fifteen 3's BUT ALSO four 9's and two 10's!!! I'm definitely not complaing about the high ones, but can't really complain about the low'uns either.
Basically you have to accept that people have very different tastes, and the just hope that the people voting low for you are voting low for everyone else. One of my comments was "One of my favourites this challenge" and another was "how does this meet the challenge"! |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 09:55:01 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by tristalisk:
I gave you a five. I thought that the use of neat image was a bit heavy. The girls sheeks look to be a bit waxy. with a crisp focus that didn't show the postprocessed smoothing this could have been a six or seven. I like the photo but felt that it was pretty average. |
For you, i have here the original shot, just rotated and a crop that matches my entry. NO adjustments or processing were done.
I agree about waxy, and average - my score surprised me. The difference in placement between me and Fotolady's very similar image i find interesting as well. I just want those that vote 3 and under to leave a comment as to why. Of course, if i get "It Sucks <2>" then I'll whine about not enough info and dumb comments...
So to compaining about 10s..i didn't get one on this entry, and i am not complaining about that.
 
Message edited by author 2005-06-13 09:55:25.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 10:01:15 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by scales:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
It's funny that very often scores of 1, that are irrationally low, are complained about, and scores of 10, that are irrationally high, are not. |
My framing photo is proof of this too... check out my frame scores. I didn't think it would do that well (I wasn't even convinced it met the challenge 100%), but entered it anyway.
It did OK, but the weird thing is that I got a real spread of votes. Most were in the mid range, but I was amazed to get four 2's, fifteen 3's BUT ALSO four 9's and two 10's!!! I'm definitely not complaing about the high ones, but can't really complain about the low'uns either.
Basically you have to accept that people have very different tastes, and the just hope that the people voting low for you are voting low for everyone else. One of my comments was "One of my favourites this challenge" and another was "how does this meet the challenge"! |
There is something to like about your photo. I did not vote on it (i did vote on about 40% of the challenge). I'd have given it 4 or 5 - all start with 5 and can go up or down...the -1 would have been for weak connection to the challenge and the 'subject', the boy, is abit dark and not posed well. I think your overall score is good.
You got 19 3 and under votes and one comment that might fit a vote like that...the other 18 expect you can read their minds I suppose.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 10:16:35 AM · #31 |
well, from my own experience I can tell you that you're not going to get much info about 1,2 and 3 votes.
Personally, I hardly never vote 1,2 and 3.
Those are saved for really really (!!!) bad photos. when both the technique and idea and everything inbetween is bad. I don't think we see those too often.
But some people tend to use those 1,2,3 as their scale for mediocre, while 7 is only those amazingly WOW technically perfect photos, and 8-10 are never really handled.
I wouldn't try too much to figure that...
as for your photo - I think it's sweet. nice focus, vivid colors. I like the expression and the sun light on the kid's face.
It's not a WOW photo. Just another one to keep in your album.
I think I didn't vote on it, but if I would have voted, it would probably be a 5 or a 6. It's that "average photo good execusion" kind for me.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 10:27:34 AM · #32 |
Hey Prof...After seeing the original photo I think you may have scored a bit higher if you had cropped to leave the "frame" ALL the way around the girls face. As is, it's not really framed (I think of a frame as being 4 sided).
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 10:28:34 AM · #33 |
Evie recropped, nothing else done. But including the whole frame might have also made a difference, as the shot stands there was no top or bottom to your frame, only the sides.
I also paid for that, I decided to come in more on the face and less on the background, a mistake I paid for.
Also the desaturation of the yellow also took a lot of color away from the hair, taking away part of the "wow" factor, she's got beautiful hair.
Deannda |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 10:36:12 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by fotolady:
The same thing happened to me. Your picture was VERY simular to mine and I got a higher vote. I don't understand it either.
 
Your subject had a better smile. |
I think fotolady is quite kind to put your photo in a class with hers. She has taken a very intriguing shot, and done it very well. I think the problem with most voters is they just don't take the time to look at pics. Their voting is quite reactionary. With 300 pics to get through in 10 minutes it's obviously hard to stick around on each one. No offense but I do believe this has helped more than hurt your shot. To me your image is quite static. I too believe the wider crop with the hand in view to anchor it a bit helps tremendously. Also the post processing has left the shadows looking very odd. Especially her neck. The soft focus doesn't feel right. Since when is 5.7 not a worthy score? |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 10:44:51 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by fotolady:
The same thing happened to me. Your picture was VERY simular to mine and I got a higher vote. I don't understand it either.
Your subject had a better smile. |
On the contrary, your B&W picture is significantly different than the other photo, please do not compare this shot with another that is unimaginative.
I scored the color shot quite low because I think the shot is plain boring. Yes she is as cute as a button but from a creative standpoint, so what. The B&W had a certain mystery and intrigue whereas the color shot appears as nothing more than a snapshot cropped to meet a challege.
I'm hoping to find some inspiration on this site but am seeing very little more than a mass need to coddle mediocrity. There you go, this low voter has commented. Now for the bashing. |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 10:54:16 AM · #36 |
;^)
Originally posted by Ivo:
...Now for the bashing. |
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 11:08:55 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Evie recropped, nothing else done. But including the whole frame might have also made a difference, as the shot stands there was no top or bottom to your frame, only the sides.
Deannda |
absolutely!!! |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 11:09:58 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
I scored the color shot quite low because I think the shot is plain boring. Yes she is as cute as a button but from a creative standpoint, so what. The B&W had a certain mystery and intrigue whereas the color shot appears as nothing more than a snapshot cropped to meet a challege.
I'm hoping to find some inspiration on this site but am seeing very little more than a mass need to coddle mediocrity. There you go, this low voter has commented. Now for the bashing. |
Yes, it is just a snapshot cropped to meet a challenge! i grabbed it at a memorial day picnic - that is why I am pleased and surprised at the 5.7 score. If you vote 3 or less please leave a comment as to why it sucks, er, is not up to standards in your eyes. The ones i have rouble commenting on are the 4,5,6 average shots - like mine, technically acceptable, so what would make it a winner? Start over with another idea - but you can't leave that comment 100 times in a challenge. If' i'd have moved here to the weeds, changed her expression and processed in b&w...`but hey, then it's another idea isn't it? Oh well.
My construction challenge shot is more daring/thoughtful/creative. It is at 4.6. A different title would have helped - the comments are telling me that. I hate titling pics...
There are lots of creative shots here. It is a good cross section of photographers here, but you will find that many shots don't so well here for unknown reasons. Care not about your score- submit creative shots and we can discuss them in a thread after the challenge.
That's what we need - take the bottom three shots in a challenge and do a CSI:Photographs Investigated thread! We can all learn from that i'm sure.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 11:12:21 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by carlos:
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Evie recropped, nothing else done. But including the whole frame might have also made a difference, as the shot stands there was no top or bottom to your frame, only the sides.
Deannda |
absolutely!!! |
I considered something like that - BUT the tall skinny format would have urt in some voters eyes, and i think her expression gets abit lost as it is rather small. Also, I have a tendancy to crop too broadly so this time i went in tight and with a 5.7 I think i did pretty good (my overall average is below that)
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 02:22:40 PM · #40 |
I posted this over in another thread Prof posted his image to, and it just occured to me it more naturally belongs here, so I'm transposing it:
****************
Here's my take on Prof's photo of his daughter:
original: (as cropped by prof) shopped: 
I've selected and saved 3 zones: the yellow shape at top, the colored framing areas of the playset, and an inverted merging of the two (basically a selection of evie alone).
I neutralized the yellow and darkened it slightly with hue/saturation. I used hue/saturation to shift color on the surround to one that better complemented the coloring of the child's face. I used selective color in the white, neutral and black channels to carefully balance the hues and densities of the different areas of the face.
Perhaps most importantly, I finally loaded of the evie-only channel; and made repeated USM passes at different values, changing layer modes to lighten and darken on the last two, and fading them until the result looked smooth.
The effect of that is to create more sharpness/visual acuity on the face.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-06-13 14:23:46.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 02:26:53 PM · #41 |
Had I voted this a 1, 2, or 3 (I didn't vote on this challenge) I would never step out and explain my reasoning here. This thread is just full of members with an appetite for "trolls" ready to rip apart the first one that dares show its head.
It's one thing to ask for constructive criticism (which the Prof_Fate did)...it's quite another for other members to say "Explain yourself, trolls! I dare ya!"...especially when Prof_Fate is simply asking for an honest explanation.
Message edited by author 2005-06-13 14:27:55.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 03:36:17 PM · #42 |
I am guilty of not responding to most pictures too. One time limit and two I don't always want to hurt someones feelings. But honestly I am hear to learn and want feedback. I think the lesson learned for me from your post is to comment more.
I gave you a 6. |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 04:08:45 PM · #43 |
For a while I thought I'd offer a detailed comment to any low scoring picture's owner ....... if they responded to my "cut and pasted" comment which read as follows:
"I scored your shot a 3. PM me if you want to know why."
The reason for this was to offer some rationalle to those who did get shot down by me during voting. I also did not want to expend too much effort giving comments to the bottom when it really is the best that should be praised. I thought this as to remove anonymity and offer explanation for those who cared why. Well, it was an interesting experience. I received a number of PMs and took the time to provide detailed critiqiue. It was alot of work and I got alot out of it.
The general sentiment that I got was : "What makes you the expert"?
Come to think of it, I guess everyone who cares how my vote influences their score will ultimately grant me the power to be that expert. As the expert, most people who get their photo whacked in a challenge really do not want to hear the truth anyhow. They themselves know they could have done better if they had simply just tried harder. |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 04:55:37 PM · #44 |
Interesting there Ivo - both your methodology and the reactions. I may try that next time.
As to being the 'expert' - well, you allow me to vote, so my vote is my opinion, be it expert or hack, right or wrong, good or bad.
Being able to verbalize what is wrong, or what could be better (and they are different) is what makes you an "expert". Rule of thirds is often spoken of here, and occasionally leading lines - but go read a good book on photographic composition - there is alot more avaiable to work with than those two items. The more you can learn and know, the more of an expert you can become.
And it would be nice if I coud get an average score of 8 or 9 so that my advice would carry some weight of authority with it. It can be hard to convince someone with my avg of 5.015 that I have a clue what i am talking about. But it matters not - I cannot throw an NFL level pass or pitch a 90+mph fastball, but i can rightly judge a good trhow from a bad one.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 05:01:32 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Here's my take on Prof's photo of his daughter:
original: (as cropped by prof) shopped:
Robt. |
I like what you did with the yellow BG. I like my color shift on the "frame" - the greenish color is, wellll, yuk to me. Her eyes are blue...so perhaps I am swayed by that even though it does not show in the image. i see noise in your frame as well (part of the reason i ran NI on the image)
The eyes on yours are great, but i think the face is a bit oversharpened and kinda red/pink - the hair is much better than mine.
post processing is part technique/skill and part 'art' - what to do, how much and when to stop...
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 05:13:13 PM · #46 |
@Prof_Fate: Every picture has a story. For you the story is interesting since that little girl is your daughter (or someone very close to you?). That's why you like to look at it and think about it.. For me it's just another girl with a look that i've seen a thousand times before.. It doesn't appeal to my imagination. Also the atmosphere is kinda empty. Still i voted a 5 since it's quite allright (usually i rate stuff like this a 6 but i found your borders not to be natural). People might think this too (the framing) and rate it even lower. I know i did with other pictures wich didn't have a frame or not even near natural.
If you look at the girl from the B/W picture from fotolady: That has a very intruiging look on her face, with a very atmospheric light/background/border.. almost feels like Vietcong or something! Also it was very fitting in the challenge (being *naturally* bordered) so i rated it a 10 and was sad to see it end up at 11th place.
Better luck at the next shot! |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:41:39 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I like what you did with the yellow BG. I like my color shift on the "frame" - the greenish color is, wellll, yuk to me. Her eyes are blue...so perhaps I am swayed by that even though it does not show in the image. i see noise in your frame as well (part of the reason i ran NI on the image)
The eyes on yours are great, but i think the face is a bit oversharpened and kinda red/pink - the hair is much better than mine.
post processing is part technique/skill and part 'art' - what to do, how much and when to stop... |
Oversharpening on face simply to show it's actually possible to get that original "more than sharp". I'd agree that somewhere between the two is best. "Green" used as a complement to the reds in her clothing, in my workflow that area could actually be ANY color you wished.
It's a nice shot, worth perfecting.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 01:20:50 PM · #48 |
I didn't vote on it, but I would probably scored it on the low side of things probably a 4-5. I dislike the lighting and overall it looks like a snapshot.
Regarding commenting though, honestly, the number one reason why people aren't commenting these days, is it ends up being rather tiresome to try and sit and judge at least usually 250 photos for each challenge and if you have something even remotely resembling a bellcurve you'd have 20 comments to put out. Unfortunately, although some people are gracious for the comments, other are a royal pain in the ass. It's like they want comments so they can argue each and every point instead of taking it solely for the opinion that it is. It's sad and unfortunate that people are so confrontational about comments that it leads to less comments. I'd almost like to see completely anonymous comments so that people wouldn't have to deal with bickering back and forth and that way they'd get the comments they crave...maybe a it could be preference for members or paying members to accept anonymous comments. It'd probably drive up the number of comments received.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 01:40:57 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I am not upset and promise to put the heads of the low voters on a pike for all to see - ..... |
LOL - did anyone else notice the Freudian slip here?
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:53:47 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...
I do have a question though...9 votes of 1, 2, 3. Every one of the 10 comments was favorable.
So would those that feel this photo deserved a 3 or less please tell me how and why you arrived at that conclusion - and why you did not leave a comment ...
I would like to better understand what you see, or don't see, in my photo. |
What you should be asking yourself is why did MOST voters give it middle of the road scores in the 5/6 range? Ask yourself what changes you should make to the image to get a higher score from the average voter. The fringe high/low votes will always be there.
Advise: Get over worrying about low scores on a perfectly NORMAL vote distribution curve like your image has.
You don't seem much concerned about the 27 people that voted it an 8 or 9, do you? The high/low votes are fringe votes and don't really matter much because they have the least affect on your overall average.
I gave your image an 8 but even I can easily see why 10 people would give you scores of 3 or below. You should be able to do that to. Try these perfectly reasonable explanations on for size for low votes:
1-Fails to meet the challenge. "Naturally framed" means framed on at least three sides and it is only "naturally framed" on two and some could legitimately question that it is "natural". That probably explains most of those votes.
2-It looks like a snapshot of a kid and the framing does not significantly add to the composition. That can explain others.
3-The technical quality and image appeal is OK but nothing special. The image has below normal contrast, is overdone with NI, and lacks interest and a strong general appeal to a large group. That could be the rest of the low votes.
You are better served understanding why the middle voters scored where they did moreso than the fringe voters. You gain that knowledge by cross comparing your image with those that scored above and below yours and answering the question - why?
|
|
