| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2005 04:09:47 PM · #1 |
Got some nice compliments but little criticism. Also, there was a big difference between those with cameras and those without one. The ones without camera (as well as those that commented) thought this was great but those with cameras thought it was rather average. So what was lacking here? My main goal here was to be creative and I think I did that by challenging myself to shoot a very common subject. I also thought the angle and look/feel was also creative although I agree with one commenter that the angle could be a bit distracting for some. Was that it? or something else? Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Message edited by author 2005-12-08 16:12:21. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 04:22:34 PM · #2 |
As far as the "without cameras" score goes, that's probably one person (how many registered users don't have a camera?), so not a very relevant guage.
Personally, I think the composition is very good. There's lots of areas of interest, some good lines, and great variation in the levels. But I don't find the processing treatment very appealing. Looks too CGI-ish. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 04:31:15 PM · #3 |
I'd have to agree, does seem to be a bit over-processed.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 04:32:44 PM · #4 |
I'm not usually a cat photo lover but you got my attention with this one. Rated it a 9 for the unique composition, great details in the black and white fur and whiskers, etc and the eye was really the bonus! The angle didn't bother me at all.
I definitely think it was highly under-rated and one reason could be that the thumbnail and the photo, at a glance, doesn't quite say "wow" like a lot of others. In my comment I mentioned bumping it up 'coz I only started to really appreciate its depth after taking a good 2nd and even 3rd look. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 05:02:00 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
As far as the "without cameras" score goes, that's probably one person (how many registered users don't have a camera?), so not a very relevant guage.
Personally, I think the composition is very good. There's lots of areas of interest, some good lines, and great variation in the levels. But I don't find the processing treatment very appealing. Looks too CGI-ish. |
Thanks for the feedback. The part about it being too CGI-ish do you normally look at that as a negative or just something that "didn't work" this time? I wanted to give the image strong characteristics and maybe it made everything a bit too harsh looking? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 03:07:18 PM EDT.
