| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2006 05:29:09 PM · #1 |
I was browsing through the Free Study entries and stumbled upon this image that ended up ranking 224/619. My question is... why??? Why did this image get buried like it did? The tonalities that this image presents and most likely the technical difficulty to create the midtones was probably hard to achieve. I mean look at the muted tonalities of the midground. I doubt this was easy to achieve.
This image sings to me (don't mind me being poetic) and it's meaning transcends across my screen. I personally think this image is one of the hidden gems in the Free Study. It's wonderful to me as it probably is to those who rated it higher than a 5. What I don't get as well are the 19 votes below 5. I mean really, what gives?
Someone, please help me understand.
Rikki |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 05:34:57 PM · #2 |
I think it comes down to subject matter...there is no main subject to draw you in. Great looking as a back drop for maybe a boat in the foreground or a silhouette....I think that's the reason it did not do better....the lack of a foreground element.
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 17:35:17. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 05:35:09 PM · #3 |
Let me try... by asking you this question:
how many images in the top 223 would you bump down below this one? 10? 50? So it brings it up to #174, still not a big deal. Are there 200 shots that are noticeably better? I don't think so. Nothing against you personally, Robert, but I'm just trying to rationalize the placement.
Realistically, this was a challenge with a lot of excellent photos. And 19 votes below 5 is something I am still striving towards. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 05:35:49 PM · #4 |
hi,
i agree that the photo is awesome but i think peeps voted low on this because it's a very well known photo theme and there is nothing "so" exiting on it, nevertheless colors are great and midtones as you said are cool ... my personal opinion is that photo lacks composition appeal, all other aspects are very very good except as i said above the "wow" factor is not really on the high scale ...
what do others think ?
"just my 2 cents and i'm not an expert" ;-)
peace
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 05:35:53 PM · #5 |
Because of the conspiracy. But we don't want to talk about it.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 05:36:03 PM · #6 |
Pretty. But lacks a compelling subject. Ho-hum. Gave it a 5.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 05:42:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Pretty. But lacks a compelling subject. Ho-hum. Gave it a 5. |
I did the same as KaDi. I gave it a 6 though. Technically it's a great picture but it's boring. It doesn't pop out at me.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 05:50:29 PM · #8 |
Some pictures do speak to a person but they dont always say the same thing. Ive seen pics that I know were inferior to mine score better :p My free study placed 260 somthing, very un-deserved IMHO.
Apparently I never made it to this one but it would have received a 9 from me. There is something about trees that seems just a smidge off, otherwise it would have been a 10. I Love Bear's sky, Its so freaking blue and I loved the arch of the trees with the sunset, its great and as you said he didnt loose his midground which for me is really hard to do on sunset dark pictures. This deserved better. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 06:01:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Kivet:
My free study placed 260 somthing, very un-deserved IMHO.
|
Naomi... that is what I always think about my images to... until about 6 weeks later. LOL!
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 06:14:02 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Kivet:
My free study placed 260 somthing, very un-deserved IMHO.
|
Errr... your free study came in 60th out of over 500... pretty good! |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 06:19:31 PM · #11 |
It isn't a composition that suits a small reproduction.
It might wow 16"x20" but it doesn't have the impact required for a 6x4 |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 06:59:43 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't a composition that suits a small reproduction.
It might wow 16"x20" but it doesn't have the impact required for a 6x4 |
Excellent analysis! I can squint at a 36mm x 24mm Velvia transparency on a lightbox and know I have a winner. I can print an A3 picture and know that it is good but when I look at a picture less than a quarter of my monitor size I can's see the subtle colour blends...
Robert takes my kind of pictures but I would have had trouble with this one. The original must have so much greater range than the screen can ever show.
Roger |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:17:05 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Because of the conspiracy. But we don't want to talk about it. |
Ah! This figures... smirk!
Seriously, I think it is an image size thing and it is something that I am beginning to appreciate in the challenges - 640 pixels max length is not a lot of space to work in so the image has to scale. I am beginning to think that less may be more for the challenges.
Carl
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:24:30 PM · #14 |
| I think it would've done better with a touch of motion blur. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 07:30:56 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I think it would've done better with a touch of motion blur. |
 |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:08:57 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't a composition that suits a small reproduction.
It might wow 16"x20" but it doesn't have the impact required for a 6x4 |
Hope I didn't misunderstand your post, so let me see if Iâm getting this. Voters have found another way of lowering their score on a photograph because it may not have âthe impact required on a 6X4â?
I guess I have to add that one to my growing list of âwhat not to doâ when submitting a photograph.
I didnât vote on this photograph, didnât make it that far, but if I would have it would have been a 7 as is. If a little bit of dodging on the ice against the bank of the pond to bring it out a little more I would of gave it a 8 or 9.
I find nothing boring about this image. I think sometime we confuse peaceful and boring. Not all photographs have to be rugged and ruff to be called non-boring.
-SDW
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 20:10:14. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:13:50 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
Hope I didn't misunderstand your post, so let me see if Iâm getting this. Voters have found another way of lowering their score on a photograph because it may not have âthe impact required on a 6X4â?
I guess I have to add that one to my growing list of âwhat not to doâ when submitting a photograph.
|
"Create a shot with little or no impact" does not seem like an unreasonable thing to have on a list of "what not to do," does it? |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:24:10 PM · #18 |
Well I'm certainly not going to vote on what an image could be if it was printed bigger...
I wouldn't try to paint a detailed picture of Manhattan Island on a post-it note, nor would I write a novel on a matchbook cover. I might draw a face or write a hiaku, but I wouldn't enter my hiaku in a novel competition.
We're limited by many things here at DPC, which is fine, because those limits are mostly understood (motion blur controversy not withstanding). It's up to the artist to craft the best piece of art within those limits.
Personally, I'm not a great huge fan of tree silhouettes, especially as the focal point of a photo, and would have voted this shot in the middle of the pack. I think Bear is a great photographer, and he's taken some ribbon-worthy shots, but this ain't one of 'em. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:31:53 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
Hope I didn't misunderstand your post, so let me see if Iâm getting this. Voters have found another way of lowering their score on a photograph because it may not have âthe impact required on a 6X4â?
I guess I have to add that one to my growing list of âwhat not to doâ when submitting a photograph.
|
"Create a shot with little or no impact" does not seem like an unreasonable thing to have on a list of "what not to do," does it? |
But it was stated "It might wow 16"x20" but it doesn't have the impact required for a 6x4". If it can WoW or "impact" a larger size why vote it lower it it may not "impact" a smaller image?
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:53:03 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
But it was stated "It might wow 16"x20" but it doesn't have the impact required for a 6x4". If it can WoW or "impact" a larger size why vote it lower it it may not "impact" a smaller image? |
Because I don't vote on what might be, I vote on what is. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 04:19:20 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't a composition that suits a small reproduction.
It might wow 16"x20" but it doesn't have the impact required for a 6x4 |
Hope I didn't misunderstand your post, so let me see if Iâm getting this. Voters have found another way of lowering their score on a photograph because it may not have âthe impact required on a 6X4â?
I guess I have to add that one to my growing list of âwhat not to doâ when submitting a photograph.
I didnât vote on this photograph, didnât make it that far, but if I would have it would have been a 7 as is. If a little bit of dodging on the ice against the bank of the pond to bring it out a little more I would of gave it a 8 or 9.
I find nothing boring about this image. I think sometime we confuse peaceful and boring. Not all photographs have to be rugged and ruff to be called non-boring.
-SDW |
I don't much care what voters think or not, but certainly if you are composing for something that will be shown 6"x4" then what works is a lot different from what works on something intended for 30"x20"
Composition isn't some sort of non-dimensional element like a pixel; size matters.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 16:19:34. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 04:28:30 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Because of the conspiracy. But we don't want to talk about it. |
It's about time someone admited that! God bless you Ursula.
hehehe. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 04:29:38 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I think it would've done better with a touch of motion blur. |
i just laughed out loud at work...now people think i'm crazy :o |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 04:34:21 PM · #24 |
Personally, I think Gordon hit the nail on the head. At a large print size with lots of fine detail, this would wow, definitely. Some things just do not translate to 640px. I've learned that the hard way myself. It's not a commentary on the voters, as one poster opined, but rather that the impact of an image like this comes from fine detail and the juxtaposition of same against the smooth graduated tones of the sky and water.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 04:36:57 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
what gives?
Someone, please help me understand.
Rikki |
Back to being serious.
Rikki I like that image too and gave it a 7. Everything everyone is saying in the thread is true and there is more in my estimation. Just too many entries. Something like this gets lost among the many other landscapes let alone all the other macros and nudes and people and things. With over 600 entries, even with a month to vote, it isn't easy giving everyone a fair shake. I spent a lot of time voting on this and tried to look at each and every photo with the same enthusiasm as the next but my limited ability since I have a life outside of DPC (though some may differ on that with me) I just couldn't be completely fair with everyone. I am sure one or two or 10 got by me somewhere and I could have scored them higher if I had the time.
Also, there is no accounting for taste; some people might not like it, simple as that. I liked it and gave it a 7.
|
|
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: 10/19/2025 08:09:35 AM EDT.
