OK, help me understand... - DPChallenge Forums

04/21/2003 11:26:02 AM · #1

First I want to say that I didn't enter anything in the weather challenge. With that said...

How does a blurry/soft image win? I am absolutely sure I will get beat up for even posting this but isn't there some sort of technical standard an image has to live up to to be rewarded a 10 or a blue ribbon?

I would love to love that image. It has all the makings of a lovely photo. Help me out. Let me know your reasons.

Dave

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

04/21/2003 11:42:45 AM · #2

Because technical quality isn't the be all and end all of a good photograph. While many photographers get hung up on that, the rest of the world cares about interesting content or emotional images or high drama.

Technical stuff is way down the list for non-camera geeks.

Many people seem to make this mistake - and spend a lot of time taking perfectly exposed, fantastically developed, technically magnificent prints of boring subjects.

Some day check out the national geographic 'best pictures of the year' or Time Magazine 'best pictures of the year' most of them technially are flawed in often pretty obvious ways - but the content is what those pictures are about.

Substance over style - it's kinda refreshing in a way.

blemt

Nikon D70

04/21/2003 11:46:50 AM · #3

I'm guessing that you are refering to the blue ribbon image this week. In this case, any softness is overridden by the dynamic elements of the image. The capture of the wave, the ice crusted on the lighthouse, and the cool blue sky all evoke a strong emotional reaction. In my case it was, "dang it looks cold out there!" For this challenge, that particular emotional response probably offset the minor technical issues with sharp focus. If you check the votes, you will see that there were several people who graded it down. I'd imagine due to the lack of razor sharp focus. For the rest of the voters, the softness was not enough of a factor for them to seriously downgrade the image.

As for technical standards, you can post a technically perfect image, but if it does not evoke a strong reaction in people, it's not going to score well. These images are not being judged by "professional critics". It's average, everyday people. Based on the comments, it looks like this week, people loved the action in this particular weather shot. :)

Hope this helps!

04/21/2003 12:00:43 PM · #4

Gordon, so you are saying that having a subject in focus in landscape photography isn't that important if the subject has impact?

Dave

PS - Time and National Geo fall under photo journalism. That is a totally different aspect of imagery than what we are doing here. If we were, I would have never made my original post...

Message edited by author 2003-04-21 12:02:38.

04/21/2003 12:44:38 PM · #5

Originally posted by Davenit:

I'd generalise even further. The more impact a photo has based on the subject, the less important the technical issues are. The vast majority of people looking at photographs do not care about the technical side of things, until it gets in the way of the subject.

If the subject is boring, the picture is boring, no matter how technically well it is taken.

If the subject is interesting and well composed with a good emotional response, technical issues can help it further, but they are far from being the most important part of a good picture.

It is all about communication. If the picture doesn't have anything to say, it doesn't matter how well it is said. Technical quality does matter, it is just secondary to content/ composition. This is increasingly true, the further you get from a technically obsessed voting group. As the majority of voters on dpc don't seem to be very technically adept and are voting on a large mass of pictures, it is even less surprising that technical issues get ignored on small 640x480 representations of images.

In this case, the winning entry is slightly soft, with some JPEG artefacts. It isn't as if it is so blurred or so out of focus that you can't tell what it is a picture of. And the subject is pretty dramatic - encased in ice, large waves breaking over it. I can even forgive it being taken at a really boring time of day too.

It certainly meets the theme of 'weather' pretty spot on too - much more than the various sunsets and flags do

Message edited by author 2003-04-21 12:50:04.

dsidwell

Canon EOS-5D

04/21/2003 12:57:52 PM · #6

I agree with Gordon. If an image has great impact, this impact may well overshadow the technical faults. I would even go futher to say that that is what I look for first. If a photo has it, it will probably score well from me. After that, I let the technical matters finally callibrate where the image lands in terms of score.

04/21/2003 01:11:38 PM · #7

This link may help you :) no pun intended:

What type of Photographer are you?

Originally posted by Davenit:

04/21/2003 01:19:11 PM · #8

Ooops, meant to do this:

How to make great photoraphs

Originally posted by paganini:

This link may help you :) no pun intended:

What type of Photographer are you?

Originally posted by Davenit:
First I want to say that I didn't enter anything in the weather challenge. With that said...

How does a blurry/soft image win? I am absolutely sure I will get beat up for even posting this but isn't there some sort of technical standard an image has to live up to to be rewarded a 10 or a blue ribbon?

I would love to love that image. It has all the makings of a lovely photo. Help me out. Let me know your reasons.

Dave

04/21/2003 01:27:59 PM · #9

Paganini, thanks, but the sofness in that image was not intentional. At least I don't think it was, so this probably wasn't an artistic expression, this was a flaw.

This is a digital photography site. This is a contest. We are not just your average snapshot viewer. For an image to win with such a glaring flaw just strikes me as odd. No matter how much WOW factor an image has.

For the record, one of my favorite photographers in the world... Michael Philip Manheim ( //www.michaelphilipmanheim.com/ ) so this isn't about expression.

Gordon, I respectfully disagree with you. Images should not have camera shake. That's all this looks like to me. To accept it and reward it does a dis-service to those here who are learning or entered a shot that doesn't have it. Look at ANY great landscape shot that is known. Find one with camera shake. NOT an intentional blur but camera shake...

This is just my opinion.

Dave

04/21/2003 01:41:22 PM · #10

Which photo are you talking about? The winning #1 ??? i didn't see it as soft.

Originally posted by Davenit:

04/21/2003 01:49:07 PM · #11

Actually I believe we are quite average :) Try to post an artistic photo on here and see the results :)
Also i still don't see what you're saying about "softness". The photos that won looks fine to me. The first photo is a bit fuzzy on TOP because of the ice, but if you look at the base of the tower, it's SOLID and it's not fuzzy.

Also, remember that on your screen it's 74 dpi or something like that, nothing will seem truly sharp unless you sharpen the hell out of it in photoshop... which is really not needed if the print was MADE on 8x12, it'll look sharp enough assuming you have 300dpi.

Also, I really hate it when people post a really really really sharp photo with lots of noise artifacts, because I know the sharpness is gained artificially and it no longer looks like a photograph, at least compared to film :)

Originally posted by Davenit:

This is a digital photography site. This is a contest. We are not just your average snapshot viewer. For an image to win with such a glaring flaw just strikes me as odd. No matter how much WOW factor an image has.

For the record, one of my favorite photographers in the world... Michael Philip Manheim ( //www.michaelphilipmanheim.com/ ) so this isn't about expression.

Gordon, I respectfully disagree with you. Images should not have camera shake. That's all this looks like to me. To accept it and reward it does a dis-service to those here who are learning or entered a shot that doesn't have it. Look at ANY great landscape shot that is known. Find one with camera shake. NOT an intentional blur but camera shake...

This is just my opinion.

Dave

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

04/21/2003 01:57:50 PM · #12

Originally posted by Davenit:

You should really be asking yourself why people like this instead of providing reasons why they shouldn't. People shoot images for others to enjoy and, here, vote upon...if this image won despite some minor tehnical flaws, that should be submitted as proof of the fact that subject does indeed matter more than technical details. To make a distinction in audience between 'average snapshot viewers' and other more learned viewers is rather pretentious. While technique can often save an image, and can always make it better, a great subject will always have broad appeal. Broad appeal is what wins here.

If you think that the image could have been improved, by all means offer your comments. To hack it and the people who voted it highly, however, is to miss the point entirely. This isn't a site where people are offering comments such as 'nice bokeh' or 'oooh, fantastic dynamic range'...but that doesn't mean they're stupid or can't appreciate a photograph just as much as some Hasselblad-laden boob. Technique is a means to an end and, as Gordon has said, if the end is still boring you're not going to do well.

James.

Message edited by author 2003-04-21 14:12:26.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

04/21/2003 02:04:58 PM · #13

PS - That shot was taken with a 400mm equivalent at F/7.1, exposed for 1\6.4 seconds. That's either a really, really, really (really) good hand-hold or it was taken on a tripod. Look at the pilons...I don't see a lot of camera shake. The ice everywhere might give an impression of movement and/or softness but I personally think it's fine technically. Sure it could have been taken at sunset, but then it would have simply scored even higher...

James.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/21/2003 02:10:50 PM · #14

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

It also looks kinda windy (!) Could be camera shake just due to the lens getting blown around.

The biggest flaw I can see with that shot is that it was uploaded at under 40k and has nasty JPEG compression issues.

joebar

Canon EOS-20D

04/21/2003 02:16:23 PM · #15

FWIW Dave, I agree with ya. I didn't enter in that challenge either. Just kinda passed over that photo - didn't really feel any impact - thought it was kinda snap-shotty.

Liked your candy submission btw.. Think it deserved a ribbon!

Journey

Canon PowerShot G3

04/21/2003 02:16:57 PM · #16

I have looked at the winning picture a number of times now trying to figure out why each time i see it, it makes such an unpleasant impression on me (allow me since appreciation of art is entirely subjective!). I can't quite put my finger on it. The jpeg artifacts are forgiven and it isn't really out of focus. I do love the bottom left fourth of the image with the wave and the water running down the pier. I think what makes the picture 'odd' to me is that there seems to a sort of 'problem'? with the relative proportions. Yeah, i know that wave is huge but how tiny is that lighthouse and the stairs leading to it? Is that lighthouse real? I'm having the impression i'm looking at a huge emotional drama in a fake toyland setting which prevents me from appreciating the drama. Something just seems squashed somehow.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

04/21/2003 02:17:39 PM · #17

I took it into photoshop and did a "Sharpen More".

I originally voted it a 5, due to the fact that I couldnt get over how blurred the photo was. I would have voted the sharpened version 8, possibly 9.

04/21/2003 02:20:04 PM · #18

Originally posted by Journey:

I agree actually - it reminds me of Gery Anderson puppet dramas - Thunderbirds that kind of thing and the effects they used.

Could be the compression due to using a telephoto combined with some of the artefacting ? Not sure but I certainly know what you mean.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/21/2003 02:27:17 PM · #19

i agree with both sides here. i was really really surprised this won because of the massive amount of votes in the past and comments from voters about photos being out of focus, and about depth of field and all that jazz. but obviously this shows if you find the right subject people won't be so picky about the technical side of things. like ben said, a little more post processing and it would have gotten a higher score...sharpness isn't a bad thing in this case at all, but it wasn't necessary either

04/21/2003 02:34:17 PM · #20

Part of the "softness" if you want to say it this way is due to the lens if he is using a 400 mm telephoto, which is not apparent that he is. But the biggest part is that the tower is completely frosted and "appears" to be soft.

This is just perception after using and looking at multiple digicam photos that are sharpened to death -- if you PRINT IT OUT and then look at it, it's probably a lot better assuming it h as enough original pixels to support the printing.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

04/21/2003 02:40:51 PM · #21

Oops, that was 400 filmspeed, not the lens...doh!

dsidwell

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

04/21/2003 02:42:50 PM · #22

About being "rewarded" for the shot in question, that is perhaps innacurate. People just voted, and the image got a LOT of 7s, and 8s, as well as a considerable amount of 9s and 10s. The dramatic nature of the shot overwhelmed the prompt for a lot of people to give it low scores. So statistics and math "rewarded" this image.

Many images that ultimately do well get a lot of high scores, but they may have a few low ones, too. In this case, there were very few low scores.

This wasn't my favorite shot (the one with the pigs in the sun was!), but I rated it quite highly. I imagine many feel the same. But when math speaks, we all bow and chant and congratulate the winner on a good job: and it is a good job. It's a good photo.

Message edited by author 2003-04-21 14:44:03.

dadas115

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

04/21/2003 02:50:18 PM · #23

I would like to say that I gave the 1st place photo a 9 and the 3rd an 8. To me they both looked soft but as others have pointed out they did have a lot of impact. I agree with Davenit that it doesnâ��t seem right that a soft looking picture would take first prize but soft or not, I think it is a good picture. The 3rd place picture was also in my opinion a good picture. The flower blossoms looked almost out of focus to me but the rain drops really make the picture so I guess I excused the softness in the flowers. I thought all thee of the ribbon winners were deserving of doing very well. In general I though the weather pictures were bland and these really did stand out to me. I am often confused by the way people vote on here and I think that has a lot to do with why my scores arenâ��t higher than they are. I like to think that technically I am a decent photographer but if I have learned anything at all from doing these challenges it is that the picture really does have to be of something interesting and the masses really do forgive technical problems for interesting photos. A couple of weeks ago I started a thread on here asking why my picture for the â��from aboveâ�� challenge didnâ��t do better. After reading what everyone said this is the conclusion I came up with. The picture is a self portrait by the way. I think it is a technically very well done picture but no one knows who I am. No one can really tell what I am doing. There isnâ��t any clear message in the picture. Overall it is just some random picture of some random guy who appears to be upset about something but no one knows what it is. When I submitted the picture I wanted it to be vague. I wanted people to look at it and wonder who is this and what is going on with him. It might work in an art gallery somewhere where people have lots of time to look at the photos but here it just didnâ��t have the impact that it needed. There was no message. My picture this week I think was a technically wonderful picture. I was really keeping my fingers crossed for a ribbon but it just didnâ��t make it. I think my problem was that lots of people didnâ��t know what the wind had to do with the picture. My thinking since the weather had been very windy and had blown most of the seeds off of the dandylion that the effect of the wind would be obvious. I guess it just wasnâ��t as dramatic as the huge wave crashing on the rocks next to those lovely ice-sickles or the raindrops streaking past some lovely yellow flowers. I guess that is enough rambling from me for now. I hope I made some point to someone.

Greg