| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2007 05:33:24 PM · #601 |
BTW, the pic in the previous post was taken from my back porch.
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 17:34:29.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 07:21:30 PM · #602 |
i love when people leave comments that show they've really thought about your image, and hoave taken its meaning in a whole new direction - like they did with the no more image. i suppose that's why i try to make my titles as flexible as possible, encomapssing many meanings.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 07:53:13 PM · #603 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by noraneko:
Shameless bid for comments from fellow suckers on two photos I just posted in profile:
Am especially interested in people's take on the trees as this is a risky "photo without subject" type of shot. |
I don't like that one at all....I don't understand why anyone would take a picture like that!
8>) |
Lot of these going around. This is my DISASTER from Free Study.
 |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 07:58:29 PM · #604 |
Well, I wasn't going to do it but I put in a shot for "Song Titles". I had an idea and I decided to try it.
It was my first attempt at trying something new so I'm sure it won't do well considering how supurb some of the DPC members have done that I tried to emulate.
Oh well, I joined team suck for two reasons. One of them is for the great friendship. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 08:55:10 PM · #605 |
| Thanks so much to all Team Suckers who commented on my profile images! I really appreciate it. Is everyone in Best of 2006? I have a photo in, but am really scared of what will be amazingly stiff competition. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 09:30:32 PM · #606 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
Just want to capture this snapshot while I can.
Procrationation
Votes: 48
Views: 113
Avg Vote: 6.0208
Comments: 7
Favorites: 0 |
Woo hoo! Team Novice might not get the brown for once! |
Hey, don't worry, I'm in there too - but thanks, Juli, for the fleeting illusion of respectability. :) |
I'm afraid "fleeting" is the word of the day. Current status (Boo hoo):
Procrastination
Votes: 74
Views: 167
Avg Vote: 5.7297
Comments: 10
All the comments are positive, so some people must have given some very low scores without explaining. So what's new. Well there's still a whole week to go.
Catherine, I don't understand why Team Novice keeps getting the brown, week after week. Can't be for lack of trying, or talent. Must be experience. We'll get that blue one of these days. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:05:26 PM · #607 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My highest score is just a tad over 5.5 'til this....
Votes: 68
Views: 113
Avg Vote: 6.7500
Comments: 7
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 01/08/07 05:10 pm
Talk about wanting to save a snapshot for posterity!!!!
And *SEVEN* glowing comments!!!!!
I'm so used to snide and derogatory!!!!!!8>) |
HOLY SMOKES. You're getting up there in ribbon territory. Can't wait to see which one it is. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:12:47 PM · #608 |
I've entered Best of 2006. I had a terrible time choosing -- there are so many taken in a year. I finally decided on one I took in November. I'm scared of the competition in this challenge. All these fabulous photogs submitting their best of the year. Yikes, the bar will be set really high. I'd hate to see my "best" come out in the 4 range, just because the average is so incredibly good.
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 22:15:41. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:45:49 PM · #609 |
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
...Yikes, the bar will be set really high. I'd hate to see my "best" come out in the 4 range, just because the average is so incredibly good. |
techincally, that shouldn't happen. people shouldn't vote on a sliding scale, jsut take each shot as it comes. that's what i try to do. if there are no 10s in a challenge, there aren't any. so, if it's good, it should score well. even if there are terrifying icelanders out there...
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:50:43 PM · #610 |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:52:38 PM · #611 |
and while you're at it, why not give an OOBIE to this breathtaking photo?
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:57:22 PM · #612 |
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
I'm scared of the competition in this challenge. |
So don't think of competing with anyone but yourself. :) I don't know about others, but my vote on any given shot is independent of my shot or what I've voted on others for the first run through. Then I sometimes fine tune for 6 and up.
Okay, folks, at the risk of sounding like I think I know what I'm doing, here's your checklist for "Best of 2006" that I think will help you score highly:
1) Subject. Subjectless photos can be interesting, but they often aren't. If you're not sure, use the photo search feature, limit it to challenge entries, and see how similar items have done.
2) Focus. Focus, focus, focus. Are the important parts like the subject in focus? Unless you're trying to go soft, make sure it's sharp.
And don't forget sharpening AFTER you downsize to entry proportions. Often, photos that are nice and sharp at full size get soft on resizing. Don't know why, just know it happens. Consider adding a sharpening step afterward. This is the single best tip I've gotten on DPC, from none other than DrAchoo. It's not always true that post-resizing sharpening will work, but I always at least look at it and make a conscious decision. (Christian, you just think about another high pass filter).
Of course, don't try to save a badly focused shot. The idea is just to correct the natural softness inherent in digital photos.
3) Lighting. Is it well-lit? Can we see your subject? People's monitors aren't calibrated. Even calibrated CRT monitors can't distinguish between the last two bars in the gradient at the bottom of voting pages. You don't want your subject down there anyway. On the other end, are there blown-out bright spots?
4) Contrast. Is your subject visually and tonally different from the background? Unless you're trying to make a very subtle point, it should be.
5) Composition. Get out of the middle unless it's a closeup: it just looks better, at least to most voters. And look for angles other than dead-on. Ever notice how portrait shooters often turn your body one way and turn your head another? Think the same way regardless of subject. If your subject's dead center in the original, crop it creatively.
6) Distractions. Get rid of everything in the shot that doesn't belong there. Pretend you're starting with a blank sheet of paper and imagine drawing in what you want people to see. Then look for shots that don't have anything else there. Unless you're trying to depict complexity, simple usually does better than cluttered. As DrAchoo writes, "Would Michaelangelo paint that '72 Pinto into the background of a painting? If not, then what is it doing in your photo?"
Now, if your goal is just to enter what you like, and scores don't matter, then happily ignore all of that and enjoy the comments. :)
Finally, a homework assignment for anyone who wants to do well at DPC: read scalvert's thread on how to win a ribbon.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:08:18 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
...(Christian, you just think about another high pass filter)... |
ha ha.
a very good list indeed. one more thing i'd like to add - tonal range for b/w shots. unless the idea is specifically to limit the tonal range in your shot (very very dark or light), then a b/w shot should have the full tonal range, from black to white. that doesn't mean your shadows have to be inky black all over, but that there should be some pure black and some pure white somewhere in the shot.
when i was printing b/w film, this was easy. i printed with a filed out negative carrier, so the rebate showed on the print. then, i just took the first test stip slice that showed true black, and that was usually the right exposure. now, i guess you just have to eyball it. but the full tonal range gives the picture a feeling of completeness, whereas a limited tonal range (unless it's deliberate) tends to look flat and unsatisfying. grey.
you can check it out - i think even in my darkest images there is a full gradient. it may be dominated by the blacks, but i try to always have tat full, round, plump tonal range. the difference between a nice squishy ball that fits in your hand and you can squeeze it pleasubaly, and a half deflated on that has no body or oomph.
how's that for a bizarre metaphor. simile. whatever.
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 23:09:06.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:12:36 PM · #614 |
Originally posted by xianart:
Originally posted by levyj413:
...(Christian, you just think about another high pass filter)... |
one more thing i'd like to add - tonal range for b/w shots. unless the idea is specifically to limit the tonal range in your shot (very very dark or light), then a b/w shot should have the full tonal range, from black to white ... i guess you just have to eyball it. |
No ya don't! At least not in Photoshop. Move your mouse over what appear to be the darkest spots while looking at the info pane. Those dark spots should be no brighter than about 10 in each color.
Then do the same for the brightest spots. They should be no lower than about 245 in each color.
If you're having trouble finding those extremes, create an adjustment layer called threshhold and move the slider left and right. One direction turns everything black until only the brightest points are white and the other does the reverse, leaving only the darkest points black.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:13:57 PM · #615 |
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
HOLY SMOKES. You're getting up there in ribbon territory. Can't wait to see which one it is. |
Well, I dunno 'bout that, but it's certainly a real treat to have a nice pic that does well and gets good comments.
I just want to state for the record that the typical 5.1 my "Centered" entry is doing is actually enough to knock one of my others off the profile page so I want to state for the record that this was a fluke!.....8>)
So don't be expecting that on a regular basis or anything.
I am pretty happy with what'll be coming up from me in the B&W challenge......I'm actually hoping for OOBIE recognition on that one.
My Best Of 2006 entry will probably suck in the scoring, but I think you'll all like it, especially afterwards when I give y'all the story behind it.
It's the pic that started my determined efforts to become a serious photographer.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:14:08 PM · #616 |
cool! thank you, that's something new i learned today.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:14:26 PM · #617 |
I'm putting this in a separate post because it's a separate idea. :)
I just stumbled onto a site that's devoted PRIMARILY to giving and getting comments: //www.photosig.com
With a free membership, you can initially upload one pic every three days.
BUT - provide comments on others' pics that they find useful, and you earn points toward more uploads. And there's a bonus - be one of the first three critiques on a photo, and you get three times as many points!
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:16:07 PM · #618 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Oh well, I joined team suck for two reasons. One of them is for the great friendship. |
I'm thinkin' the things said here that make me fall off the chair laughing are why I'm here!
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:30:20 PM · #619 |
Jeff's tutorial needs a sucktext for those worried about scoring too high:
Originally posted by levyj413:
1) Subject. Subjectless photos can be interesting, but they often aren't. If you're not sure, use the photo search feature, limit it to challenge entries, and see how similar items have done.
Originally posted by suck:
The only life a photo has is the tension between what the photographer has captured and what was really there. If you capture your subject too perfectly, you lose that tension and the photo dies. |
2) Focus. Focus, focus, focus. Are the important parts like the subject in focus? Unless you're trying to go soft, make sure it's sharp.
Originally posted by suck:
Breath. Breathe, breathe, breathe. Is your photo breathing? |
3) Lighting. Is it well-lit? Can we see your subject? People's monitors aren't calibrated. Even calibrated CRT monitors can't distinguish between the last two bars in the gradient at the bottom of voting pages. You don't want your subject down there anyway. On the other end, are there blown-out bright spots?
Originally posted by suck:
Behold the mysteries of the photograph: what is outside the frame, what is blocked, what is out of focus, what is too dark and what is too bright. With no mystery, a photo has no interest. Oh, there is also the mystery of what hides in plain sight. But that is advanced sucking, grasshopper. |
4) Contrast. Is your subject visually and tonally different from the background? Unless you're trying to make a very subtle point, it should be.
Originally posted by suck:
The way your subject interacts with the background *is* your photograph. This interaction should be unique to each photo. |
5) Composition. Get out of the middle unless it's a closeup: it just looks better, at least to most voters. And look for angles other than dead-on. Ever notice how portrait shooters often turn your body one way and turn your head another? Think the same way regardless of subject. If your subject's dead center in the original, crop it creatively.
Originally posted by suck:
Composition is to a photograph what an expression is to the face. Match the expression to the feeling. Don't use any composition without a reason. |
6) Distractions. Get rid of everything in the shot that doesn't belong there. Pretend you're starting with a blank sheet of paper and imagine drawing in what you want people to see. Then look for shots that don't have anything else there. Unless you're trying to depict complexity, simple usually does better than cluttered. As DrAchoo writes, "Would Michaelangelo paint that '72 Pinto into the background of a painting? If not, then what is it doing in your photo?"
Originally posted by suck:
When deciding what "doesn't belong," make your heart generous and true. |
|
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:33:14 PM · #620 |
Don: righto. Um. I think. ;)
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:34:53 PM · #621 |
Votes: 86
Views: 143
Avg Vote: 6.6977
Comments: 9
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 01/09/07 06:33 am
I am just so amazed!
Of course, I have days to go.....
Message edited by author 2007-01-09 06:34:37.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:36:21 PM · #622 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Jeff's tutorial needs a sucktext for those worried about scoring too high: |
Can we change his username to POSTHUMOROUS?????
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 05:14:43 AM · #623 |
I'll offer a bit of a counterargument to Jeff's point #6 about distractions. Sometimes photography is to record, not to create "art" - sure some of the great painters might omit the power lines in the distance behind the tree, and in advanced editing, feel free to do so if they're not a major element. But I'm weird. Not only do I quite frequently like blown highlights in places, I like elements that are there when you shoot. Including power lines. I will try to compose my shot so something glaring doesn't steal the attention from whatever I'm shooting, but I don't think every picture needs to be "pure and sparkling clean" - unless of course, you want higher scores on DPC. In my opinion a lot of times if you take too much out out, you take away a picture's character.
But do let me reiterate - I'm weird, and I don't win ribbons. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 06:08:14 AM · #624 |
Way to go Alan!
Fireworks
Team Novice -- 
Team Minus --
The Hoovers --  
Chasing Butterflies -- * |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 06:18:19 AM · #625 |
| So can I get an OOBIE now? :-) |
|
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: 08/14/2025 02:57:05 AM EDT.
