| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2002 05:44:38 PM · #1 |
About this photo.
I would like to know what can be improved as it scored pretty low.
It meets the challenge, it is in focus, it is sharp.
I guess that the framing / crop is ok, except that the object is not on a straight line with the horizon.
The brownish light was intentional, warmth in a cold icey cave. Is it to brown (something wrong with my monitor?)
The light is most intense where the bears warm each other. It took some fiddling with another piece of glass behind this one to achieve that.
I know that is a portrayal of artwork, but so are many others who scored better.
Bad things are the dark band in the middle caused by the second piece of glas wich broke the light in two. That also caused the reflection right of the nose of the left bear. Even with this piece of glas I could not avoid to have a few bits blown out. But with a longer shutter all other areas came to dark.
The comments are nice, but don't help much to explain the score.
Or is it that people think that it is more then one light?
Or is it so boring?
Can't be the mistake in the title...
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/28/2002 5:43:57 PM. |
|
|
|
10/28/2002 05:56:49 PM · #2 |
| I think a more diffused light would improve your photograph. |
|
|
|
10/28/2002 06:40:07 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by joanns:
I think a more diffused light would improve your photograph.
I think you are pretty much saying what people would say about the picture. Personnally, the object by itself did not interested me at all (sorry) , then the picture being a picture of that object ...
you have to remember/know that the efforts you might have put in it to improve it does not matter for the viewer, well I think.
But even without the 'little defaults you are explaining your self, that would have been an ok shot of a regular object to me.
I hope this help , I tried to do my best to express my feelings about your picture. So not default, it would have get a 5 from me.
Lionel
But that's just me and what do I know ! |
|
|
|
10/28/2002 07:26:25 PM · #4 |
I think your picture is technically OK. Unfortunately, if you take a picture of something cute, you run the chance of doing poorly. I suppose people are looking some kind of wow effect. It's hard to do so with cute furry bears. I dunno, just my $.02. By the way, I gave you a 7.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2002 07:43:50 PM · #5 |
I gave you an 8. To me, the photo was very well taken. A broader based light, to light up the entire subject more fully might have been slightly better, but really, it's very nice. Cute doesn't score well, I agree, but neither does too much artsy kind of stuff, either.
On the other hand, my scores are pretty much in the dumpster anyway, who am I to say....(I think I may be getting a handle on what not to do, check out my profile, it might help, smile!) |
|
|
|
10/28/2002 08:34:54 PM · #6 |
I'll admit that I gave you a 2. Perhaps the photo deserved a few points higher than that for technical reasons, but I still can't say that I would give it more than a 4 or 5. While technical execution is important, I generally rate more on impact, concept, and appeal. Those things are hindered or enhanced by technical execution (and therefore my rating is effected by them), but technical execution can't make a shot on its own, so I stand by my score. As you said, this shot is in sharp focus and it meets the challenge. The problem was that there was nothing about this photo that struck me as interesting, insightful, visually appealing or exciting, or particularly creative. It wasn't that there was anything wrong with the shot, it was simply that there wasn't anything particularly right with it. It didn't make me think. It didn't have any striking visual effects or a unique perspective on a relatively uneventful object. It didn't have an extremely interesting subject. It was simply too normal and didn't really bring anything special to the table. It too bad that it turned out that way, because from your description you obviously put a lot of effort into the shooting.
There's nothing wrong with shooting something simple, but if that is the case than the way you shoot it must make your subject stand out in some way, and this shot just didn't seem to do that for me.
I hope that helps you understand at least what my reasoning was, and perhaps a lot of others who thought similarly to me. |
|
|
|
10/28/2002 08:49:06 PM · #7 |
Not a bad description of how I felt also - but I gave you a 5 - "average" in my scoring system. The bright lighting in some of the areas was not a real positive for me.
Originally posted by wingy:
I'll admit that I gave you a 2. Perhaps the photo deserved a few points higher than that for technical reasons, but I still can't say that I would give it more than a 4 or 5. While technical execution is important, I generally rate more on impact, concept, and appeal. Those things are hindered or enhanced by technical execution (and therefore my rating is effected by them), but technical execution can't make a shot on its own, so I stand by my score. As you said, this shot is in sharp focus and it meets the challenge. The problem was that there was nothing about this photo that struck me as interesting, insightful, visually appealing or exciting, or particularly creative. It wasn't that there was anything wrong with the shot, it was simply that there wasn't anything particularly right with it. It didn't make me think. It didn't have any striking visual effects or a unique perspective on a relatively uneventful object. It didn't have an extremely interesting subject. It was simply too normal and didn't really bring anything special to the table. It too bad that it turned out that way, because from your description you obviously put a lot of effort into the shooting.
There's nothing wrong with shooting something simple, but if that is the case than the way you shoot it must make your subject stand out in some way, and this shot just didn't seem to do that for me.
I hope that helps you understand at least what my reasoning was, and perhaps a lot of others who thought similarly to me.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2002 09:41:02 PM · #8 |
I gave you a low score because I just don't see any interesting aspect of the photo.
Originally posted by Azrifel:
About this photo.
I would like to know what can be improved as it scored pretty low.
It meets the challenge, it is in focus, it is sharp.
I guess that the framing / crop is ok, except that the object is not on a straight line with the horizon.
The brownish light was intentional, warmth in a cold icey cave. Is it to brown (something wrong with my monitor?)
The light is most intense where the bears warm each other. It took some fiddling with another piece of glass behind this one to achieve that.
I know that is a portrayal of artwork, but so are many others who scored better.
Bad things are the dark band in the middle caused by the second piece of glas wich broke the light in two. That also caused the reflection right of the nose of the left bear. Even with this piece of glas I could not avoid to have a few bits blown out. But with a longer shutter all other areas came to dark.
The comments are nice, but don't help much to explain the score.
Or is it that people think that it is more then one light?
Or is it so boring?
Can't be the mistake in the title..
|
|
|
|
10/28/2002 10:12:55 PM · #9 |
I gave it a 7... I thought the lighting was quite interesting. The warmth of the light was quite nice also. I think this shot could be improved, IMO, by creating a tighter crop that highlights the bears more than in this one. I don't really need to see the entire outer edges of this glass. Cropping it nicely doesn't look like an easy task though... the irregular shape would make that quite difficult. Maybe a macro section of the image? Get in tight.. pull out the details... The lighting probably could have been diffused a little also to eliminate the hot spots and create a more even tone across the entire image.
If I had chosen to work with a subject like this one, I probably would have done about 75 photos... 5 or 6 each at different angles, compositions, and lighting positions....
How many photos did you take on this shoot?
|
|
|
|
10/28/2002 11:02:37 PM · #10 |
I agree with Setz. Playing with different angles and tighter crops could have made this seem less like a photo of a "thing" and more like a work of art in its own right. This goes back to one of the QOTD posts from a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 12:01:42 AM · #11 |
You've also taken a 3 dimensional sculpture in glass and because you've
taken a very 'straight on' view, managed to hide a whole aspect of
the object by making it look totally 2 dimensional.
I'm assuming one of the things that drew you to take the picture was
the depth and textures but your shot manages to remove these totally.
Something to think about. |
|
|
|
10/29/2002 05:46:04 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by joanns:
I think a more diffused light would improve your photograph.
Pretty stupid of me; After thinking about the comments today I remembered I had just the thing to get that effect. A milkytransparent candle shield......
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 06:02:22 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I gave it a 7... I thought the lighting was quite interesting. The warmth of the light was quite nice also. I think this shot could be improved, IMO, by creating a tighter crop that highlights the bears more than in this one. I don't really need to see the entire outer edges of this glass. Cropping it nicely doesn't look like an easy task though... the irregular shape would make that quite difficult.
I tried it and I agree that it improves the shot. The bears make a bigger impact and are therefore somewhat more interesting to look at. The irregular glas borders can even be used to fill the upper corners, wich gives a 'cave' impression. I personally think they add something that way.
Combined with the diffused light it would be much better. More intersting, softer and I would get rid of the 'overexposure' in the face and the disturbing reflection.
Encouraged by this I have tried to use cropping to make other pictures more interesting (instead of just cropping out unwanted stuff or to center the subject -thanks to the this site and the rule of thirds I now know it is wrong to center subjects to much-) and it helps a lot.
If I had chosen to work with a subject like this one, I probably would have done about 75 photos... 5 or 6 each at different angles, compositions, and lighting positions....
How many photos did you take on this shoot?
About 50 (all autobracketed, so divide by 3), 20 of those were deleted on the camera and most of the other 30 had exposure problems (also because of the too intense light).
All my attention was on getting the light intensity down and trying different exposures.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/29/2002 6:07:39 PM. |
|
|
|
10/29/2002 06:08:38 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You've also taken a 3 dimensional sculpture in glass and because you've
taken a very 'straight on' view, managed to hide a whole aspect of
the object by making it look totally 2 dimensional.
You are right, I should have tried different angles, but I didn't. I should, because storage is not a problem.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 06:09:13 PM · #15 |
Thank you for your comments they have all been very useful.
I need to think more serious about what I want to do and just try a lot more to get that effect.
And I need to find interesting subjects or a way to make something boring more appealing. ;-)
|
|
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: 08/07/2025 03:58:10 AM EDT.
