| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2008 11:13:23 AM · #1 |
In my ongoing effort to learn what moves people, I'm intrigued by the substantial score difference between my free study entry and the 8th-place finisher. To me, they both have a silky waterfall framed by greenery.
If you could help enlighten me, I'd appreciate it! :) Especially if you happened to comment on both of them, since the difference in commenters' scores is even bigger than the difference in average scores.
For those who don't know me, this is a sincere effort to understand, not a complaint.
Thanks!
Mine:
Imagineer's:
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 11:15:13.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:17:36 AM · #2 |
Jeff
I think the main difference is that  imagineer's shot makes you feel like you are part of the waterfall, you feel the dampness, can hear the sounds, can touch the rocks. While your shot is a beautiful shot of a waterfall from a bit of a distance.
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 11:17:53. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:18:28 AM · #3 |
I didnt vote in the challenges, but the few things I notice that would grab my attention over yours is:
1) there is alot more detail in the forground (ie the leaf on the bottom left) Giving you a feel for the closeness to it.
2) the colors for the dirt and area surrounding the waterfall have more color
3) I dont know if it is caused be the orientation but I feel alot more depth from imagineer than yours.
4) the moss adds alot of interest and detail to the over all image.
I hope this helps, Both photos are nice, you have a great composition going in yours as well.
Rich
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 11:19:37. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:19:28 AM · #4 |
Guess size really doesn't matter.
From what I can tell its the vibrance of the colors, not that I can tell you how to achieve it.
And if you figure out how to do it, please tell me.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:20:36 AM · #5 |
First, I think your image is underrated.
2nd, maybe the square crop and/or the interplay of the lines or the s-curve flow of the water in the other entry gives it a slight edge or at least it's something different than a straight forward waterfall shot.
Congrats on your 15th anniversary! We went to Maui a few years ago, truly spectacular.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:21:07 AM · #6 |
I often wonder the same thing. I gave both photos a 6. Both have good exposures that show the water flowing.
After careful observation, I think the main difference is that the later image has lots and lots of detail, and appears to have the HDR look (not that I think HDR makes a better photograph necessarily). The composition is a little more interesting. In your photograph, the waterfall is centered, and not as dynamic.
I don't think their scores should be that far apart, but I think the later image is a little stronger overall.
Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:35:09 AM · #7 |
Clearly he scored better because three commenters thought he was me... ;P
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:38:52 AM · #8 |
| In a nutshell, it's the difference between looking AT a scene and looking INTO it. In your entry, my eye goes right to the waterfall- dead center- and pretty much stays there. It's a "standard" view... good exposure and motion blur, but somewhat flat lighting and little viewer experience beyond simply looking at a waterfall. Imagineer's photo has a sense of depth that draws you in and invites the viewer to explore different areas of color and texture. The low angle and deep contrast provide an almost 3D feel, and the composition takes you on a zig-zagging path through the scene. The color is rich, if perhaps a little oversaturated, and the crisp focus makes the moss visually tangible. The short falls allowed for a square crop, which in turn means more room for detail. The leaf at lower leaft is a nice touch, too. The entry is not just about the waterfall, but the whole environment. A more imaginative title didn't hurt either. Finally, Imagineer may have received an extra point as the 'best of the waterfall shots' (notice the spike in 10 votes). I had a waterfall entry in this challenge, too, and it fell directly between those scores for many of the same reasons. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:42:08 AM · #9 |
jeffrey, I'll offer some of my thoughts as well. I agree that your shot is probably underrated, although I do think Imagineer's shot is a better one. Why? To me, the depth of the image is greater. See how he uses the mossy rocks as an anchor in the foreground? It is more interesting perspective. That image also has a richer, warmer quality to the light, as well as an interesting mix of textures. There is an intimate quality to the shot. The other comments in this thread I think say these same things.
I also commend you for asking this question, as I do know you are truly interested in learning and are not complaining at all. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:45:54 AM · #10 |
Jeffrey, I gave yours a 6, and the other a 7. The reason I preferred Imagineer's is that I am sucked in to the scene, my eye is led around the photo, exploring each part. For me, that element is lacking from yours.
EDIT: I agree with Brownsm below: threads like this are really useful from a developmental point of view, not just from the perspective of the photographer of the shot in question, but also for those of us who are prepared to consider their responses in a more structured way than we may do whilst voting.
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 11:48:37. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 11:52:44 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
In a nutshell, it's the difference between looking AT a scene and looking INTO it. In your entry, my eye goes right to the waterfall- dead center- and pretty much stays there. It's a "standard" view... good exposure and motion blur, but somewhat flat lighting and little viewer experience beyond simply looking at a waterfall. Imagineer's photo has a sense of depth that draws you in and invites the viewer to explore different areas of color and texture. The low angle and deep contrast provide an almost 3D feel, and the composition takes you on a zig-zagging path through the scene. The color is rich, if perhaps a little oversaturated, and the crisp focus makes the moss visually tangible. The short falls allowed for a square crop, which in turn means more room for detail. The leaf at lower left is a nice touch, too. The entry is not just about the waterfall, but the whole environment. A more imaginative title didn't hurt either. Finally, Imagineer may have received an extra point as the 'best of the waterfall shots' (notice the spike in 10 votes). I had a waterfall entry in this challenge, too, and it fell directly between those scores for many of the same reasons. |
I got nothing to add to what Shannon has said so well, basically. Jeffrey's shot is pretty much "standard-issue waterfall", well done but not particularly compelling. Imagineer's shot is at a whole other level. It reminds me of some of Eliot Porter's work, actually. It's very beautiful and very engaging.
In a landscape challenge Jeffrey's might have scored better than it did, I think; but in a Free Study the bar is much higher...
R.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 12:24:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
In a nutshell, it's the difference between looking AT a scene and looking INTO it. In your entry, my eye goes right to the waterfall- dead center- and pretty much stays there. It's a "standard" view... good exposure and motion blur, but somewhat flat lighting and little viewer experience beyond simply looking at a waterfall. Imagineer's photo has a sense of depth that draws you in and invites the viewer to explore different areas of color and texture. The low angle and deep contrast provide an almost 3D feel, and the composition takes you on a zig-zagging path through the scene. The color is rich, if perhaps a little oversaturated, and the crisp focus makes the moss visually tangible. The short falls allowed for a square crop, which in turn means more room for detail. The leaf at lower leaft is a nice touch, too. The entry is not just about the waterfall, but the whole environment. A more imaginative title didn't hurt either. Finally, Imagineer may have received an extra point as the 'best of the waterfall shots' (notice the spike in 10 votes). I had a waterfall entry in this challenge, too, and it fell directly between those scores for many of the same reasons. |
I like it when others save me time.
What he said.
I just want to stress the feeling that your shot Jeff, is of a person looking at a waterfall from beyond and that we have all done that before so the effect is kind of lost when you see an image of it from that angle. Imagineer's shot is at the foot of the falls where not many people venture to when on holidays or whatever. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 12:35:22 PM · #13 |
Wow, this is the best "tell me the differences" thread I've ever seen!
Thanks for the information, folks. I agree with everything you've said, esp. about including foreground elements. I tried to do that with the leaves on the edges, but clearly didn't pull it off. I'm still exploring landscape photography and trying to learn how to show a great depth instead of everything far away.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 12:40:09 PM · #14 |
| I think your shot is beautiful but the other persons feels like I can literally walk through the portrait and sit on those rocks, feel the the spray and hear the rushing water. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 12:41:59 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Wow, this is the best "tell me the differences" thread I've ever seen!
Thanks for the information, folks. I agree with everything you've said, esp. about including foreground elements. I tried to do that with the leaves on the edges, but clearly didn't pull it off. I'm still exploring landscape photography and trying to learn how to show a great depth instead of everything far away. |
probably the easiest way to give the depth is to use a wide-angle lens and incorporate foreground elements real close to the lens. Notice that the other shot used a 28-300 lens (probably at 28) on a FF camera, while your shot used a 70-200 on crop factor body. The telephoto lens will dramatically compress the elements in the composition. While teles can be used to great effect in landscape shots, when you're trying for depth, wide is the way to go. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 01:04:45 PM · #16 |
| Hope this is not a silly question, but if levyj413 had used the same wide angle i.e. 28mm on his Nikon, would the feeling of depth be the same considering the Nikon is not a ff camera? What would the visible differences be? Apologies, still learning :-) |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 01:07:48 PM · #17 |
Can't add much to what's already been said. The lower angle puts you in the scene as opposed to shooting from above. I gave you a 6 and imagineer a 7, probably for that reason. Subconciously, I think I tend to vote similar images against one another, especially in free studies (i.e., "best of the waterfalls" as someone above put it).
fwiw, my favorite waterfall of the challenge was Phil's entry, which has some of the same elements as imagineer's -- low angle, foreground interest, pulls you into the scene.
 |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 01:16:14 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Trinity_12_12:
Hope this is not a silly question, but if levyj413 had used the same wide angle i.e. 28mm on his Nikon, would the feeling of depth be the same considering the Nikon is not a ff camera? What would the visible differences be? Apologies, still learning :-) |
not entirely sure on this one. I'll need to try it to make sure. But the compression effect is mainly due to the large distance between the camera and the subjects. using levyj413's photo as an example, the distance between the foreground plants and the camera is not much shorter than the distance between the waterfall and the camera. If he had used the wide angle lens, the difference between these two distances would be much greater. With a crop camera vs the FF, he needs to stand even further back to get the same compositional framing, making the compression effect greater.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 01:22:03 PM · #19 |
| Wow, got to try and get this straight in my head now, lol. That's very interesting, I've never really thought much about the differences between ff and crop cameras! |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 01:58:55 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Wow, this is the best "tell me the differences" thread I've ever seen!
|
Usually when you post a "why did my shot suck" thread there is no shortage of willing participants! ;-) |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 02:57:05 PM · #21 |
well I think that there are a lot of things that are very different in these images.
the first one(Paradise) is an ordinary photo, not bad, but without a true interesting point in the image. the point of view,too far,from the waterfall is good for an overview but the photo don't show something other the waterfall,that is securely nice, but show only the waterfall.
The second one (neath the Falls of Melincourt) go into the waterfall, it seems tell an history when you see it, even if isn't a true original type of image(there are a lot of image of waterfall on dpc and in many photography web site) it have something of more interesting. with an exagerate expression we can say that the image have nearly a proper life. securely the color,the general contrast,are better in the second one (probably there is too much saturation for an image o the real world but this is the style that on dpc is considered good for many voters)
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 06:30:30 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by brownsm:
Originally posted by Trinity_12_12:
Hope this is not a silly question, but if levyj413 had used the same wide angle i.e. 28mm on his Nikon, would the feeling of depth be the same considering the Nikon is not a ff camera? What would the visible differences be? Apologies, still learning :-) |
not entirely sure on this one. I'll need to try it to make sure. But the compression effect is mainly due to the large distance between the camera and the subjects. using levyj413's photo as an example, the distance between the foreground plants and the camera is not much shorter than the distance between the waterfall and the camera. If he had used the wide angle lens, the difference between these two distances would be much greater. With a crop camera vs the FF, he needs to stand even further back to get the same compositional framing, making the compression effect greater. |
To add some numbers to Steve's description: the foreground leaves were maybe 300 feet from the camera and the waterfall was maybe 5 times further away, or 1500 feet. It wasn't shot at 200mm, but it was significantly higher than 70 (I'm not at home right now to look it up).
I understand how focal length relates to the field of view, since I wrote a tutorial on it. :) And I know about compressing the foreground and background using focal length, too.
What I haven't internalized is how to use that information for maximum impact in various types of shots, as opposed to it being a technical bit of data in my knowledge bank!
Oh, and though Imagineer's shot was mistaken for a DrAchoo special, the Doc also used the same wide angle to show near and far with some drama:
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 18:32:02.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 07:31:13 PM · #23 |
| Imagineer's has mossy detail, a private look at a magnificent location. Japanese artists and gardeners appreciate these things. Yours suffers from the crop at the base, the distance which makes it look snap-shottish. There is a big difference. You need to get down and dirty into that location and seek out the personal side of it. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 07:37:17 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Trinity_12_12:
Hope this is not a silly question, but if levyj413 had used the same wide angle i.e. 28mm on his Nikon, would the feeling of depth be the same considering the Nikon is not a ff camera? What would the visible differences be? Apologies, still learning :-) |
It's not about the focal length of the lens, it's about the angle of coverage. 17mm lens on a 1.6 crop APS-C sensor = 28mm lens on a FF sensor like the 5D... A 28mm lens on a 1.6 crop sensor is about the same as a 50mm lens on a FF sensor.
R.
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 19:38:35.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 07:46:09 PM · #25 |
| Jeff, I just want to thank you for starting this thread. It is really helping me also, as I had another one the the waterfall shots in the free study. All the info that you have collected from others really helps me understand what I can do better next time. Also, I think your fall is great. I think the only thing I see is that you are looking down on the fall. It looks as though you might not have had much on a choice on that though. |
|
