| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2003 05:30:35 PM · #1 |
Ok, my last shot got a lot of bad numbers:
1's - 6
2's - 16
3's - 30
Now aside from the white spot which I couldn't spot edit out because of the rules, what's wrong with it.
Here's why I thought it was appropriate and a good shot. you tell me where I went wrong:
1. A pretty leg (my wifes). Sex is supposed to "sell" ;)
2. On topic. My comment was that money could by anything be it a wife (wedding ring) or sexual partner, the leg dressing/undressing part.
3. Composition. It has a good balanced composition along the diagonal
4. Focus. Soft focus, to give it the boudoir feel.
Ok, my negatives. It's not the most interesting or involved photo. But I believed it deserves at least an above average score for the above reasons.
Now it's your turn.... (And don't say the white spot is distracting! I know that but couldn't do anything about it without taking the bedroom apart or spot editing. Shooting from the other direction was worse!)
Thanks in advance.
 |
|
|
|
12/10/2003 05:44:42 PM · #2 |
could be the idea was to represent money w/o actually photographing it.
this photo and the title in my mind don't portray money so much
as ways to use money.
i sure hope your not selling your wifes leg for cash ;}
i voted it a 4 mainly because of the above, and i didn't really find it striking. also i'm not a big fan of the soft focus technique in most cases.
with the description you have provided i would have voted a 5.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2003 05:48:57 PM · #3 |
Neil
What did you use for lighting?
Does the G2 give you the ability to use custom white balance or do you have to adjust it in PS or etc?
I did not submit or vote in this challenge but I think was a real nice idea and I thought it should have scored a little higher.
I would have commented on the spot, and maybe slight improvement of the lighting and WB.
As is I would have probably voted a 5 or 6 tops and with improvements I may have given you a 7 or 8. I generally do not vote lower than 3 unless the submission is real bad. And I seldom vote a 10 anymore unless it is simply superb.
Nice idea and work IMHO.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2003 05:54:29 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Calvus:
Neil
What did you use for lighting?
Does the G2 give you the ability to use custom white balance or do you have to adjust it in PS or etc?
...snip...
|
I used the Canon RAW mode, so I had complete control over white balance and everything except the damn white spot.
I used our natural spot lighting on most the trial shots, but I didn't like those, and I took a few with my 420EX flash (bounced, with an omnibounce filter too I believe), and as I recall, this was based on one of those.
My wife was being very patient, but it's hard holding your leg up like that for a long time, and she wanted to go to bed. Er, I mean to sleep. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/10/2003 05:57:43 PM · #5 |
My main issue was that it was rather dimly lit without really having a point to the dimness. One could argue that the dimness was to suggest intimacy but it didn't come off looking like that to me. The amount of visible detail in the background was also off putting. Lighting might have been improved a little by making it even across the leg so it doesn't fade off at the foot while quite bright at the knee. If you had a tight light source overhead you might have reduced light fall on the background and given some interesting shadow detail along the underside of the leg and by the ankle bone.
Also, as soup said, the soft focus didn't work well for me and the money connection, while there, was loose. |
|
|
|
12/10/2003 06:54:55 PM · #6 |
I scored it a 6. I liked the image and the soft focus - the background elements were primarily all that kept me from giving it a higher score. I think showing more of the upper thigh might sell the intimacy more, but otherwise I would have cropped slightly above the knee. The diagonal is ok, but other poses might have more impact.
Message edited by author 2003-12-10 18:55:13. |
|
|
|
12/10/2003 09:17:18 PM · #7 |
| To be honest, the cynicism (legitimate or not) which I infered from the title turned me off a bit. Add to that the somewhat flat lighting and color didn't help the image stand out very much. I'm OK with soft focus, but here it just didn't seem to me to work well (I would guess it's the soft focus on top of the lighting, but I can't say for sure). And finally, the spot - in and of itself I didn't mark down for it, but it might have been a scale-tipper - on top of all the above, it might have nudged me down to the 4 I gave it. I'm not usually too picky about "annoying spots", but in this case, with the black background, I think you really needed to deal with it - its just too blunt. It looks like a reflection of some metal? How about some black construction paper, some electrical tape, even drape a black shirt over it. While I don't know for sure, since I haven't been in your bedroom, but it looked like something you could have remedied. Its even a bit worse now that it sounds like you knew about it while shooting. |
|
|
|
12/10/2003 09:45:44 PM · #8 |
Other possible reason is that some voters may have seen the shot as a reject from the Soft Focus challenge, and so marked down.
I personally try not to do this, but sometimes it happens - eg, seeing a shot of a building in Dreams & Nightmares, with a stretch to get it on topic, when the other challenge running at the same time is Urban Landscapes.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2003 10:28:20 PM · #9 |
Except for the background fighting to get through, I thought it was a fine photograph. I dropped a point or 2 because the money connection the title made was a little unappealing - cynical, like ScottK said; and because the photo didn't exactly represent money - like Soup said.
I wound up giving it a 5, mostly due to the challenge aspects. (BTW, I gave a lot of 4's, 3,s, & 2's. I reserved 1's for anyone with actual cash or coin in their shot. I would have thought this shot was in the top half of the pack.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2003 10:41:36 PM · #10 |
I thing the idea and subject was good, but the background is what I didn't like. Much too dark. I think a lighter color would have brought out the composition more.
I think one of the pros out there should start a thread on how to select a background color, texture, lighting,etc. I know I could use the tutorial/help.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2003 03:59:12 AM · #11 |
Whoa, hang on: now some of you are expecting us to meet the challenge in a specific way? (i.e. "nice"). Are you quite sure this a reasonable approach to voting?
Ed
|
|
|
|
12/11/2003 04:04:39 AM · #12 |
Also Neil - I voted your shot an 8, for few reasons. Firstly your realisation that it isn't imperative for there to be the extremes of white and black in a photo. Secondly the lighting and your capture of the graduations of light in this image (I see you don't mention light at all in your own description of the image), and thirdly a compositional bravery to it (most images composed purely along that diagonal look 'forced' to me).
|
|
|
|
12/11/2003 04:55:28 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by e301:
Whoa, hang on: now some of you are expecting us to meet the challenge in a specific way? (i.e. "nice"). Are you quite sure this a reasonable approach to voting?
Ed |
You can meet the challenge however you choose. I can vote on a picture however I choose. If a shot doesn't appeal to my taste (moral, asthetic, artistic, or otherwise), that can have an effect on my evaluation. In other words - I like it or I don't. I'm willing to bet there are some grounds that sway your votes in either direction based on some level of appeal. I mean (and, Neil, please don't take this the wrong way), an 8? As Neil himself said, sex sells - are you sure the subject matter didn't sway your vote just a little in the possitive direction? ;-)
I could have left that whole part out and commented solely on the technical aspects of the shot, or not responded at all - but I think I was at least honest and gave Neil a sense of one of the many aspects of his photo that may have affected his score. |
|
|
|
12/11/2003 05:06:29 AM · #14 |
Just noticed this thread and have just finished a critique club mission on this image.
Here it is:
From The Swiss Morning Critique Club:
Technical notes:
No problem with the classic composition.
Background is not clearly defined, nothing identifiable or that would enhance the composition, would have been better off setting it to black during post processing (black dipper in âLevelsâ).
Soft blur, reminiscent of D. Hamilton photography and Valentineâs Day Greeting card gimmicks seems now a little cliché for this kind of shot, and since your subject occupies barely a forth of your frame, it would have deserved a better definition.
Yellowish skin tones are not too flattering (white balance problems?), and the foot, that is a non-negligible part of your subject, lacks of lighting and definition.
Content:
This image says to me, without the title: married woman with harmonious leg dressing up; and with the title (my best guess): money will get you sex with married women. Possibly, but I am lead to believe, no matter how baroque the scenario is (fiction and nonfiction), and this is not news, married women usually do it for freeâ¦
Possibly you were trying to introduce several ideas at the same time. If this is the case, believe me, this is a little confusing.
Your photograph is set up in a way that the eye is stopped at the foot or the hand of your model. If you were to âerotizeâ this entry a little, you should zoom back just a tad to bring in the frame a little more of the upper leg to give a suggestive escape for the viewerâs eye. Your intent would be more clearly defined I think (if sex was part of your message, of course).
Concerning your low grades: you should know that there are here two small groups that will give you 1s and 2s whenever:
_Any sexual activity is shown or even suggested
_Your picture is considered off topic
At your own risk, you have exposed yourself to both in this challenge.
Hope this helps,
Cheers, JJ
|
|
|
|
12/11/2003 06:05:25 AM · #15 |
you can get rid of the white spot and be DPC legal. How? Re-take the shot.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2003 06:20:32 AM · #16 |
Scott - I was referring, in my original comment, to the suggestion that the non-nice subject is therefore a poor photograph. Of course you have an absolute right to think this is the case. I, of course, have an absolute right to think that is a limited view.
As to being swayed by the sexual suggestion of the image ... well, frankly, no. It might perhaps have been considered a sexy image in the 1930's ... and is in fact reminiscent of some moderately famous phtotgraphs of that era ... but really, in 2003? Blatanly 'sexy' shots are more likely to get a lower score from me, unless of course they're excellently done and fitting for the challenge, as I think they're sometimes an attempt to seduce people into giving higher scores.
And I only gave it an 8 ... in this particular challenge that makes it near the top of the pile in my eyes, but nevertheless still two points off being very good indeed.
ed
|
|
|
|
12/11/2003 08:12:25 AM · #17 |
As I recall I gave this image a low score. From the outset, there is nothing wrong with your wife's leg. It is a nice leg. But the picture within the context of the challenge left loads to be desired. So what if sex sells - that wasn't conveyed. All there were were nylons and a ring and they didn't mean money. And there is a huge contradiction - if you were going for the prostitution angle (sex sells) why have a wedding band. No. The concept just didn't work.
The hot spot is an issue and frankly you could have covered whatever caused it without taking the bedroom apart.
Having a strong composition does not mean that you have a good image. And sure, you went for soft focus, but the contrast in the image lets it down too. |
|
|
|
12/11/2003 09:56:29 PM · #18 |
| Thanks to everyone for the comments. |
|
|
|
12/11/2003 10:31:32 PM · #19 |
I gave your entry a 5 for several reasons. One, it really didn't appeal to me overall, it was a bit boring. I am not a big fan of soft focus (remember my rant on that challenge?) and it looked more blurry than soft focus to me. There is no real definition in the shot, the composition is well done but the photo itself is a bit boring. Even the title confused me a bit to be honest. The first thing that crossed my mind was back in during the WW's when they would buy stockings and use them to get information and such. Then of course the second one was hooker but that really didn't effect my vote though it might have others.
Hope this helps.
Deannda |
|
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: 08/08/2025 06:16:59 AM EDT.
