| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2009 09:35:01 AM · #76 |
Votes: 32
Views: 49
Avg Vote: 5.0313
Comments: 3
Well back in the five's, we will see how long that last. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 09:54:12 AM · #77 |
My subject matter may not be the best and the score reflects it.
I am surprised at how many entries have a distinctly gray background as opposed to white. This may be the reason for some of the low scores. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 10:07:07 AM · #78 |
Votes: 34
Views: 77
Avg Vote: 6.6000
Comments: 2
Im pretty surprised that mine is in the 6's really. You know how things look great in your LCD and then when you get to your computer they are crap? hahah. I should have taken more time to check them more closely. I just didnt have the time tho. It was a fast paced day but I am really happy with this score.
Message edited by author 2009-03-02 10:38:40.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2009 10:25:43 AM · #79 |
How annoying. I could have probably gotten some good light on white photos today since it's pretty much a white-out outside!
Yeah well.
Message edited by author 2009-03-02 10:26:02. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 10:38:49 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
challenge description cannot be taken literally, makes no sense as written. therefore everyone is 'interpreting'. |
I would disagree with this statement. However, even if it was not clear with the intended subject colorization, it was clear the background should be WHITE not gray. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 10:46:40 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
challenge description cannot be taken literally, makes no sense as written. therefore everyone is 'interpreting'. |
The challenge description makes perfect sense. A white background (straight forward enough so far) with a subject as a lighter colour and obvioulsy not lighter than white, so a light colour or colours. I don't get whats needs interpreting.
PS - I'm in a bad mood due to a run of very low votes with no explanation or justification whatsoever.
Message edited by author 2009-03-02 10:47:09. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 10:48:56 AM · #82 |
Ok, I gave this all some thought and went back and "bumped" a few scores, widened my eye if you will..but there are still a lot of photographs with gray backgrounds, and other colors, like blue sky, that just don't hit it...
I feel rather ornery about this one b/c it was tough to get a WHITE background and it really pushed my PS skills to figure it out...
so yay for me but still thinking white is white and a light subject is not dark blue or black or bright green or red..
call me literal!!
ETA the ones that really nailed this are so obvious...white flowers or pale blush colored flowers on white background, babies with pale skin, etc...i thought for sure I;d see some wedding shots...bouquet on her lap, gloves in her hand..surprised not!
ETA #2: I call "low scores" lower than what the image would otherwise be rated by me..I am not on a "troll" mission :)
Message edited by author 2009-03-02 19:08:41. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:02:04 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by annig:
Hi all, I dont usually post my scores, they change so much during a given challenge...I am wondering though if anyone else is noticing how very few WHITE backgrounds with Light subjects there really are? Am I the only one who tried to take the "assignment literally" I dont usually do DNMC, but I am giving a lot of low scores to photos in this challenge b/c they didnt hit it, IMO
anyone comments or observations?
Thanks all
Anni |
I think my image meets the challenge, but I definitely have gotten some ones and twos. I, for one, would appreciate a comment if someone thinks my photo bombed. I find it interesting, though, that giving a one is how this gets treated. I'm pretty liberal with topic descriptions and I like cleverness and creativity so I think twice before giving a low score for topic - usually I just skip it and don't vote (that is unless I really don't like the picture). |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:25:21 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by TallPaul:
...PS - I'm in a bad mood due to a run of very low votes with no explanation or justification whatsoever. |
Does this mean you are retaliating against all images, because your image is not receiving the attention and accolades you expected? |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:26:01 AM · #85 |
| I'll usually take off one, maybe two points if I feel that the image is not meeting the challenge, but as long as it is a good shot AND it is clever it still could do rather well from me. I've never dropped anyone straight to a 1 just for not meeting the challenge though. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:29:32 AM · #86 |
| There are an insane amount of gray backgrounds in this challenge even though it's clearly stated "Take a photo in which the background is white." That's only half the battle. Since there's advanced editing allowed, all these underexposed backgrounds should be corrected in a number of ways, curves, level, brightness, dodging, etc... Personally this challenge is giving me a new personal low although my submission can be looked at on a technical scale of at least a 7... |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:33:27 AM · #87 |
Votes 54
Views 76
Avg votes 8.65
Comments 11 |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:34:38 AM · #88 |
| I agree - thank goodness for the advanced editing. My background is obviously white but when I pull it up on another monitor there are streaks(?) of gray/wrinkles in my backdrop - ARGH!! |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:37:01 AM · #89 |
4.25
this is really frustrating.... |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:48:28 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by mom2two:
I agree - thank goodness for the advanced editing. My background is obviously white but when I pull it up on another monitor there are streaks(?) of gray/wrinkles in my backdrop - ARGH!! |
Better check those histograms!!! |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 11:56:28 AM · #91 |
are anyone elses eyes aching from lokoing at all the white? ;)
Im forgiving slight greyness in the background especially if its a gradient from white. Grey happens on white backgrounds sometimes (to some of us at least). Blue and other colours are a definite nono though!
|
|
|
|
03/02/2009 12:17:41 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Starbanana:
are anyone elses eyes aching from lokoing at all the white? ;)
Im forgiving slight greyness in the background especially if its a gradient from white. Grey happens on white backgrounds sometimes (to some of us at least). Blue and other colours are a definite nono though! |
I agree with this approach. I don't want to look at a subject with a replaced (cutout) background. That's the worst of photoshop procedures. I scored natural backgrounds highest. Natural would include gradients from white to light gray. Those who are demanding 255, 255, 255 backgrounds are applying a ridiculous criterion. In areas showing 255, 255, 255 there is no information. They're burned out. That's certainly not good photography. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 12:26:39 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Starbanana:
are anyone elses eyes aching from lokoing at all the white? ;)
Im forgiving slight greyness in the background especially if its a gradient from white. Grey happens on white backgrounds sometimes (to some of us at least). Blue and other colours are a definite nono though! |
I agree with this approach. I don't want to look at a subject with a replaced (cutout) background. That's the worst of photoshop procedures. I scored natural backgrounds highest. Natural would include gradients from white to light gray. Those who are demanding 255, 255, 255 backgrounds are applying a ridiculous criterion. In areas showing 255, 255, 255 there is no information. They're burned out. That's certainly not good photography. |
I took off for burn out. To me, that's way worse than an image that may be considered slightly off topic
(but I don't happen to think stark white was needed to be on topic). |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 01:00:53 PM · #94 |
oddly, my score held up overnight: 6.778 last night with 18 votes, and now
Votes: 44
Views: 108
Avg Vote: 6.7727
Comments: 3
Favorites: 1
if this holds, even drops a bit, I might have a new PB.
'cept that I just jinxed it.... 
|
|
|
|
03/02/2009 01:25:00 PM · #95 |
Quite frankly, I'm mystified by the strictness of interpretation with this particular challenge. Folks are measuring the level of whiteness and dinging points for anything not strictly white, even though any sort of texturing or shadowing on white will be grayish (or bluish or other-ish, depending on the curves used).
In addition, the challenge calls for the subject to be "a predominately a lighter color" - not all white or all lighter color. Yet I received a dnmc comment, even though 75% of my shot is light colored :-)
I'm dinging for shots that use blown out contrast to meet the "white" aspect, especially if it obliterates other details in the shot. And I mention that in my comments. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 01:50:25 PM · #96 |
It is possible to get a white background (or very, very close) "naturally" if you use a flash on the background behind your subject. I spent a lot of time achieving this effect with my photo, using a combination of white foamboard on the sides and above to reflect the light back onto the background to get even coverage without a graduation from grey to white. I then used the on-board flash and an external lamp to light the subject from the front and side. In photoshop a small adjustment in levels brought the background to pure white (255,255,255) without blowing it out.
So naturally I don't agree with giving lower scores to photos with pure white backgrounds unless it has obviously been replaced.
Just my two cents worth. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 01:56:44 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by dswann:
...So naturally I don't agree with giving lower scores to photos with pure white backgrounds unless it has obviously been replaced. |
Naturally :-)
"Pure white" backgrounds is not the issue for me. I'm referring to shots that have used extreme contrast to achieve "white", which usually reduces the quality and detail of the subject at the expense of creating the illusion of white.
In any event, you sound like a seasoned pro, and probably see things I - a beginner - do not. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 02:41:14 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by TallPaul:
...PS - I'm in a bad mood due to a run of very low votes with no explanation or justification whatsoever. |
Does this mean you are retaliating against all images, because your image is not receiving the attention and accolades you expected? |
What on earth is that supposed to mean or imply?
My comment was in fact simply a statement of fact to explain, perhaps, a reason if the previous statement I had made sounded a little blunt or stroppy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Despite my obvious frustrations at the my own inability to live up to the high standards I attempt to set myself I have NEVER voted anything down (or up) due to how well or not my own image is doing. I vote on what I see and by the criteria I set myself and within the context of the challenge. If I feel able to offer encouragement, advice or an explanation I will do (although thats not always welcome either). Hopefully as I learn and establish myself here I will feel able to offer more advice. The comments I have made in this challenge, compared to my first, demonstrate this. To suggest I would somehow, retaliate because I was not getting the attention I deserve is frankly unbelievable and says far more about you than it does about me. Petty, childish comments like yours will simply put people off contributing to the community. Nice one!
At the time I wrote the above I had recorded a run of 2's droping my score considerably quite quickly. I was annoyed and although I am all too aware of my own images failings those were unjustified IMHO. Simple as that.
Oh and just to prove a point, despite what I beleive the challenge description actually (clearly) means, of all the images I voted either 7 or 8 >50% do not have pure white backgrounds.
Paul. |
|
|
|
03/02/2009 02:43:54 PM · #99 |
Votes: 46
Views: 95
Avg Vote: 4.3696
Comments: 5
I could have posted my score before voting began. I knew it would be sub par and I knew why. Yet I entered it. I could tell you why its doing so terribly but that might remove my anonymity. Suffice to say, I am not getting hammered for DNMC :)
edit to add: I have considered self-dq'ing this image. (Can't because I am not eligible) But on the other hand, I'll treat this entry as an experiment that has gone horribly horribly wrong.
Message edited by author 2009-03-02 14:46:28.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2009 03:05:41 PM · #100 |
NB to above post.
Having read through all the comments on this thread it is now clear to me, I think, where and why I am being marked down and I completely understand. I have filed this under the heading, 'too much dodging is definately a bad thing!'
Ironically there was no need for it and in my rush I just got carried away :) All good though, another lesson learnt.
Paul |
|
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: 07/27/2025 03:55:08 PM EDT.
