| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2013 03:11:59 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
OK, thanks all, I get the message that despite all my best efforts without proper studio lights, that my studio work sucks. |
Hey, I haven't hauled out my strobes and umbrellas in several years. There's a good reason I rarely do indoor setups anymore. Aside from being lazy, that is.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2013 03:31:34 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
There's a good reason I rarely do indoor setups anymore. |
Mud on your tires? |
|
|
|
01/16/2013 03:41:43 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Mud on your tires? |
Sort of. Every try to tote a tripod, strobes, softbox and a glamor model on a bicycle? Well, the glamor model part could be fun.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2013 03:42:58 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Mud on your tires? |
Sort of. Every try to tote a tripod, strobes, softbox and a glamor model on a bicycle? Well, the glamor model part could be fun. |
That would be a yes. Apart from the model anyway. |
|
|
|
01/16/2013 04:59:43 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Mud on your tires? |
Sort of. Every try to tote a tripod, strobes, softbox and a glamor model on a bicycle? Well, the glamor model part could be fun. |
That would be a yes. Apart from the model anyway. |
resist the urge to make a joke about teh glamour model = bicycle..... oops runs for cover |
|
|
|
01/16/2013 08:20:30 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by h2:
Originally posted by snaffles:
I've seen tons of whitefield studio shots do very well, |
Again, really? Of all my ribbons there's 4 with white background and of my top 10s another three. Only 3 of those 7 would be comparable and I was surprised they did so well. All of them scored relatively low. |
Awfully presumptious of you to automatically assume that I meant only your images, Oliver. BTW do all working pro photogs get their jollies kicking around amateurs on a budget? Be as smug as you like and continue to ribbon.
BTW....I want everyone here to know that whenever I vote, I often add a point when I see the photog has made an honest effort in their attempt to capture a shot that isn't quite within their capabilities, but they have the guts to try and get it and then enter it here.
Obviously I'm the only one here who ever did such a thing. Hence the reason that there's almost a full point difference between what I gave out in terms of score, and what I got.
I came here to learn, and have fun. I still learn but I've now shelved my goal to ribbon and/or finish at 7 or above with my 50mm, goals which I was able to achieve with my 3 other lenses.
Oh and obviously my ribbons were totally freakish coincidences. As was my one and only 7. The 300+ critiques I wrote were obviously written by someone else. No doubt at least two people who took my critiques to heart and went on to ribbon here is also a completely freakish coincidence, too.
I don't want to leave here, but I'm no longer enjoying myself. My current submissions are getting shat on left right and centre. Obviously I suck. Obviously some of the production stills being put on a poster by a theatre group are someone else's, too.
So honestly I don't anticipate staying here much longer. I may or may not stay long enough to get my 500. Who gives a fuck anyway. |
|
|
|
01/16/2013 08:25:07 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
OK, thanks all, I get the message that despite all my best efforts without proper studio lights, that my studio work sucks. The bear has been re-donated to the charity shop from which I bought it for all of $2, so nobody need be offended by it again. |
Poor bear ... seriously, I don't do many "studio" shots (do them well, anyway), but the few that I think have come out pretty good have softer lighting, using a regular swing-arm (and sometimes a clip-on desk lamp) with a 60W curly CFL bulb, and maybe some diffused window light from the next room. Even with the dim lighting I found I could get an acceptable effect using a tripod and long exposures, and a bit of tone adjustment using Curves. As you can see, I also prefer the black background for these still-lifes.   
|
|
|
|
01/16/2013 08:59:35 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by h2:
Originally posted by snaffles:
I've seen tons of whitefield studio shots do very well, |
Again, really? Of all my ribbons there's 4 with white background and of my top 10s another three. Only 3 of those 7 would be comparable and I was surprised they did so well. All of them scored relatively low. |
Awfully presumptious of you to automatically assume that I meant only your images, Oliver. BTW do all working pro photogs get their jollies kicking around amateurs on a budget? Be as smug as you like and continue to ribbon.
BTW....I want everyone here to know that whenever I vote, I often add a point when I see the photog has made an honest effort in their attempt to capture a shot that isn't quite within their capabilities, but they have the guts to try and get it and then enter it here.
Obviously I'm the only one here who ever did such a thing. Hence the reason that there's almost a full point difference between what I gave out in terms of score, and what I got.
I came here to learn, and have fun. I still learn but I've now shelved my goal to ribbon and/or finish at 7 or above with my 50mm, goals which I was able to achieve with my 3 other lenses.
Oh and obviously my ribbons were totally freakish coincidences. As was my one and only 7. The 300+ critiques I wrote were obviously written by someone else. No doubt at least two people who took my critiques to heart and went on to ribbon here is also a completely freakish coincidence, too.
I don't want to leave here, but I'm no longer enjoying myself. My current submissions are getting shat on left right and centre. Obviously I suck. Obviously some of the production stills being put on a poster by a theatre group are someone else's, too.
So honestly I don't anticipate staying here much longer. I may or may not stay long enough to get my 500. Who gives a fuck anyway. |
I'm not sure why. But I just wanted to quote this whole rant. Someday I'll bring it back up when you are feeling better and you will see just how silly this all is in the big scheme of life.
Matt |
|
|
|
01/16/2013 10:08:41 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by h2:
[quote=snaffles] I've seen tons of whitefield studio shots do very well, |
General angriness and frustration |
Susan, relax. We all know Oliver shoots tons of stock type shots, take his criticism as constructive- he's explaining what is the norm for that type of shot, and his opinion is at least worthy of attention for the sheer number of those types of shots he's submitted over the years here. And he's right- it's not often that a white background does all that well, but that really is beside the point.
The point here is that while we all seem to enjoy deriding stock shots and commenting on how dumb and easy they are, they aren't, and it takes lots of work, and failures along the way, to get to a place where you can produce them. Keep in mind that any shot like this is just as likely to fail purely based on people's perceptions of the object as it is on the photo itself. The subject matter has to be very manicured and "clean," simple, exactly within expectations or the stock shot has failed.
Nobody said you haven't been good to the community, nobody said your work is rubbish, nobody took cheap shots at your gear, and nobody implied you were too inept to have yielded the success you have. Nobody excepting you.
Everybody has had shots that they thought were great that didn't score well. And plenty of shots that are great don't score well in the first place. |
|
|
|
01/16/2013 10:18:17 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by h2:
[quote=snaffles] I've seen tons of whitefield studio shots do very well, |
General angriness and frustration |
Susan, relax. We all know Oliver shoots tons of stock type shots, take his criticism as constructive- he's explaining what is the norm for that type of shot, and his opinion is at least worthy of attention for the sheer number of those types of shots he's submitted over the years here. And he's right- it's not often that a white background does all that well, but that really is beside the point.
The point here is that while we all seem to enjoy deriding stock shots and commenting on how dumb and easy they are, they aren't, and it takes lots of work, and failures along the way, to get to a place where you can produce them. Keep in mind that any shot like this is just as likely to fail purely based on people's perceptions of the object as it is on the photo itself. The subject matter has to be very manicured and "clean," simple, exactly within expectations or the stock shot has failed.
Nobody said you haven't been good to the community, nobody said your work is rubbish, nobody took cheap shots at your gear, and nobody implied you were too inept to have yielded the success you have. Nobody excepting you.
Everybody has had shots that they thought were great that didn't score well. And plenty of shots that are great don't score well in the first place. |
As much as  Nobody has been mean to her, they might need a time out. LOL |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 04:07:17 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Awfully presumptious of you to automatically assume that I meant only your images, Oliver. |
No, I didn't presume that. I just can't remember other ribboning white background shots than mine, usually they don't leave a lasting impression.
Originally posted by snaffles:
BTW do all working pro photogs get their jollies kicking around amateurs on a budget? |
How did I do that? Didn't I offer honest critique on your "Faceless" entry lats week? What's so wrong in my critique of your bear shot?
BTW, I started stock photography with lighting equipment for less than 100$ and a lot of my ribbons were produced with said equipment.
Originally posted by snaffles:
BTW....I want everyone here to know that whenever I vote, I often add a point when I see the photog has made an honest effort in their attempt to capture a shot that isn't quite within their capabilities, but they have the guts to try and get it and then enter it here. |
Exactly what I did voting on your bear shot.
Originally posted by snaffles:
Obviously I'm the only one here who ever did such a thing. |
See my answer before.
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
We all know Oliver shoots tons of stock type shots, take his criticism as constructive - he's explaining what is the norm for that type of shot, and his opinion is at least worthy of attention for the sheer number of those types of shots he's submitted over the years here. |
Absolutely. I just wanted to help.
On a side note: it took almost two days to finish my "Arts" entry and while I thought it had ribbon potential it is sitting at 5.7 with a single comment. But nobody will see me whining in the forums. I never look back. |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 05:20:43 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by h2:
On a side note: it took almost two days to finish my "Arts" entry and while I thought it had ribbon potential it is sitting at 5.7 with a single comment. But nobody will see me whining in the forums. I never look back. |
h2, you have 55 ribbons, snaffles had 2. Not a fair comparison. |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 05:30:45 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by MNet:
Originally posted by h2:
On a side note: it took almost two days to finish my "Arts" entry and while I thought it had ribbon potential it is sitting at 5.7 with a single comment. But nobody will see me whining in the forums. I never look back. |
h2, you have 55 ribbons, snaffles had 2. Not a fair comparison. |
True. Her image scored above her average, my image is below... |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 05:33:54 AM · #39 |
I think the idea for this photo was great but what ruined it for me was the elements that made up the idea. The creation is quite messy looking and has too much going on. I think it may have worked better with just a cookie jar and a lock. And a more traditional lock may have worked better. I also agree it may have looked better on black.
Here is an image from google of just a cookie jar with a chain - I think the simplicity works better.
Anyway at least you have had some super feedback on this one - that is after all what this site is all about!! |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 05:44:37 AM · #40 |
I have to agree with Oliver. It's not a matter of ribbons.
This post reminded me of this entry, one of my first here:
Light was ok IMO, but it scored poorly. It was not so different from your shot.
This image taught me that taking pictures of objects with a white background rarely works.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2013 06:37:35 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
I came here to learn, and have fun. I still learn but I've now shelved my goal to ribbon and/or finish at 7 or above with my 50mm, goals which I was able to achieve with my 3 other lenses.
I don't want to leave here, but I'm no longer enjoying myself. My current submissions are getting shat on left right and centre. Obviously I suck. Obviously some of the production stills being put on a poster by a theatre group are someone else's, too. |
May I offer an alternative scenario which may or may not offer some clarity. I recently started cycling competitively (and at 42 years old this is very difficult) and there are some very obvious similarities. Some riders are naturally gifted and are naturally fitter. Some riders train hard and some don't. The best riders are those with the best natural gift who are prepared to train hard and get the best out of themselves. The worst, obviously, are those without natural talent and who aren't prepared to train.
I have some cycling ability, but with a full time job I do not have the time to hone my training to get the best out of it, but I am improving. If I were a pro, I would have ta better opportunity to improve and get better results in races. BUT that would mean that I focussed on training for a specific type of event.
The sililarities are that I'm an OK photographer but I don't have the time or equipment to compete with the professional photographers on here. If I wanted to do well I'd have to work hard on my skills (and spend more ££s on equipment) to achieve a level playing field, and aim for a specific type of shot (landscape or studio eye-candy or macro insect etc) that do well in these competitions. In photographic terms I am a keen amateur with acceptable equipment and limited time, so I'm never going to win the photographic equivalent of the Tour de France. In cycling I'm never going to win the actual Tour de France. Accepting this makes me happier. I might get an occasional good result (cycling and photography), but I'm not a real contender.
So, don't give up, just accept that the competition is fierce, stereotypical photos do well, your fellow competitors will score your images harshly, and that enjoyment comes from participating rather than winning. If I only raced to win, I'd never bother racing and I wouldn't have improved as a cyclist.
Message edited by author 2013-01-17 06:49:43. |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 07:09:25 AM · #42 |
| I am sorry you are not having fun right now, Susan. You have given me advice and helped me in the past, and I consider you an asset to the site. I would hate to see you go, but if it isn't fun maybe a break from DPC would help. |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 07:31:17 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
if it isn't fun maybe a break from DPC would help. |
+1 |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 07:50:41 AM · #44 |
Thanks for the support and kind words, everyone, including Oliver :-) I'm just having a really rough time in my personal life at the moment and I use my photography as a way to keep busy and creative. Considering how I had to figure out how to light that shot in the first place, I was pretty damn proud of myself for realizing that the 910 bounced off the walls did a wicked job of lighting. So to find the image, which I planned to use to convey a common New Year's resolution, not resonating with the voters like I thought it would just added to the crap already going on in my life.
@  mikeee...I do have another hobby waiting in the wings, but I can't do a damn thing about it for at least another month!!! I tap my sugar maples and make maple syrup, but it's far too soon and the weather conditions have to be right.
LOL that you used bike racing as an analogy...I did briefly date a super-competitive sponsored bike racer, and eh wala, I could have been really good at it. But this person took all the enjoyment out of just getting on a bike and going somewhere without having to be in racing gear, bike shoes etc. However I just got back on the stationary bike last week and can happily say that I'm already shaving off a half-inch here and there.
Anyway going on too long as usual. later all. |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 09:28:49 AM · #45 |
The fairness and merits of Bicycle racers may be the worst possible analogy to use, simply given the whole Lance Armstrong news going on right now.
Everything I say, can be taken or left, as I have a pathetic average, and no ribbons, but lets assume putting all other possibly negative factors aside,(too close a crop, not soft enough lighting, etc.)- the theme was pretty good.
In my completely and utterly non-expert opinion I think the cookie jar, or statue, is not eye pleasing or "pretty enough"- just as a glamour portrait scores much better if the subject is attractive. perhaps. |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 11:59:05 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The fairness and merits of Bicycle racers may be the worst possible analogy to use, simply given the whole Lance Armstrong news going on right now.
|
Good call, I have long suspected Snaffles (aka Sugartits) of using PED's (photography enhancing drugs) |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 02:05:13 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
I am sorry you are not having fun right now, Susan. You have given me advice and helped me in the past, and I consider you an asset to the site. I would hate to see you go, but if it isn't fun maybe a break from DPC would help. |
aka the "its not you, its me-breakup" |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 02:58:49 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
So tell me what you think. Constructively, please. |
In the technical use of the lighting setup, this image tells me not where you are, but where you are going. Surely, your exploration of lighting setups will take a quantum leap into even more creative concepts and setups, and this image will become one of many steps. This image reminded of a conversation and suggestion that  Gordon made to me many years ago of the Strobist website and further reading with the book called Light Science and Magic.
How DPC voters weigh this image as either a Prince or a Toad will not be nearly as important as the stepping stone to creativity that this images deserves.
As for the drama llama feelings, perhaps a good yoga class?! ;-) |
|
|
|
01/17/2013 04:09:25 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The fairness and merits of Bicycle racers may be the worst possible analogy to use, simply given the whole Lance Armstrong news going on right now. |
It's quite a good analogy actually. I'm sure a lot of DPCers would take 'outside assistance' for an extra points boost; that's the nature of competition. And this thread is equivalent to asking 'why wasn't I faster in the last race?'.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2013 04:46:07 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by snaffles:
So tell me what you think. Constructively, please. |
In the technical use of the lighting setup, this image tells me not where you are, but where you are going. Surely, your exploration of lighting setups will take a quantum leap into even more creative concepts and setups, and this image will become one of many steps. This image reminded of a conversation and suggestion that Gordon made to me many years ago of the Strobist website and further reading with the book called Light Science and Magic.
How DPC voters weigh this image as either a Prince or a Toad will not be nearly as important as the stepping stone to creativity that this images deserves.
As for the drama llama feelings, perhaps a good yoga class?! ;-) |
This is probably the best thing anyone has said on this thread. That bear/chain/lock thing isn't ribbon-worthy, but it's a step on the path towards a ribbon-worthy studio shot. Life is a marathon, not a sprint, and if you enjoy the process of running the marathon, you'll be much happier than if the only thing that matters is the ribbon at the end of the race.
Oh, and I second the recommendation of the strobist website and "Light, Science, and Magic." Both great resources.
One of the biggest learning tools I've found, especially in "studio" photography, was to pick out someone else's image that I liked, and try to recreate it. I spent days on end trying to recreate Giorgio's apples. I never quite got it, but I eventually came close, and what I learned in the process has helped me ever since.
(these apples, btw)
 |
|
