| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2004 06:55:44 PM · #1 |
 This could very well make its way into the rant forum, because it really is motivated by a sense of frustration. But, here goes anyway...
I almost set a new personal low in the backlighting challenge. Before submitting this image I was convinced that this would be close to a personal best for me (which is currently 7.39). Silly me!! But, while the subject may not interest the majority here, it should not have been penalized for not meeting the challenge. Yet the predominant comment (albeit only 6...) was that it was not backlit. The globe in the lantern could not have glowed as it did without the light from behind. Judging by the number of 1-2-3 votes, the majority didn't see it that way. ...Or else they just didn't like the image??
What I'd really like to know is how DPCers feel about the image from a "non-challenge" perspective. In other words, what do you think of the image photographically? If you were a collector of old railroad lanterns, does this photo capture the 'Adams & Westlake' effectively?
Thanks
-len
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 07:01:03 PM · #2 |
I have always wondered about my DOF challenge entry, too. It is still a favoritie of mine and I still don't know exactly what was being scored. But in this case, for myself personally, I am just not "pulled in" by the photo. It appears to me as more of a shot I would see in a catalog selling a lantern. Perfectly well executed, and clear, but no interest beyond the item. I have looked at your portfolio, and you have a huge amount of very captivating images that really engage me, and this one is the exception for me.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 07:02:30 PM · #3 |
Well, all I can say is that I personally voted it low because, while I noticed the backlit area of the lamp.. it wasn't the focal point of the photograph.. the backlighting really did nothing to *enhance* the photograph in my opinion, and the front lighting was far too powerful, and pretty much cancelled out whatever backlighting was going on.
That's how I saw it. On an individual photograph level, it's quite good, but the sterile white background looks *way* out of place for the subject. Just doesn't fit for me.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 07:03:39 PM · #4 |
I think it is a very fine documentary shot of an 'Adams and Westlake' - presumably that's the manufacturers of the lantern.
Aside from that, it is, I fear, really dull - don't be offended. Technically it's everso well done, with only a couple of issues - primarily the horizon line in you background. As a 'backlit' image - well, I agree, the stronger more prominent and more noticeable light is from the front ... some light is obviously coming through the glass, but to my eyes it could as well be reflections from your background. As a subject for a photograph ... it holds no interest for me. The red is well rendered, but that's it. Your light has not made a feature of the weathering of it, not the tonality and textures of the metal contrasted with the glass.
I don't know if you have confused a personal interest with a universal one; that is an easy mistake to make. There's an element way beyond the technical execution of photography required in most ribbon-winning photos - and if I knew what that was, I'd be Kiwiness (and I'm not sure he can articulate what it is, he just happens to know it instinctively, is my guess)
E
Message edited by author 2004-09-17 19:04:43.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 07:23:07 PM · #5 |
| I think it's the composition that lets this one down to my eye... it looks like it has just been placed in the frame with a tight crop with no thought of ratios or aesthetics. It's lit very nicely and exposed perfectly, and the background is very effective... but the composition just looks chaotic to me. |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 07:48:12 PM · #6 |
| I didn't vote on this photo at all, but I look at it and it actually looks like the lightling is from the front. It has reflection on the lambs glass, which would indicate that there was lighting there. To me that would not meet the challenge. There is no shadow though, so I guess you had multipule light sources, but I am not sure if that was teh point of challenge to use both. |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 08:00:48 PM · #7 |
It is a nice photo of a lamp that in reality would have limited appeal. As you said maybe to a collector. It still has glare on the lamp so while it is quite good it is not perfect.
In the challenge I suffered a simular fate too much light in front to make the backlight stand out and well I suppose we get what we deserve when it is not clear enough that we have met the challenge.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 08:29:59 PM · #8 |
Thanks, all, for the positive feedback, - not that you liked the photo; just that you said what I needed to hear; i.e., why my photo didn't do well.
Today I paid for my second year of DPC membership. With an audience like this, I'm getting back far more than the $25 I just spent.
Message edited by author 2004-09-17 22:17:02. |
|
|
|
09/18/2004 07:29:38 AM · #9 |
Left a comment on your photo. :-)
jen |
|
|
|
09/18/2004 08:08:01 AM · #10 |
I didn't vote, but having a look at the picture now, here's some feedback :
I see evidence of backlighting mainly on the handle of the lamp and some on the left edge of the glass. I also see shadows underneath the lamp which confirm there is a light to camera right. The bright spot on the glass looks more like a reflection from a light to camera left, although I get the impression from your description that it is caused by refraction of the light behind the lamp ?
So, the backlighting does not play a strong role, does not really enhance the image. As others said, it is a good recording of reality, but rather sterile, it misses the WOW factor for me. |
|
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: 10/16/2025 01:26:16 PM EDT.
