DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> What's lacking in this image?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 21 of 21, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/06/2011 07:30:31 AM · #1
I know this challenge ended a while ago, but I wanted to keep some anonymity while "You +1" was still in voting.

I was really surprised by the score I received on this image. It got a 5.6757. I had predicted it would get 6.1-6.3, so I was well over a half-point off. What was lacking in this image that kept you from voting it higher?

10/06/2011 07:42:06 AM · #2
What lacks is the 'fool the viewer' side. I see a beautiful image but I don't ask myself how you shot it.
 10/06/2011 07:49:15 AM · #3
I seem to have fooled some people. Some thought there was a light in the girl's mouth while others thought it was added in post.

Message edited by author 2011-10-06 07:49:54.
 10/06/2011 07:54:12 AM · #4
Originally posted by geinafets:
I seem to have fooled some people. Some thought there was a light in the girl's mouth while others thought it was added in post.


But "some" people are likely the minority. I imagine most were like me and figured it could easily be done two ways, but I didn't really care to dwell on it as the photo didn't stick out o me as interesting.
 10/06/2011 07:59:40 AM · #5
Originally posted by giantmike:
Originally posted by geinafets:
I seem to have fooled some people. Some thought there was a light in the girl's mouth while others thought it was added in post.


But "some" people are likely the minority. I imagine most were like me and figured it could easily be done two ways, but I didn't really care to dwell on it as the photo didn't stick out o me as interesting.


Yep, that's the point IMO.
 10/06/2011 09:22:17 AM · #6
Hey, it got a 7 and a suggestive comment from me!
 10/06/2011 09:32:09 AM · #7
The score does not reflect the work you put into the image or the quality that it represents. I think it is worth more than what it received. Try not to dwell on this as you or your image lacking anything. The image lacks nothing. It is a fine shot and a very good work with a good concept. It was an under-appreciated image in a challenge full of good images. Dust it off and keep on working at it!
 10/06/2011 09:33:23 AM · #8
The portrait of the girl is very nice, but something about the light in her mouth bothered me (very cool how you did it BTW) I can't really pinpoint it, maybe it's that it's too bright and it overpowers the rest of the image. Like I said it's a very nice portrait but when I look at it all I see is that light coming out of her mouth, instead I would like to be focusing on those her beautiful eyes and the light be secondary to that.

10/06/2011 09:50:35 AM · #9
IMO, the image does not "hang" together. Her skin, eyelashes, & eyebrows have perfect make-up. Her hair, on the other hand, looks like she just took a shower, half-dried her hair, and ran a brush through it. To me, though, the biggest negative is the bright spot. The biggest problem is that it hides her lower lip, making the shadow under her lips look like her lower lip (a 2nd one?), and making it look like her mouth is wide open in an "O". The flash looks like it is in her mouth (shiny teeth?), and makes me feel like she is unapproachable - in contrast to the rest of the picture, which feels like it is trying to draw you in. The flash also makes it very difficult to determine her expression. Her eyes almost make her look surprised, but it doesn't carry over to the rest of the picture. If the flash of light was obviously in front of her face; leaving her lips, I think it would have better communicated that she was speaking and what she had said was the focus.
There are many things that you did very well in the picture. Her eyes and skin are beautiful, as is the overall lighting.
 10/06/2011 11:05:15 AM · #10
In my view its not what,s lacking its what,s there.
From the comments you where given I would say a lot of folks found it frightening,creepy and not to their taste.
Many on this site are very over sensitive to the bizarre , unusual and nasty.
This image is not particularly any of these things to me and many others ,but to some it will be.
And in my opinion those folks would score the image low.
Not very well explained but I hope you see what I am getting at.
 10/06/2011 11:10:11 AM · #11
By the way,is the model you ?
 10/06/2011 12:09:07 PM · #12
I stick by my original comment:
"Based on the shadows on her face, I am going to guess this light was added in post-processing. I really like the way you processed the eyes. It's cool. I might suggest however, if you are going to process the eyes like that, that you might also soften or de-noise the skin. The combination of the processed eyes and unprocessed skin makes the skin look a bit more varied than it probably really is. Oh, I also really like the hair in this shot too."

I have to admit that the "fool the viewer" aspect wasn't really there, mainly because the shadows reveal the actual light sources.

To expand on my original comment: small skin variations are not a problem, but some lighting and editing techniques can "bring out" those variations, especially sharpening. To Photoshop, those skin variations are "edges" because they are light pixels next to dark pixels; sharpening can enhance those edges and thus enhance the natural skin variations.

To get around this, you have to treat those variations with a bit of care, i.e. edit them out, blur them, spot heal them on a new layer then adjust the opacity of that layer, etc. Anything to reduce those "edges" in Photoshop.

And again, the only reason this is a big deal is because certain lighting and editing techniques can enhance these natural variations - namely directional/overhead light, and the editing style of the eyes.

Hope this helps.
 10/06/2011 03:24:59 PM · #13
I'm surprised the score surprised you.

My first feeling about this image blinds me with a rather hardcore and blunt sense of light.

The apparent and natural beauty of the model shows through in abundance and rescues this image somewhat. But, I would like to see a more elegant portrayal that highlights rather than diminishes her more radiant qualities.

Obviously, I'm not a portrait photographer, but that's my two cents as I didn't find this image all that inspiring and would have given it a 5 (I didn't vote on this particular challenge).

Message edited by author 2011-10-06 15:25:56.
 10/06/2011 03:39:22 PM · #14
I don't understand how people have the gall to "predict" what they feel their score ought to be and then be upset when they don't get it. I see score prediction surprisingly often. IMO, damn near ALL my pictures should get better than they do (but not absolutely all, I've got some stinkers!) but I'm sure that everybody feels that way, with the exception of the very humble :) I also feel that many other people's pictures that score low should do better and some that ribbon are junk, but so it is and no hard feelings and no surprises. If you have no expectations, you cannot be disappointed just put it out there into the ether and let it fall where it may. As far as your image is concerned, the model is lovely and so is the lighting on her, but the glare from her mouth seems like an afterthought as it does not at all jive with the rest of the image which may be a contribution to the lack of voter appreciation to your desire.
 10/06/2011 03:41:43 PM · #15
As an afterthought of my own, consider the company you keep in the ranking of that challenge. One above posthumous? you should be honored!
 10/06/2011 04:30:02 PM · #16
I gave it nine because the cropping was off to me.
 10/06/2011 09:34:52 PM · #17
First, thanks so much for all of the helpful feedback, including from those of you who left comments or PM'd me.

Originally posted by dali_lama_2k:
I don't understand how people have the gall to "predict" what they feel their score ought to be and then be upset when they don't get it. I see score prediction surprisingly often. IMO, damn near ALL my pictures should get better than they do (but not absolutely all, I've got some stinkers!) but I'm sure that everybody feels that way, with the exception of the very humble :) I also feel that many other people's pictures that score low should do better and some that ribbon are junk, but so it is and no hard feelings and no surprises. If you have no expectations, you cannot be disappointed just put it out there into the ether and let it fall where it may. As far as your image is concerned, the model is lovely and so is the lighting on her, but the glare from her mouth seems like an afterthought as it does not at all jive with the rest of the image which may be a contribution to the lack of voter appreciation to your desire.


I think being able to predict your scores is a VERY important skill for anyone who plans on working with clients (aka, someone like me). I think you need to be able to tell if what you are creating and producing will jive well with what your clients expect. If it does, perfect. If not, well, your business probably isn't going to last too long.

I don't always predict that I'll get a high score. I have an image in voting right now that I predicted would get 4.5-4.7. It's currently sitting at 5.9. My "From Above" shot also got significantly higher than I predicted. Basically, that means that I suck at predicting how my shots will be, but it also disproves your assumption that I have a much higher view of my work than the viewers do.

By the way, "surprised" and "upset" are not synonyms. I am not upset about the score at all. Just surprised. And I'm asking the public to explain the vote for me so I can adjust my output to better fit what the clients voters want. I don't see anything wrong with that. I see it as a learning exercise.

Originally posted by EL-ROI:
The score does not reflect the work you put into the image or the quality that it represents. I think it is worth more than what it received. Try not to dwell on this as you or your image lacking anything. The image lacks nothing. It is a fine shot and a very good work with a good concept. It was an under-appreciated image in a challenge full of good images. Dust it off and keep on working at it!


I'm definitely going to keep going! : ) I just saw that the score was lower than I thought it would be and that two-thirds of the other entries scored better, which I take to mean that there was something that those images had that mind did not. I want to learn how to have both mass appeal and personal style. I know when one of my images matches what I want it to look like, but in order to have the mass appeal (which I see as partially synonymous with marketability), I need to better understand the expectations, likes, dislikes, and style preferences of the intended audiences.

Originally posted by dtremain:
IMO, the image does not "hang" together. Her skin, eyelashes, & eyebrows have perfect make-up. Her hair, on the other hand, looks like she just took a shower, half-dried her hair, and ran a brush through it. To me, though, the biggest negative is the bright spot. The biggest problem is that it hides her lower lip, making the shadow under her lips look like her lower lip (a 2nd one?), and making it look like her mouth is wide open in an "O". The flash looks like it is in her mouth (shiny teeth?), and makes me feel like she is unapproachable - in contrast to the rest of the picture, which feels like it is trying to draw you in. The flash also makes it very difficult to determine her expression. Her eyes almost make her look surprised, but it doesn't carry over to the rest of the picture. If the flash of light was obviously in front of her face; leaving her lips, I think it would have better communicated that she was speaking and what she had said was the focus.
There are many things that you did very well in the picture. Her eyes and skin are beautiful, as is the overall lighting.


I completely agree that her hair doesn't really match. Unfortunately, her hair is always frizzy and is actually quite styled in this image. It's normally much worse : ) I guess next time I'll need to use a better model with nicer hair, haha!

I find it very interesting that you found that the light in her mouth made her look unapproachable. The light was supposed to represent communication, and it was supposed to be a positive, nearly holy thing. Apparently I did not convey my message well enough. That was definitely my fault. I had intended for her expression to look "matter of fact" to mesh with the commonality of speech and emphasize that all communication is important or even sacred.

Can you please explain more about what you meant by the "if the flash of light was obviously in front of her face, leaving her lips" part? Do you mean making the whole flare smaller, making the fully opaque part smaller, or something else entirely?

Originally posted by Tiny:
In my view its not what,s lacking its what,s there.
From the comments you where given I would say a lot of folks found it frightening,creepy and not to their taste.
Many on this site are very over sensitive to the bizarre , unusual and nasty.
This image is not particularly any of these things to me and many others ,but to some it will be.
And in my opinion those folks would score the image low.
Not very well explained but I hope you see what I am getting at.


The comments that said the image was creepy also surprised me : ) I wasn't going for that at all (quite the opposite, actually), so I was a bit shocked when I read those comments. That more than one person saw the image as creepy means that I missed the mark while trying to convey my message. This image has shown that to be one of my weak points that I intend to work on : )

Originally posted by adigitalromance:
I stick by my original comment:
"Based on the shadows on her face, I am going to guess this light was added in post-processing. I really like the way you processed the eyes. It's cool. I might suggest however, if you are going to process the eyes like that, that you might also soften or de-noise the skin. The combination of the processed eyes and unprocessed skin makes the skin look a bit more varied than it probably really is. Oh, I also really like the hair in this shot too."


I actually feared that if I edited her skin any more, I'd make her look too plastic-y. I guess I was farther away from that line than I thought. This will definitely help me feel out that line when I edit the next image. Thanks!

Originally posted by hihosilver:
The apparent and natural beauty of the model shows through in abundance and rescues this image somewhat. But, I would like to see a more elegant portrayal that highlights rather than diminishes her more radiant qualities.


I'd love if you could speak more on that, particularly the second sentence. I don't think I completely understand, but it sounds important and like something I should be doing.

Originally posted by TheDruid:
I gave it nine because the cropping was off to me.


I'm not sure if this was a joke or not. If you meant cropping lower, all you would have seen was her tube-top shirt : )
 10/07/2011 12:24:21 AM · #18
Originally posted by dali_lama_2k:
I don't understand how people have the gall to "predict" what they feel their score ought to be and then be upset when they don't get it.


Why is predicting a score gall? There is no great art to guessing which shots within a given challenge will score well, and I believe I can guess during editing if a shot I am working on has a chance at the top twenty. Of course I am often wrong, and my guesses are as often off by being low as they are high. But how is having a fair notion of the probable outcome of the placement of a submitted photograph any more galling than guessing who will win a football game? Hubris is "you don't understand my art", not " This is a technically sound image with a popular subject matter. It should hit a 6.2".

As far as the score the image received, my guess is that it failed to excite much curiosity to fulfill the challenge. The question of if the light in her mouth was done in post or not, is quickly answered. The reflections in her eyes tell us where the lights were. From the shadow on the septum to the fall of light across the cheekbones everything says that the lamps reflected in here eyes were the only illumination; had you figured out how to put some real light in her mouth, and then post processed in the flare, the resulting shadowplay might have pushed it up into your expected range, if not a touch higher.

Message edited by author 2011-10-07 00:41:37.
 10/07/2011 02:12:49 PM · #19
the more criticisms I hear about this image, the more I like it. I underrated it! :)
 10/07/2011 11:37:56 PM · #20
"gall" might have come by a bit strong, more like "presumptuous." And I stand by that, in the regard that the voting base is not a singular "client" with particular tastes that you can tailor your style to. In the case of a client, I totally agree that to be able to predict their pleasure at your work is of utmost importance but isn't your ability to meet that demand based upon knowing what their very specific wants are? The voters are everywhere in that regard, neither here nor there, and totally unpredictable, as you yourself stated has even worked to your advantage before. This image is good, there is nothing particularly "lacking" in it, and you neither project a higher opinion of yourself nor "suck" at predicting scores, but you are at the whim of various fickle tastes instead of only one thereby seriously disrupting your anticipated outcome.
 10/12/2011 10:35:55 AM · #21
Originally posted by geinafets:
I completely agree that her hair doesn't really match. Unfortunately, her hair is always frizzy and is actually quite styled in this image. It's normally much worse : ) I guess next time I'll need to use a better model with nicer hair, haha!

I find it very interesting that you found that the light in her mouth made her look unapproachable. The light was supposed to represent communication, and it was supposed to be a positive, nearly holy thing. Apparently I did not convey my message well enough. That was definitely my fault. I had intended for her expression to look "matter of fact" to mesh with the commonality of speech and emphasize that all communication is important or even sacred.

Can you please explain more about what you meant by the "if the flash of light was obviously in front of her face, leaving her lips" part? Do you mean making the whole flare smaller, making the fully opaque part smaller, or something else entirely?

First, on the model - you definitely have to work with what you have. Comments like "trees in foreground are distracting" are so frustrating - especially when there is nothing you can do about it.

On the flash of light - in your picture, it looks like it is on her teeth or even in her mouth. I don't think it is the size of the flash so much as the placement or position. Moving it away from the center of her mouth and down slightly might make it look like it had come from her mouth and was moving away from her (towards the recipient?).

'Tis easy to criticize from the outside, not so easy to actually do.

And BTW - scores often don't reflect the effort put into the image. I really like your concept and the thoughts behind it.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 04:12:50 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/30/2025 04:12:50 AM EDT.