| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2011 04:38:02 AM · #1 |
so any ideas? i though was a nice shot nice dof, candid in nature and cute. i know the guy harping on that kids dont count as candid hammered me but the photo that finished 2 places higher than me had 8-10 comments saying it wasn't candid??? so why did mine do worse than an image that got hammered for not being candid?
2 places higher than me 
do i need to over process it to get that fake super sharpend look? i don't like that style myself hence why i dont do it but a little disheartening as only one comment had any inclination to not liking the focus.
one comment said it lacks sharpening? but if you look at the weave on the scarf thats in the highlight and the hair its all clearly defined, did it need to be more defined?
help me get better, i know trying to undersand the DPC crowd is a rd to madness but id like to get better results.
thnx
Giles |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 05:01:46 AM · #2 |
Two words should explain it (I think): focus and eyes.
Yours is a nice shot. And it is candid. But I think shooting at 1.8 that close didn't do you any real benefit.
The focus on your shot appears to be on the side of his head rather than his face/eyes. If you dropped it to something else (maybe 2.8, maybe more) or if he was further from you all of his head would have been in focus, while the bokeh wouldn't've been affected too much. An image with that would have scored much higher, I think.
The, as you put it, overprocessing of the other image is the reason you were beat. You have something to focus on in that image. A focal point--the eyes in this case. But yours, again, it's the side of the head. Not the best of focal points.
Also, your kid's eyes are down cast. According to this image (which I found yesterday, and I thought was very much underrated)
he has huge eyes. Had you managed to catch his eyes in focus I think you'd have done much better.
Shooting 1.8's kinda cool, especially in low light when your camera sucks at ISO above 100 (like mine). But don't always shoot at it! You've gotta think about what you want. For studio portraits you can get away with low apertures because everything's set up, and you can focus on the eyes, even if the top of the nose is out, which is cool. Outside in natural environments with kids I'd say it's a completely different matter.
With your 5D you could definitely bump the ISO to like 400 and narrowify the aperture with no noise issues.
But also realise 0.05 is only 9 points different with the number of votes you two had. That's 9 points out of 752 points for you (and if it's split even less), which equates to 1% difference. It could have gone either way.
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 05:07:04.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 05:10:32 AM · #3 |
| I concur. It was more about technique than subject matter IMHO. A side view gives limited information, not having most of that limited information in focus really hurts. Its tones are lovely, but I feel the need for more than that in a candid. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 06:44:58 AM · #4 |
| While your photo is definitely more candid (in my opinion) I have to agree that the focus point is what made me vote this at least 1 point lower. I like the general feel of the photo, it's just that my eyes aren't directed to where I want them. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 06:47:38 AM · #5 |
| For what is worth, I rated this an 8. To me the focus on the ear and the hair makes in this case for a better image, as this soften the face thus supporting the mood of the picture. Also, I liked the tonal range of the photo. However, focus on the eyes works well more often than not, and it is a constant mantra in any photography manual and internet tutorial. Out of focus eyes are something many people finds objectionable, particularly when quickly rating 100+ photographs, I suspect. Also, there is an overexposed patch on his nose that some voters might have considered a defect. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 07:31:50 AM · #6 |
Who cares about score? You liked it, some others did too, that should be fine. Niall, Brennan, they did a good job analyzing the shot and they make sense, follow their advice.
Step back from your shot, pretend you are the man on the street voter, and an art contest jury member, think-what would please you?
People want a great photo with a good twist on the challenge topic to score well, or, a fantastic photo with inherent WOW factor if you play the topic literally. So for comparison, your photo is in the second category, and people are arguing over the focus, it lacks the WOW PUNCH. The other photo is a play on the challenge topic-there are all those people in the background, its not a traditional candid, but close enough not to get dnmc'd by everyone, and there is a very attractive girl in the foreground with an infectious smile. Arguments about overporocessing aside, thats why it did well. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 08:07:48 AM · #7 |
What a swizz! Your image should of been at least in the top 95! I can see why you are so annoyed about the one that placed 2 slots higher - the placing leads the casual observer to believe your shot is TWO PLACES WORSE than that one.. Poppycock! I think THAT one should of been 99th and yours at least 94th!!
I feel your pain bruvva. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 08:17:39 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
Two words should explain it (I think): focus and eyes.
|
My sentiments too. It's a good enough image, just soft in focus around the face (nose, lips, eyes) and without the eyes to look at, it lacks some pull.
But, in terms of processing, I think you're okay. Could do with some adjustment of tone curves and maybe some vibrance/saturation to the scarf to add a little pop, but that's all relatively minor.
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 08:31:26. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 08:27:51 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
But, in terms of processing, I think you're okay. |
I agree.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 09:36:12 AM · #10 |
Regardless of how perfectly it fits or does not fit the challenge, visual appeal is almost always more important to an average score than how well it matches everyone's interpretation of the topic. As long as people can see how the photographer felt it fit it.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 10:48:28 AM · #11 |
What they've all said; it's very simple. The image looks like an out-take, a mistake. The focus is on the lapel, and pretty close on the ear. We want our focus on the face, specifically (in profile shots) the nose, mouth and eye. So it seems like a careless/accidental rendering. The kind of shot that should wind up on the cutting room floor, so to speak.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 11:56:55 AM · #12 |
Well, I gave the little boy an 8 and the girl a 6. But, what do I know? Perhaps, the warm lighting in the image of the little boy touched my heart far more than the blatant appeal and harsh lighting found in the image of the lovely young lady.
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 11:57:36. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 12:31:19 PM · #13 |
Everything they said ^^^^^
Also I wouldn,t get to hung up about scores and comparing your shot to others around you in the finish is I think a mistake.
If you really want top scores look back over previous front pages and you will soon see what does well here.
But winning ribbons is only part of the fun to be had in my view. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 12:34:36 PM · #14 |
| For me this a portrait, and not a particularly engaging one. In candids, I like to see some sort of context, and have some sort of behavior captured. The focus is only one of the reasons I think this didn't score higher, and I don't think it's the main reason. I also feel that the crop is too tight (so we can't see what he's doing or where he is, other than outside), and that this moment is not different from any other moment. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 12:35:41 PM · #15 |
| I don't bother looking at who finished around me...it's fruitless and not rewarding in any way. At the completion of every challenge, I look at the Top 10 and see what they did successfully and see if I can learn something. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 01:05:22 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
I don't bother looking at who finished around me...it's fruitless and not rewarding in any way. |
Concur. The list of places gives the illusion of linear distance from the goal. It sort of is, but gives misleading data. Imagine keeping a list of all the shots in a dart game. The 67th best shot might be only a few angstroms from the 66th best shot in terms of distance from the bullseye, but not tell you the 67th missed high and right, while 66th missed low and left. Knowing how they missed will improve your aim, comparing missed shots on a list is not really useful. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 02:04:10 PM · #17 |
To get back to your original question, which was "What did I do wrong"? The answer is: You entered a challenge on DPC.
It's ok, I still respect you. I make that mistake all the time.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:04:11 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Simms:
What a swizz! Your image should of been at least in the top 95! I can see why you are so annoyed about the one that placed 2 slots higher - the placing leads the casual observer to believe your shot is TWO PLACES WORSE than that one.. Poppycock! I think THAT one should of been 99th and yours at least 94th!!
I feel your pain bruvva. |
i think you missed the point,i was asking why a photo that had 8 or more comments saying it didnt meet the challenge scored higher i didnt say mine should have been higher than that.
thank you for the people you took the time to advise me, and i get what you are saying. eyes are an important part but was thinking with the candid i didnt want the eyes as i didnt want them to be looking at eh camera.
yeah to teh 1.8 but was first play with new 85mm hehe so was having a good mess around, and checking out the bokeh. the dof is a very thin yep on the 85mm should have cranked to 5.6.
i guess to me and i attempted to infer form the title that he has stoped in a moment of play/excitement and something has intrigued him.
but it wasnt shot as a candid it was what i had from the challenge entry dates to fit as a candid image,
so lessons learnt:
challenge title is irrelevant
children not good,
pretty women good, even with blown highlights ;)
sharpen and sharpen for the dpc crowd
eyes are important
focus bang on, no soft focus
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 15:20:51. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:28:13 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Tiny:
Everything they said ^^^^^
Also I wouldn,t get to hung up about scores and comparing your shot to others around you in the finish is I think a mistake.
If you really want top scores look back over previous front pages and you will soon see what does well here.
But winning ribbons is only part of the fun to be had in my view. |
is it just me but i dislike and mark down someone who just goes and copies/gets inspariation from previous challenges there where a few in the candid which were pretty much extact replicas of previous winners, surely thats not the way to go?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:32:26 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
Originally posted by Tiny:
Everything they said ^^^^^
Also I wouldn,t get to hung up about scores and comparing your shot to others around you in the finish is I think a mistake.
If you really want top scores look back over previous front pages and you will soon see what does well here.
But winning ribbons is only part of the fun to be had in my view. |
is it just me but i dislike and mark down someone who just goes and copies/gets inspariation from previous challenges there where a few in the candid which were pretty much extact replicas of previous winners, surely thats not the way to go? |
I mark them down, too, but there aren't enough of us.
It's the same reason Hollywood makes sequels. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:41:38 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
is it just me but i dislike and mark down someone who just goes and copies/gets inspariation from previous challenges there where a few in the candid which were pretty much extact replicas of previous winners, surely thats not the way to go? |
I used to as well, however I have found that I have scored down (and commented that I had done so) because I felt that the image was a copy. Then it turned out the shooter had not been on DPC for years, or did not know of a particular image that I assumed everyone knew. So I have tried to stop assuming that everyone shares my knowledge base and just judge the image in front of me. Originality still gets bonus points, but if an image seems similar to one I have seen before, well there isn't much new under the sun. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:43:02 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
is it just me but i dislike and mark down someone who just goes and copies/gets inspariation from previous challenges there where a few in the candid which were pretty much extact replicas of previous winners, surely thats not the way to go? |
In the past, I voted impartially. If the image was good, but a copy of something else, I still scored it on its own technical merits. These days, I tend to be a harsher critic, and score down images that "I've seen before" since I feel creativity has a role to play.
Of course, this doesn't stop me from "imitating" others I admire immensely.....
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 15:44:47. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:46:36 PM · #23 |
fiinished 7th in recent one 
won candid iv 
won candid vi 
8th in current one 
each to their own an all, and some will argue they arent the same image etc but they seem very close to me |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:59:29 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
[quote=Simms]
challenge title is irrelevant
children not good,
pretty women good, even with blown highlights ;)
sharpen and sharpen for the dpc crowd
eyes are important
focus bang on, no soft focus |
Children are just fine, apparently. If I am not wrong, one of the highest scoring photos in this challenge is a picture of two children playing tag.
Just, a series of factors suggest strongly that there is no connection between photographer and children. For instance, the distance from the subjects, their behaviour, the people, presumably parents/relatives, out of focus in the background, the sense of distance created by compressing the perspective with a tele.
Probably, had you photographed your boy full figure and with some more context, with a longer lense and/or a background emphasizing perspective compression, and obviously in a moment in which he wasn't looking at the camera and perhaps doing something cute/interesting/atypical, people would have been more inclined considering it a candid. Also, consider that children of that age do drift away in their secret thoughts often, so people are quite used to see photographs portraing this, and tend considering them portraits.
Pretty girls always give an hedge, in life and by extension in photography too :) Not everybody feel like that, but the majority of people do.
Soft focus doesn't work well in DOPC, sure, but using sharpness as a quality criteria is something most people taking photographs currently do and this is also encouraged by camera and lenses producers. After all they sell gear, not creativity or inspiration.
My feeling is that sharpness, rule of thirds and similar criteria are easy to teach and obvious to evaluate, so sometimes they end up being 'the solution' rather than, well, an option.
Just my 2 cents :)
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 17:01:25. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 06:36:19 PM · #25 |
| I think the picture of the girl has much more going for it composition wise. The girl is off center = rule of thirds. There is something going on in the background to balance her. Yours in a centered composition with the eye, nose, mouth dead center, asking my eye to go there. But that is the spot that is out of focus. Also you have a strong leading line made by the scarf and jacket collar which are in sharp focus and that line leads right out of the frame without another element to lead the eye back to the face. Once the viewers eye has been lead off, he votes and clicks next picture without taking any more time to explore the image. Composition is important in a photograph. |
|
