| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2002 01:20:10 AM · #1 |
I have no problem scoring low per se, but I am just so puzzled about my submission results. I truly thought it was a classic, though NOT typical macro shot. A flower but an uncommon one, except here in Florida.
In all humbleness I request some critique on it, and perhaps the outtakes. I'd really like to know how I could have improved this.
HERE is my submission, and HERE are some outtakes.
I'd especially appreciate hearing from the 3 folks who thought it merited a 1, the 22 who gave it a 2, 31 gave me a 3, a wopping 68 voted 4!!! I'm sure you all had valid reasons, and I'd really thank you for your insight.
You all must see something I don't see. Please help me out here. Help me to see. Thanks in advance. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/18/2002 01:34:29 AM · #2 |
| Cuz people on here likes cliches and other photographs. :) they like what they have been commercially told.... |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 01:41:57 AM · #3 |
| Sometimes I think it is hard to see a photo yourself if you really know what it is. When I first looked at your shot, I thought it was another Laser Pen photo. I could never really tell if it was an actual flower and how big it was. Is it a macro? Is it a closeup? It seems simple to you because you know exactly what you are seeing...the rest of us apparently didn't. I think it was just confusing. I'm not sure if the outtakes would have done any better as they afford the same problems. |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 01:43:03 AM · #4 |
This thread is Gracious', and I'm not going to hijack it... but for the last time... if you don't like this site, there's no need to constantly share your misery.
Gracious -- I think part of it (at least for me) is that you've pulled off the abstractness (can I use that word? ;) a little too well. That is, in my human nature of trying to figure out what it is (without looking at the title, though even after I do that, I still believe my intuition), I think your shot is some type of lighting or neon effect. The red is so bright and blown out, it doesn't seem like this is an object, so I guess that's what I assume.
I think the almost duotoned feel of the image really takes away the depth of what we're looking at, and that's one of my favorite things macro does for an image.
Compositionally, it's just not very pleasing to me. The flower is very chaotic, and the skewed centering of the subject just adds to that. It's just a little too much for me.
Drew |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 01:43:57 AM · #5 |
(I swear I was typing at the same time Doug was and didn't see his post, though it sure is interesting that we both wrote the same thing)
Drew |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 01:44:42 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by DougPaz:
Sometimes I think it is hard to see a photo yourself if you really know what it is. When I first looked at your shot, I thought it was another Laser Pen photo. I could never really tell if it was an actual flower and how big it was. Is it a macro? Is it a closeup? It seems simple to you because you know exactly what you are seeing...the rest of us apparently didn't. I think it was just confusing. I'm not sure if the outtakes would have done any better as they afford the same problems.
Thanks for your reply...
It is a simple macro taken about 2 inches from a single flower from the Powder Puff Bush. Nothing tricky.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2002 01:48:55 AM · #7 |
I LOVE this site...and I'm far from miserable. My request was honest and humble. None of the comments I received really gave me too much info to go by. I put a lot into this site, and I don't begrudge that, I was simply asking for help. I truly want to learn more. I am in NO WAY angry, or upset. Please forgive me if I sounded that way.
Doug and Drew...your comments are what I am looking for...not a pat on the back or a shoulder to cry on.
Thanks! :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/18/2002 1:48:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2002 01:54:25 AM · #8 |
Grayce, I don't think Drew was addressing that to you. :-)
I'll agree with what they said about your shot though. Although the black and red contrast very nicely, there isn't the depth that would make the shot really interesting. I think I gave you a 5. I didn't hate it, but it didn't have the ooomph factor for me, either. :-) |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 02:41:43 AM · #9 |
I think I would have tried different, softer lighting and a different background. It's just too harsh and hard to make out. With so many submissions, pics don't get a lot of time to make an impression. I'm sure it was a great subject, but you could have tried some different ways of capturing it to really highlight the softness and beauty. As was said, what came through was the bright red color and a lot of squiggly lines.
It also seems noisy. I'm not sure what the capabilities are of your camera, but using a setup with more light might have helped a lot. |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 03:31:31 AM · #10 |
I dod not like it specifically , I gave it a 4. It did not appeal to me. I jsut did not like it.
I think that the approach to know and get input is right, but maybe the way you say it like "I would like the x people who gave me a 2 , the y who gave me a 4 the z ...' .... is not the right one.
Sometimes score is low (and I did my worst score in the macro challenge) because ... people do not like it or it's not very good. that's it.
And the protection behind the "you must all see something I do not see" does not make you humble. Your question is more a rant than really asking.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2002 05:47:44 AM · #11 |
The picture makes the subject look harsh, not soft as the title suggests. As other people have said, I couldn't really see what the image was meant to be and didn't really find it appealing as a picture.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2002 07:17:44 AM · #12 |
You also have to be careful with 'monster" light.
Thats the description of light that comes from slightly below the surface of an object.
There is a phenomenom in art that people associate light with the sun. The different angles of the sun that is mimicked in a photo can actually lend the moods associated with those angles (forgot the term used to describe this effect). Take a look at my macro shot from this week. It used light at the 5 o'clock postion for drama but I lost out on the traditional feelings of sunlight on flowers for the drama of this kind of light....good or bad.
When using "monster" light ( a term coined from the movie industry to represent unusual lighting angles) you risk imparting those characteristics on your image as well.
Light and shadows I think had the most impact on your photo for me this week Gracious as your light felt like it was coming from below or a monster light angle and, like Drew mentioned..the blow outs were a bit distracting. Althought I liked the different look :-)
Originally posted by Gracious:
I have no problem scoring low per se, but I am just so puzzled about my submission results. I truly thought it was a classic, though NOT typical macro shot. A flower but an uncommon one, except here in Florida.
In all humbleness I request some critique on it, and perhaps the outtakes. I'd really like to know how I could have improved this.
HERE is my submission, and HERE are some outtakes.
I'd especially appreciate hearing from the 3 folks who thought it merited a 1, the 22 who gave it a 2, 31 gave me a 3, a wopping 68 voted 4!!! I'm sure you all had valid reasons, and I'd really thank you for your insight.
You all must see something I don't see. Please help me out here. Help me to see. Thanks in advance. :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/18/2002 7:16:12 AM. |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 07:53:10 AM · #13 |
please take my comments as constructive as that is how they are meant: it was neat looking but it didn't look 'pretty' or 'soft'. the little white dots made it look overprocessed. the black background didnt add to the pretty, soft feel you were trying to convey. a more 'angelic' or lighter background might have helped. maybe some other props in the pic to convey the softness, like petals from a real flower, feathers, or satin, too ..
good luck! |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 08:17:50 AM · #14 |
Can I add to your comment about monster light? You're right to say that it doesn't mimic the sun in any way. I'd also like to add that cross lighting doesn't either. You've got to be skilled to pull it off and most of the time i see people try it and dont get it quite right.
Remember. One sun, One shadow. |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 09:41:35 AM · #15 |
What I see a lot of is comments that just are negative and don't give any sort of suggestions on how to make the shot better. If you're going to spend the time to leave a comment, how about some suggestions for the photographer on how to make the shot better?
-crabappl3 |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 10:54:29 AM · #16 |
I certainly understand a lot better after these comments. Thans so much to each of you for taking the time. I appreciate it. To those who considered it a rant, I'm sorry, and thanks to you also for your honesty.
~Peace~
|
|
|
|
11/18/2002 10:54:55 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
What I see a lot of is comments that just are negative and don't give any sort of suggestions on how to make the shot better. If you're going to spend the time to leave a comment, how about some suggestions for the photographer on how to make the shot better?
-crabappl3
It's hard to be too contructive in more than a slightly negative way. I try to leave my comments saying something like:
Very nice. I wonder what it would like turned 90 degrees to the right. Might look great in B and W too. Lots of possibilities and great shot.
Very nice, the color and focus are excellent. A bit too much glare across the shell and right where the crack is too!
The only nitpik I have is that the background lights take away from it.
Great idea, I wish it was a bit more in focus.
I try to be constructive by telling what I DIDN'T like. |
|
|
|
11/18/2002 11:31:29 AM · #18 |
Those are helpful... a lot like the comments I tend to leave.
-crabappl3
Originally posted by DougPaz:
Originally posted by crabappl3:
[i]What I see a lot of is comments that just are negative and don't give any sort of suggestions on how to make the shot better. If you're going to spend the time to leave a comment, how about some suggestions for the photographer on how to make the shot better?
-crabappl3
It's hard to be too contructive in more than a slightly negative way. I try to leave my comments saying something like:
Very nice. I wonder what it would like turned 90 degrees to the right. Might look great in B and W too. Lots of possibilities and great shot.
Very nice, the color and focus are excellent. A bit too much glare across the shell and right where the crack is too!
The only nitpik I have is that the background lights take away from it.
Great idea, I wish it was a bit more in focus.
I try to be constructive by telling what I DIDN'T like.[/i]
|
|
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: 08/07/2025 12:20:11 PM EDT.
