| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2006 12:11:55 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
That said, I can comment on mine. And my highest four scoring shots, 3 of the 4 (not "Sought Seclusion"), I KNEW when I was shooting that particular scene that I was witnessing a moment that can translate nicely to photography. If you shoot enough and study enough photographic images, I believe you get that feeling that you just know you are doing/capturing something unique or special. |
I have found that of MY 4 highest scoring shots, 3 are of subjects that I'm either very fond of or have a high degree of familiarity! I've shot the Michigan Capital Building inside and out countless times. I've stalked the BWL smokestacks several times and I have an ingrained love of music...
Edit to add: Of the three shots mentioned, only one did I feel have a magical quality and that was the love of music shot...
Edited to add again: These are MY 4 highest scoring shots that I'm refering to...
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 00:32:29. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:15:11 AM · #27 |
There is a quote... And I'm not sure who to attribut it to.
"Success is what happens when planning meets opportunity." John Wooden?
To me the planning element seems pretty key. Certainly was on my only 7+.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:27:31 AM · #28 |
Image appeal will almost always form the bulk of the score, so that means finding a subject with universal interest or beauty. Meeting the challenge is obviously critical, but it's often secondary. The challenge topic tells you what ingredients you must use, but the end result is about taste and presentation: a visual feast. Ideally the viewer's reaction should be, "Sure, it meets the challenge, but just look at THAT!" Cliches and "lifeless" scenes usually lack the required interest to score high- there must be something fresh and compelling.
The challenges themselves can influence the score, too. If the voters anticipate greatness, then the scores will be abnormally high (witness the first Master's Challenge). Conversely, if the challenge results are mediocre, then any relative standouts will draw high votes by comparison (the very first challenge winners could fall into that category).
In DrAchoo's image, we have an uncommon, interesting scene. The subject is different enough to stand out (in a good way) from a crowd of look-alikes. The challenge is obviously met, so the voters can put that admission ticket aside and focus on color, composition, lighting and texture... all very good (especially the contrasting smoothness of the water against the weathered shipwreck). The title implies that there's a story to tell, adding to the interest factor. This is one of those images that's simply very good all-around: a relatively low number of comments and tens, but broad appeal and no obvious red flags to warrant big deductions. You can't go wrong with that. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:29:26 AM · #29 |
| One thing that really struck me about this photo is that it achieved its results with subtle colors--take a look at all the other current challenge winners on the home page. They all have very strong colors; in fact imo most of the challenge winners in general have very strong colors. So, why did this succeed? First, there are no distracting elements--the water has been tamed by the long exposure; the clouds look more like brush strokes than lightning strikes! Everything fits together! Next, the photo has a strong yet pleasing diagonal aspect--much more interesting in this photo than the rule of thirds. Finally the subtlety of the colors reenforces the corrosive theme. All in all, one great photo and a very, very deserving winner! |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:33:41 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by jrjr:
Hey you must know more than most... you have gotten a 6.9+. Please talk about the technical aspects of the posted photo or post one of your choosing for discussion. |
::: Critique Club :::
Since I've been asked to put my money where my mouth is, I'll use my CC template if nobody minds.
First Impression - the most important one:
As soon as you look at this photo, it strikes you as having a difference to all the others. It's a combination of the subconcious reaction to the composition and the unusual shape and texture of the subject and it's also the light values. I suppose it's the ethereal feel and that it somehows tugs just a little at your emotions.
Composition:
There are composition "Rules" which of course are not rules at all but are a set of reseached and known illustration structures that have been proven to appeal to viewers. This applies to paintings as well as photographs. As 'creative' as we all want to be, these rules appear to have worked for a couple of hundred years and I think we ignore them at our peril.
The main 'rules' are all applied to this image in one form or another.
- Rule of Thirds (A): Elements should fall on a thirds line at least and at best on a thirds intersection. In this image, where the ship emerges from the water is on the horizontal thirds line and the bulk of the ship, particularly the vertical stringer of the highest point of the ship, sits right on the right-hand vertical thirds line.
- Viewing Flow (B):Again research has proven that the eye enters an image at the bottom-left corner and transitions to the top-right corner. As you can see with this image there is space and room for the eye to enter and follow the wreck's structure to the top-right thirds intersection. This can be and is combined with the Leading Lines Rule.
- Leading Lines(B): Leading lines are elements or structures of an image that lead the eye to the Point of Interest (POI). Not only does this image have a Leading Line from the nearly submerged bits of the wreck to the height of the structure but the leading line is from bottom-left to top-right and they lead to the POI that is perfectly on a thirds intersection.
- Stop Point (C): Another element that can help a composition is in conjuction with Viewing Flow. If you have an element that stops the eye leaving the image out of the top-right corner, then you've added another satisfaction point for the viewer and another reason for them to feel comfortable with and like the image. This is often achieved with a tree framing top and right or a building etc. In this case the size and imposing nature of the wreck superstructure effectively stops the eye from moving on.
The viewer/voter doesn't analyse any of this. The response to the image is totally subjective, that's why these rules work on the subjective, not the rational plane. Here's the graphic of the application of all of these in this pic.
So you can poopoo this whole concept if you feel uncomfortable being constrained by 'rules', certainly may people in DPC do. Certainly any such rules are "... for the adherence of fools and the guidance of wise men ..".
Do these rules by themselves make a great image? I doubt it very much. Can a great image be created without being mindful of these rules. I doubt it very much. Of course there are always exceptions, many amazing images do not conform to the rules but most do.
Subject:
We can't underestimate the value of the emotive impact of the subject. That's why models are all 20 something and size 8 or 10. The subject here is beautifully evocative. We initially don't know what it is so we have to examine the picture to work it out. Once we work it out I image the reaction of most of us is "... how cool, I wish I had something like that to shoot...". No doubt we'd all like to be there to explore it too - we're hooked. This personal involvement with the subject has to count for heaps in voting. We all look at images that just don't involve us at all, the actual difference in subject is subtle but is powerful in our voting. On the subconcious level, there is also a contrast here between the hard iron and the soft water.
Technical (Colour, focus, and light):
Technically, the over-sharpening halo is bad bad bad but there's enough good stuff about it that it hasn't really mattered to the voters. Now we've got that out of the way, onto the good stuff. Look at the difference between the very ordinary outtakes (that would score around 5.5+ range) and the winning image. They're like chalk and cheese, so what makes that difference?
- The soft water: is an inspired element. So many of the voters mentioned it that it clearly mattered a great deal. The long 2 second exposure may have simply been because the light was failing and DrAchoo needed to keep shooting as he wasn't happy with it yet. The result of the soft water and the subject matter just introduced that ethereal ghostly haunted look that makes this stand out.
- The Light: Look at the outtakes, they were all taken earlier. Their light was low and interesting and showed up more of the structure of the wreck. Then look at the final and realise that in this case it's better not seeing all the rust and detail. Why? I've no idea really, it just seems to fit the mood of whats created.
- The Sky: Isn't it great. As we all know, it's not possible to plan for skies like this, it just happen. We simply have to have 'the eye' and be aware of the possibilities. From the camera settings, when this was taken it was almost dark so it falls to the photographers experience and faith to keep shooting.
To grow its vote?:
I doubt it lost any points for the over-sharpening but that's just about all you could find 'wrong' with it.
Summary:
I'm glad the question was raised because like all critiques, it has made me examine the principles in depth again and remind myself that control and discipline has to be ther on every shot.
Brett |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 02:50:59 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by PaulE:
try not to give anyone an excuse for scoring you 1, 2 or 3. |
yeah i still haven't learned this one |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 03:25:47 AM · #32 |
[quote]What makes a photo a "7+"? [/quote]
Not sure but I think fotomann forever might be on the right track to scoring an 11 with his nude women splash shots...
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 03:26:10. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 03:59:39 AM · #33 |
This has turned out to be an incredibly educational thread for a newbie like me. With my last entry in Broken II getting my best scores ever and even a favourite (I was so amazed) I decided to apply some of the critiques here to my own work and noted some of my problems - thanks!
As to this image and why it scored so highly (I gave it a 10) - it had emotional impact and a strong narrative: you could feel the pathos in the history of the wreck. However, it is now clear how much planning went into the shot and the amount of exposures shot to get the image desired, something that had escaped me before.
Thanks to kiwiness as well for the full blown critique as it pulled a lot of things back into perspective. You couldn't pay for the quality of the interaction here!
Carl
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:24:04 AM · #34 |
I was about to say also this has been a great learning thread. For me avoiding the low scores, being disciplined and not lazy (saying that will do I know it won't be up there but I want to enter it anyway). The great planning Doc has taken is quite paramount to good scores, he obviously set his alarm and left very early to see sunrise two hours away. To me this shot and many other good ones have a subject that is good in it's own right and a background that is good in it's own right (would make a good picture on it's own or in this case is pleasant and helps the subject stand out more.
I would like to here Rikki's ideas as he is someone who was down low for a while and has suddenly seemed to have gotten it. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 06:19:51 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Image appeal will almost always form the bulk of the score, so that means finding a subject with universal interest or beauty. Meeting the challenge is obviously critical, but it's often secondary. The challenge topic tells you what ingredients you must use, but the end result is about taste and presentation: a visual feast. Ideally the viewer's reaction should be, "Sure, it meets the challenge, but just look at THAT!" Cliches and "lifeless" scenes usually lack the required interest to score high- there must be something fresh and compelling.
The challenges themselves can influence the score, too. If the voters anticipate greatness, then the scores will be abnormally high (witness the first Master's Challenge). Conversely, if the challenge results are mediocre, then any relative standouts will draw high votes by comparison (the very first challenge winners could fall into that category).
In DrAchoo's image, we have an uncommon, interesting scene. The subject is different enough to stand out (in a good way) from a crowd of look-alikes. The challenge is obviously met, so the voters can put that admission ticket aside and focus on color, composition, lighting and texture... all very good (especially the contrasting smoothness of the water against the weathered shipwreck). The title implies that there's a story to tell, adding to the interest factor. This is one of those images that's simply very good all-around: a relatively low number of comments and tens, but broad appeal and no obvious red flags to warrant big deductions. You can't go wrong with that. ;-) |
This seems representative of the the comments so far. Mostly everyone chose to comment "on the big picture" as it were and not specifically in detail about Drachoo's entry. Forgive me but I still don't get it. How about some comparisons with this other 'Broken" entry that scored a full point less? This may help us to get more concrete reasons for high scores.
--jrjr |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 07:18:15 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by jrjr:
Hey you must know more than most... you have gotten a 6.9+. Please talk about the technical aspects of the posted photo or post one of your choosing for discussion. |
::: Critique Club :::
Since I've been asked to put my money where my mouth is, I'll use my CC template if nobody minds.
First Impression - the most important one:
As soon as you look at this photo, it strikes you as having a difference to all the others. It's a combination of the subconcious reaction to the composition and the unusual shape and texture of the subject and it's also the light values. I suppose it's the ethereal feel and that it somehows tugs just a little at your emotions.
Composition:
There are composition "Rules" which of course are not rules at all but are a set of reseached and known illustration structures that have been proven to appeal to viewers. This applies to paintings as well as photographs. As 'creative' as we all want to be, these rules appear to have worked for a couple of hundred years and I think we ignore them at our peril.
The main 'rules' are all applied to this image in one form or another.
- Rule of Thirds (A): Elements should fall on a thirds line at least and at best on a thirds intersection. In this image, where the ship emerges from the water is on the horizontal thirds line and the bulk of the ship, particularly the vertical stringer of the highest point of the ship, sits right on the right-hand vertical thirds line.
- Viewing Flow (B):Again research has proven that the eye enters an image at the bottom-left corner and transitions to the top-right corner. As you can see with this image there is space and room for the eye to enter and follow the wreck's structure to the top-right thirds intersection. This can be and is combined with the Leading Lines Rule.
- Leading Lines(B): Leading lines are elements or structures of an image that lead the eye to the Point of Interest (POI). Not only does this image have a Leading Line from the nearly submerged bits of the wreck to the height of the structure but the leading line is from bottom-left to top-right and they lead to the POI that is perfectly on a thirds intersection.
- Stop Point (C): Another element that can help a composition is in conjuction with Viewing Flow. If you have an element that stops the eye leaving the image out of the top-right corner, then you've added another satisfaction point for the viewer and another reason for them to feel comfortable with and like the image. This is often achieved with a tree framing top and right or a building etc. In this case the size and imposing nature of the wreck superstructure effectively stops the eye from moving on.
The viewer/voter doesn't analyse any of this. The response to the image is totally subjective, that's why these rules work on the subjective, not the rational plane. Here's the graphic of the application of all of these in this pic.
So you can poopoo this whole concept if you feel uncomfortable being constrained by 'rules', certainly may people in DPC do. Certainly any such rules are "... for the adherence of fools and the guidance of wise men ..".
Do these rules by themselves make a great image? I doubt it very much. Can a great image be created without being mindful of these rules. I doubt it very much. Of course there are always exceptions, many amazing images do not conform to the rules but most do.
Subject:
We can't underestimate the value of the emotive impact of the subject. That's why models are all 20 something and size 8 or 10. The subject here is beautifully evocative. We initially don't know what it is so we have to examine the picture to work it out. Once we work it out I image the reaction of most of us is "... how cool, I wish I had something like that to shoot...". No doubt we'd all like to be there to explore it too - we're hooked. This personal involvement with the subject has to count for heaps in voting. We all look at images that just don't involve us at all, the actual difference in subject is subtle but is powerful in our voting. On the subconcious level, there is also a contrast here between the hard iron and the soft water.
Technical (Colour, focus, and light):
Technically, the over-sharpening halo is bad bad bad but there's enough good stuff about it that it hasn't really mattered to the voters. Now we've got that out of the way, onto the good stuff. Look at the difference between the very ordinary outtakes (that would score around 5.5+ range) and the winning image. They're like chalk and cheese, so what makes that difference?
- The soft water: is an inspired element. So many of the voters mentioned it that it clearly mattered a great deal. The long 2 second exposure may have simply been because the light was failing and DrAchoo needed to keep shooting as he wasn't happy with it yet. The result of the soft water and the subject matter just introduced that ethereal ghostly haunted look that makes this stand out.
- The Light: Look at the outtakes, they were all taken earlier. Their light was low and interesting and showed up more of the structure of the wreck. Then look at the final and realise that in this case it's better not seeing all the rust and detail. Why? I've no idea really, it just seems to fit the mood of whats created.
- The Sky: Isn't it great. As we all know, it's not possible to plan for skies like this, it just happen. We simply have to have 'the eye' and be aware of the possibilities. From the camera settings, when this was taken it was almost dark so it falls to the photographers experience and faith to keep shooting.
To grow its vote?:
I doubt it lost any points for the over-sharpening but that's just about all you could find 'wrong' with it.
Summary:
I'm glad the question was raised because like all critiques, it has made me examine the principles in depth again and remind myself that control and discipline has to be ther on every shot.
Brett |
Thanks, Brett-
You have added invaluably to the discussion. Would you mind going one step further and making some comments on the other entry that I posted here that is similiar albeit lower scoring.
Thanks jrjr |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 07:35:07 AM · #37 |
| Needs some "Wow" to make a 7 |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 11:04:36 AM · #38 |
To compare/contrast the two, as requested:
1. The ribbon shot has a quality of "transparency" that greatly enhances the sense of being broken; karen's shot, by contrast, is about "mass": mass is solid, it connotes brokeness less effectively.
2. The ribbon shot's diagonal takes us up-and-out, karen's takes us down-and-in. The first opens the image up, the second closes it in. I'd be willing to bet if karen's shot has been flipped horizontally it would have scored higher.
3. The ribbon shot has "transitions", zones of the image flow into each other. The sea becomes the sky, the wreck rises out of the sea in visible steps. Karen's shot more involves superimposition of elements, one layered on the other, with no transitions. It is consequently mre heavy-handed, where there's a conscious sense of ephemeral grace in the ribbon shot.
4. The color palette on the ribbon shot is muted and complementary, it's all variations of the same tones basically, and they are predominately light and graceful tones. Karen's shot is heavy and massive, the palette is earthy and weighty. The difference here is between decaying grace "transformed" by the light of heaven, so to speak, and massive weight brought down to earth and sinking slowly into oblivion. The one's uplifting, the other's depressing, subjectively.
5. In Karen's shot bot the sky and the water are sort of non-elements, simply negative sapce framing the wreck. In the ribbon shot, both are active "players" in the image itself.
These are the key differences I see.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 11:05:17.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 11:21:35 AM · #39 |
| Bear's analysis is dead-on, and I would emphasize his points about composition and the blank (negative space) sky vs. a colored sky that enhances the mood. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:16:17 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...the key differences I see... |
Very well seen and articulated.
Both images also share a commonality, IMO, which, probably, afforded them a good score: a non-threatening accessibility to a broad audience. As scenics, they do not question anything, alienate anyone or commote to any degree. Neither does any one of them stress a purely artistic or strong emotional element to the point of making it a subject, particularly not the first one, which scored higher. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:40:38 PM · #41 |
Wow Bear-
I may be starting to understand. I appreciate your analysis. A Ccouple of questions though-
1) Brett suggested that we see photos from left to right. Agree?
2) The blah and almost artificial looking coloring of Drachoo's was a minus for me; so I was impressed that several of the comments, including yours suggested that the muted colors were preferable. Do I have that correct?
3) I certainly agree with the sky lacking in #2 but Drachoo's sky only mildly enhances his pic imo.
4) I thought that the POV in #2 was interesting and effective; giving a strong leading line and a more "3D" feel. Comments on her POV?
I gotta tell you, this thread has been great. I would like to see more comparative and in depth studies in the future. Thanks to all.
--jrjr
I just went back and looked at Drachoo's again. I think I mis-judged the effect on the sky in his entry- It really does add alot.
Also I would like comments on his use of frame- I did not care for the heavy imposing frame. Comments?
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 12:43:38. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:50:57 PM · #42 |
 
"Beauty vs The Marine"
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 12:52:54.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:54:02 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
"Beauty vs The Marine" |
One of these things doesn't belong ... LMFAO ... ohhh, that's classic.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:00:48 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
7 > an outstanding photograph fit for both study and pleasure, while allowing for minor technical shortcomings, an accomplished imitation of a mode of seeing or rendering drawn or alluding to another medium including enduring snapshots or candids of remarkable human interest
8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically accomplished, with near-imperceptible flaws, if not entirely flawless; clearly 'inventive' photographs pointing a little known interest, direction or delight
9 > same as 8, technically without a fault, but a photo which commotes 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other. |
I think I'm screwed
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:11:48 PM · #45 |
"10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other. "
My DPC scale isn't as stringent since I view this place as primarily an educational site so I personally try to take a more positive reinforcement approach in my voting but be more direct and to the point with my personal comments.
That's not to say that I give away 10's but my mid-range is wide and my standard low, low vote is a 3. That's plenty low IMHO. I mean, why punish people with 1's or 2's unless the image is so staggeringly bad or annoying? (I do reserve the ole 1 for very special occasions)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:16:41 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other. |
I think I'm screwed |
Nah, you just need a photo of Langdon, Zeus, the Earth, and Cupid (in that order) printed on sturdy paper. ;-P
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 13:17:13. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:21:52 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by jrjr:
Wow Bear-
I may be starting to understand. I appreciate your analysis. A Ccouple of questions though-
1) Brett suggested that we see photos from left to right. Agree?
2) The blah and almost artificial looking coloring of Drachoo's was a minus for me; so I was impressed that several of the comments, including yours suggested that the muted colors were preferable. Do I have that correct?
3) I certainly agree with the sky lacking in #2 but Drachoo's sky only mildly enhances his pic imo.
4) I thought that the POV in #2 was interesting and effective; giving a strong leading line and a more "3D" feel. Comments on her POV?
I gotta tell you, this thread has been great. I would like to see more comparative and in depth studies in the future. Thanks to all.
--jrjr
I just went back and looked at Drachoo's again. I think I mis-judged the effect on the sky in his entry- It really does add alot.
Also I would like comments on his use of frame- I did not care for the heavy imposing frame. Comments? |
1. Brett's left-to-right "seeing" is a proven phenomenon for the western world in general. Cultures that "read" right-to-left see it differently. I was referring to this aspect of the two images when I commented that doc's "reads" up-and-out where Karen's "reads" down-and-in, and hypothesized that if hers had been flipped forizontally it might have scored even higher.
We should always be aware that most viewers of an image will seek an organizational gestalt that allows them to "read" it left-to-right. When we confound that gestalt by actively blocking such a reading, we introduce tension or stasis, depending on the shot.
2. You are correct that I am moved by the gentle, even subtle palette of Doc's shot. I disagree with you that the sky "does nothing", and I see that you have come over to that point of view independently. The whole gestalt of Karen's shot is mass, solidity, "sinking"; doc's shot is grace, fluidity, rising. The colors have a lot to do with it.
3. See 2 above.
4. POV: certainly Karen's shot has a more aggrezive POV, more of a "perspective". It is arguable that had Doc moved in closer to his subject he could have produced a "stronger" composion in conventional terms, with more obvious dynamic elements. However, the beauty of his shot IS it subtlety. He DOES have that diagonal nicely expressed, but it's not on a receding plane, it's on a flat plane. The end result is to place more emphasis on the whole, and the relationsip of the parts to the whole. This is reinforced by the palette, which ties everything together; foreground, water, sky. The trasparency of the wreck serves to enhance this unity; all-is-one, time is at work here, universal concepts at play.
Karens's shot, on the other hand, is agressive and monumental. Even the very strong foreground rocks object reinforces this. There is no merging oif things, there is superimposition. I'm not saying this is "bad" (far from it, it's a very nice image) but it's much more "common" an approach to composition; it's what we mostly do all the time; seek out a subject and emphasize it.
I am temperamentally inclined to applaud images that relate the parts to the whole and allow a sense of the overall continuity of time/experience. They are very difficult to achieve.
Robt.
Oh, yeah, the frame; I tend to agree with you, it's a bit heavy-handed. As a rule I pay little attention to frames, rarely demoting an image for a bad frame but sometimes promoting one for an absolutely perfect, thoughtful frame. If you make an image with a grotesquely bad frame, I'll ding you for it; but mostly I ignore them unless they sing at me or shout at me.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 13:24:42.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:27:46 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by jrjr:
I would like to start a discussion about what makes those photos that get a 7+ score that fantastic, different. artistic or whatever.
|
There are many contributing factors. In no particular order of importance...
1-Meet the Challenge
It has to be clear to the vast majority of voters that it not only meets the challenge but meets it in an especially clear or unique way. The object is obviously broken and obviously broken for a very, very long time. No guesswork here.
2-Viewer interest - Color
Colored winning images typically have colors enhanced and exaggerated. See the DPCPrints version of this one for comparison. The sky is processed to give it a unique and appealing look and add interest and balance to the overall composition. There is color interest spread throughout the entire picture.
3-Viewer Interest - Motion Blur in Ocean
This is a major contributing factor that added value to the composition and was above and beyond the requirements of the original challenge. Motion blurred ocean and the sunrise sky framed the broken boat in a subtle yet wonderful way. Motion blur in ocean waters has become popular with DPC voters and has not yet been overused to the point of cliche.
4-Clarity
Good sharpness and clarity is a hallmark of ribbon winners. This is particularly evident in the clouds and the wreck in this one. Again see the DPCPrints print graphic for comparison. The sharpening to the wreck gave it texture that made it stand out more compositionally and gave subtle support toward the challenge topic.
5-Lighting
Lighting is a critcal factor in ribbon winners. It is no mistake this was taken in early morning. Landscape photographers know the best outdoor lighting is early morning and late afternoon. Without direct sunlight on the wreck its textures stood out more. It has no hot spots or severely underexposed areas.
6-Background
Winning images have great backgrounds that fully support the main subject without overwhelming it or adding distracting elements. This one accomplishes that in a most effective way.
7-Balance
Most ribbon winning landscape images have good balance. The enhanced sky above and the motion blur foreground below frames and balances the main subject exceptionally well top to bottom. The fortuitous location of clouds on the left and the main wreck on the right balances the image nicely left to right.
8-Sunrise/Sunset/Sky
These elements will always add enduring value to a landscape because of their unique beauty. No two are the same. Capturing this image at sunrise with clouds in the sky was a major factor in its appeal. This provided added value to the composition above and beyond the challenge requirements.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:43:09 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by digitalknight:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other. |
I think I'm screwed |
Nah, you just need a photo of Langdon, Zeus, the Earth, and Cupid (in that order) printed on sturdy paper. ;-P |
You might faint when I tell you this, but I do give out 10s here. They're not a dime a dozen, still, I'm not waiting for Godot, only for the heart to race a little. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:53:50 PM · #50 |
Bear did a great job!
I agree with the points Bear made about composition. To add....
1). When possible, make your sky blue and not blown out. Having dramatic clouds and nice color always wins points.
2). The water in DrAchoo's photo has motion and adds that mystical quality of time and water working on the wreck. The second shot, water is just an element.
3). The background to DrAchoo's photo is simple and compliments the subject. The second shot has some minor distactions like houses that make the shot a bit busier and more common feeling. This goes back to winning shots isolate the subject really well. Plus, the horizon in DrAchoo's shot grounds the photo better.
4). The Second shot actually has a more interesting foreground than DrAchoo's shot and leads you from the bottom back into the middle of the photo... a good thing. Leading lines directing the viewer to the subject is always a good idea.
5). I like perspective shots BUT...I have found that most voters generally feel more secure in having all the elements laid out in front of them in a traditional way. Perspective shots with wide angles stray off the aim of hitting the big broad middle vote.
One final thing.....I had a graphics professor 20 years ago that said "Remember three things in design...Motion, Color, and something different"... Give people those things in photos you will do well.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 13:56:02. |
|
