| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/03/2006 10:03:54 AM · #1 |
Okay, this was my entry...
It finished with an avg vote of 5.685 & 112 out of 287 entries for a 61% finish. To be honest, I wasn't expecting a ribbon but I was expecting a much much better placing. I felt it was a fairly unique shot with unusual lighting. So I am trying to figure out why it bombed.
Some have mentioned the crop. Perhaps this would have been better. But such would require I truncate the light reflections and would have given them hard edges instead of gentle fades.
So, I'm just really kinda at a loss. Perhaps there is something I am missing. I felt that I captured a good pose by the model (swan). And sure, there have been tons of swan photos on DPC but I really felt it was a different catch. But something obviously did not jibe well with voters or something. The thing is, I don't know what that is....
- Saj
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 10:10:18 AM · #2 |
Hey Saj. Here's my two cents. First off, I enjoyed your entry, but felt it lacked the spark to really kick it up to an 8 or better. The swan is a good capture, especially with the glowing light it's in. But the overall image is still too dark - IMO, the swan needs to pop more. The two lines of light in the water add another strong element, a sort of framing, but also draw the eye away from the swan.
Hope this is helpful...
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 10:12:22 AM · #3 |
| I like the one you submitted better than the cropped version, and I agree with the positive comments that you got. Like Odyssey said, the swan needs to pop more - that'd be my only complaint with your entry. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 10:14:16 AM · #4 |
| I found the lights distracting. They are too close to the swan, and while I still wouldn't like them it would help if they were the same color. I like the cropped version better but I think you could crop the top where the light on the left ends. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 10:21:29 AM · #5 |
| Left you a comment on the cropped version. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 10:35:07 AM · #6 |
Some hav ementioned it needing more punch, would this have appealed more to you?
Message edited by author 2006-04-03 10:35:14. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 10:47:19 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Some hav ementioned it needing more punch, would this have appealed more to you?
|
Yes, I think this would have done better! It's got a mystical quality about it this way - the swan just seems to glow, and grabs the eye better. You might even take it a step farther and use the selective color adjustment to add some black to the image and darken everything else a tad.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 10:49:01 AM · #8 |
I was worried that the glow would feel unnatural to viewers. Not really sure how to do the selective color adjustment in PSP
Message edited by author 2006-04-03 10:49:29. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 10:56:37 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I was worried that the glow would feel unnatural to viewers. Not really sure how to do the selective color adjustment in PSP |
I like it, but I'm just one voice in the sea. Didn't realize you used PSP - I just assumed Photoshop. Sorry, my bad...
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:02:59 AM · #10 |
The problem I see is that the main subject is a swan, with the water very much secondary. But as a swan shot goes, the framing with the lights do make it more interesting than other swan shots.
As you said yourself, there are tons of swan photos on DPC. :) |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:08:01 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
I like it, but I'm just one voice in the sea. Didn't realize you used PSP - I just assumed Photoshop. Sorry, my bad... |
Sorry, I meant Photoshop |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:10:07 AM · #12 |
About a hundred and fifty years ago, Manet came along and started painting differently from everyone else. His paintings were "flat." They did not "pop out," the illusion of 3 dimensions was minimized instead of maximized. In this context of "flatness" composition became paramount. Here he was influenced by Japanese prints. His compositions depended on strong lines and shapes (2-dimensional shapes, not 3-dimensional forms).
Your photo is flat. It has strong lines. The sense of 3-dimensions fades away almost completely in a mysterious, dark world. For these reasons, as I told you in the comments, I gave your image a 10. For these very same reasons, the DPC voters scored you low. Be careful: if Manet had gone to the French Salon and asked them what he could have done differently to be accepted there, and then changed his work accordingly, his name would be forgotten along with the people who won awards there.
Message edited by author 2006-04-03 11:10:32. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:13:53 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
The problem I see is that the main subject is a swan, with the water very much secondary. |
That seems a very hard one for me to swallow. Considering how many water faucets with but a drip of water placed very high. 2nd, 6th, 8th, 14th, 15th, all have water as secondary & tertiary subjects. I really think that water was a strong enough subject in my photo that I am not sure if that really is one of the major factors. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:17:56 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Your photo is flat. It has strong lines. The sense of 3-dimensions fades away almost completely in a mysterious, dark world. |
Thanks posthumous, yes the dimensionality does get lost with the shot. With the lights being used to frame and composed in such a way as to have a straightness even though they cover some distance.
I wonder if that seemingly unnatural juxtposition of 3-dimensionality flattened into a more 2-dimensional form caught many voters off guard or even unwittingly.
I did try to do something different. And as such I should expect it to not appeal widely. Thank you for the encouraging words....
"Poets only become famed and beloved upon their passing." |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:21:43 AM · #15 |
| To be honest, I think it's encouraging that your picture scored over a 5.6. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:24:21 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by jhonan:
The problem I see is that the main subject is a swan, with the water very much secondary. |
That seems a very hard one for me to swallow. Considering how many water faucets with but a drip of water placed very high. 2nd, 6th, 8th, 14th, 15th, all have water as secondary & tertiary subjects. I really think that water was a strong enough subject in my photo that I am not sure if that really is one of the major factors. |
This water is different than a drip from a faucet. The image has a lot of interesting elements, including the framing of the swan by the reflections. My first impression is that it could be a nice low-key shot of a swan, or a nice shot of bright reflections on water. It's assumed that the swan is intended to be the main subject, but the reflections are so intense and symmetrical that they overwhelm. It confuses my eye.
It would be interesting to see the intensity of the reflections toned down a bit on conjunction with the lightened swan. Sorry I can't articulate this better:( |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 11:46:24 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by jhonan:
The problem I see is that the main subject is a swan, with the water very much secondary. |
That seems a very hard one for me to swallow. Considering how many water faucets with but a drip of water placed very high. 2nd, 6th, 8th, 14th, 15th, all have water as secondary & tertiary subjects. I really think that water was a strong enough subject in my photo that I am not sure if that really is one of the major factors. |
2nd - You can see the water pouring from the tap, the subject captures the attention in the way they are interacting with the water.
6th - The main subject is submerged in water. Water takes up 75% of the frame
8th - Water droplets visible. Plus this is an interesting and dynamic capture.
14th - Water drops very much add to the impact of the shot.
It occurs to me that I can't actually see water in your shot, just reflections from the surface of the water.
But, please note, all this is just my honest opinion.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 12:38:14 PM · #18 |
This is an interesting topic.
Let's consider, for example, the "nature" of water. One question has been "how much about the water is this shot?" but I think that's a red herring. How much "about" the water is this shot, after all?
It's "about reflections", it's "about cattails", it's "about the marsh", it's "about the sunset", the water is just a component of the image, as indeed the challenge topic suggested. I don't see that Saj's swan shot is any less on-topic than my shot, not at all.
Others have suggested that the 2-dimensionality of the image, while admirable (to them), has hurt it with the voters. I think there's a grain of truth in that, but I'd examine that issue a little more closely. The problem, as I see it, is that as far as 2-dimensionality goes, there's too MUCH depth in it, so it hangs in a sort of neither/nor land where there is a hint of depth that is not exploited fully, but is too evident in the gradation from foreground to darkness to ignore completely.
Other issues, for me, are the unnatural, metallic rendering of the swan itself, and a very static crop that seems to serve no strong compositional purpose. I've taken the liberty of reworking the image (very roughly) in a different direction, to show other possibilities for rendering it. My selections here are very sketchy, so please don't hold that gainst me. I'd love to do some work on this image from the original.
I'm not saying this is "better", but it has certainly completely changed the nature of how we perceive the swan and the water on which it is floating.
For what that's worth. And, for the record, I like the shot, albeit more for its potential than for the way Saj chose to present it.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 12:54:28 PM · #19 |
On my monitor, which is calibrated, the image looks very noisy and there appear to be a lot of vertical lines at the top that make it look like this picture was taken through a window. I liked the lighting and the subject, but found the noise and especially all those lines to be distracting.
Other than that, I thought this was a very nice image.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 01:10:46 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The problem, as I see it, is that as far as 2-dimensionality goes, there's too MUCH depth in it, so it hangs in a sort of neither/nor land where there is a hint of depth that is not exploited fully, but is too evident in the gradation from foreground to darkness to ignore completely. |
An excellent point, and here is where subjectivity comes into play. I think the tipping point is different for each person. I actually have the exact problem that you're describing with YOUR picture, whereas theSaj's picture is safely in the realm of 2-D for me. Entirely subjective, I admit.
edited to say: by "your picture" I mean your version of theSaj's picture...
Message edited by author 2006-04-03 13:11:56. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 01:16:49 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The problem, as I see it, is that as far as 2-dimensionality goes, there's too MUCH depth in it, so it hangs in a sort of neither/nor land where there is a hint of depth that is not exploited fully, but is too evident in the gradation from foreground to darkness to ignore completely. |
An excellent point, and here is where subjectivity comes into play. I think the tipping point is different for each person. I actually have the exact problem that you're describing with YOUR picture, whereas theSaj's picture is safely in the realm of 2-D for me. Entirely subjective, I admit.
edited to say: by "your picture" I mean your version of theSaj's picture... |
Right, that's a valid observation. Mine's more 3-dimensional, but not particularly 3-dimensional. I'd love to have a crack at the original of this...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 01:24:33 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by "jhonan":
It occurs to me that I can't actually see water in your shot, just reflections from the surface of the water. |
Hmm...weird, I guess,...when I view on my monitors I see the ripples of the water. Yes there are reflections, but I am not sure how one can not see water. To say they feel the swan is more of the main subject I can understand. But to say they cannot see water...I just find difficult to accept.
Originally posted by "Bear_Music":
I don't see that Saj's swan shot is any less on-topic than my shot, not at all. |
Thanks Bear, and BTW...I was quite happy to see you ribbon as yours was my top vote in the challenge.
"Other issues, for me, are the unnatural, metallic rendering of the swan itself, and a very static crop that seems to serve no strong compositional purpose."
I was leery on how far to go on the dodge & burn of the swan. I did get something closer to the nice whiteness you have, but not as well done. But I was worried that the glow around the swan would shout "unnatural". So I backed off from it. As of yet, my skills with photoshop are still rather lacking. (Need to gain an understanding of layers.)
And I will confess I was very unsure of myself regarding the crop. I wasn't sure how "cutting" off the bottoms of the reflections would go.
I was also worried that if I dodge/burned, as you have done to heighten the reflection that I might fall into "created major element" and get DQ'd. So I was rather cautious in my endeavors. I only removed a few small twigs and such with cloning very cautiously.
I will see if I can get you a more original shot / larger file to work with Bear....as I was contemplating doing some additional editing and making this available for sale as a print.
Thank you so much for your great feedback. I really want to understand so that I can review, and not give up my style but rather improve it. So this is all helping greatly.
Originally posted by "PhilipDyer":
On my monitor, which is calibrated, the image looks very noisy and there appear to be a lot of vertical lines at the top that make it look like this picture was taken through a window. I liked the lighting and the subject, but found the noise and especially all those lines to be distracting. |
Interesting, I only saw those lines when my laptop monitor was set to brightest setting. And I worked hard to tone them down so that they were not really noticeable on any of the monitors I tested.
I am really not sure "where" those vertical elements came from. I was somewhat confused. Sure it was a low-light ISO shot but it was awfully strange. Of course, the fact that my camera died about 10 minutes after this shot may insinuate that something was not working quite properly internally.
Thanks all for the comments & feedback, it's helped greatly. I will be trying to re-work the larger file and make it available for print. I might do a couple different crop/angles...who knows. Perhaps I'll do one with a focus on a 2-dimensional approach and one with a more 3-dimensional focus. It'll be an interesting experiment and lesson in learning how to take an image and mold it slightly differently to express itself to different appeals.
(((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))
- Saj
Message edited by author 2006-04-03 13:26:05. |
|
|
|
04/03/2006 01:30:53 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I was leery on how far to go on the dodge & burn of the swan. I did get something closer to the nice whiteness you have, but not as well done. But I was worried that the glow around the swan would shout "unnatural". So I backed off from it. As of yet, my skills with photoshop are still rather lacking. (Need to gain an understanding of layers.)
And I will confess I was very unsure of myself regarding the crop. I wasn't sure how "cutting" off the bottoms of the reflections would go.
I was also worried that if I dodge/burned, as you have done to heighten the reflection that I might fall into "created major element" and get DQ'd. So I was rather cautious in my endeavors. I only removed a few small twigs and such with cloning very cautiously. |
I actually did NO dodging or burning. I used contrast masking in 2 stages, and I selected the swan and used a selective color adjustment layer to remove the cyan/blue tint. I also used gothic glow and faded it back to a small percentage.
Send me the full-size original if you can (full-size jpg is fine, but before any sharpening or other work would be best) and let me see what you have to work with OK?
R.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2006 02:03:29 PM · #24 |
I used contrast masking in 2 stages, and I selected the swan and used a selective color adjustment layer...
(see these are things I am unfamiliar with, "contrast masking" & "adjustment layer", but I know i need to learn them. Too busy right now with the wedding, etc. But after the wedding I hope to improve my PS skills.) |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 10:38:09 AM · #25 |
Here's another, pretty extreme take on it, working from the original. BTW, the "vertical lines" mentioned at the top of the image earlier were reeds along the shore in the BG...
Robt.
|
|
