| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2006 03:54:15 AM · #1 |
I was rather pleased with how this shot turned out and thought it might score closer to a 6 on average. Thanks for the 3 nice comments and Yantski, for the favourite. Anyone else care to give some insights on the contrary instead - why voters didn't think much of it? Does it look OOF or was there too much red or something else?
Appreciate any feedback. :)
 |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 04:11:11 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 04:28:52 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 04:30:27 AM · #4 |
this subject can be photographed to get a 6.XX score, but there are a few things wrong in this image to score that high.
1. the bacground must go, just paint it black.
2. the whole flower needs to be in the picture
3. the angle is to low, try showing more inside the flower
4. the flower needs more light, too many dark places.
the good parts...
1. I like the freshness the water droplet gives
2 I like the color in this rose
3. I like the composition, keep the center of the rose on the rule of thirds
4. I like the deep DOF.
ok.. now you got some pointers on what can be improoved and what should stay the same.. go shoot another image and post again :)
here's a sample from a member.. 
Message edited by author 2006-04-10 04:33:22.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 06:00:33 AM · #5 |
Thanks gooc, crayon and DanSig for responding to my post. Each of your feedback just goes to show me that appeal is very subjective. I guess what I thought could be of mass appeal is really a matter of individual taste. Should have known that by now but I guess I still need to be reminded sometimes.
BTW, DanSig, appreciate your very insightful point-by-point critique. The four "bad" points (and no offense meant here) are exactly the same reasons why I like it and thought it to be slightly original. As to going back to shooting another similar image, unfortunately, all my roses have died. However, that weekend alone, I shot almost 200 takes and here are 2 others I like. Also entered one in another challenge.
 
Feel free to compare and let me know what you think. :) |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 07:18:17 AM · #6 |
I don't think it did all that badly -- a 5.6 is a good solid placement. The color and general tone of the image carry a great feel in them, and I actually find it refressing to see an upclose flower image that hasn't been softened to be nearly unrecognizable. That said, I feel there are a few areas that it fell short of being a 6+ finisher.
First, the background serves no purpose. Sorry if that is too blunt, but it has the feel of an old rustic setting but there just isn't enough of the background to gain any solid context from it. At the same time, there is enough of the objects shown that I feel like I should know what they are, but don't. To be blunt again, if the background is not going to build a context for the image, make sure it is as non-descript as you can get it. This can be done by using objects large enough they are just generic shapes, by decreasing the DOF to obscure the objects with bokeh or any number of other ways.
Second, the tilt of the flower just seems off to me. Not saying the photo is tilted, just the lines of the petals just don't lead my eyes around the frame any -- if anything the central petals form a bit of a cone that directs my gaze of the top-left corner of the frame.
And finally, the largest detraction is (IMO) the lighting. It is just too flat. The light-source seems to be slightly off to the right, and nearly at camera level. While this does create some shadows within the petals, it does not give the flower any dimension. Robert has an on-going learning thread covering Landscape Photography. While the context of the thread is landscape photography, the early lessons on lighting and exposure apply to any photography. In the first few posts he gives and explaination of the four basic types of light (flat, shaping, raking and back), including an exercise to do. The light on the flower is mostly flat, but a shaping (and perhaps a bit of raking) light would have served to give the petals more of a feeling of dimension.
David
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 10:12:21 AM · #7 |
Thanks David for the "blunt" comments. :) I really do welcome them even if I don't always agree. In this context, you've certainly made some valid points. I find the usual black background common but I guess having something that doesn't add to the context doesn't help either as you've mentioned here. And great idea for pointing me towards Robert's tutorial. Made a new discovery as I don't always go through forum discussions.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 10:27:05 AM · #8 |
Actually, I didn't really find the light all that flat, I found it quite textured by shadow. However, I found that the lighting was unpleasant as it looked unbalanced. The left part of the picture is shadowed almost with a line straight down. Not graceful. Further, it looks like the lightsource was too small. This has created harsh shadows with strong edges. I don't think this helped you at all.
A diffuser and a little fill with a reflector to keep things soft would have made a difference for me.
I don't actually hate that background either. I like it because it's not black. I shot a black BG for this challenge, but it didn't work for me. It's not always the best choice.
Also, I don't care much for your crop. I would have preferred this cropped with a more thoughtful crop that gave a bit more on the left and perhaps a tiny bit less on the bottom.
I do NOT agree that the whole subject must be visible in frame without edges cut off.
I got a 4.7xx on this challenge though so take my words with significant portions of salt :). |
|
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: 10/18/2025 04:32:18 PM EDT.
