| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2006 06:01:36 AM · #1 |
..."why didn't this do better" post:
Granted, the texture challenge was replete with kickass images so it was a tough competition, but a 4.8? Bottom 15%? Only one comment, so I really am not sure what went so horribly wrong with it. Normally I know when my photos suck. Enlighten me. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 06:10:22 AM · #2 |
Only thing I can offer is that it is hard to tell what it is-it's confusing to my eye.
Hope you get some proper better answers soon!
|
|
|
|
04/14/2006 06:15:22 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by joynim:
Only thing I can offer is that it is hard to tell what it is-it's confusing to my eye.
Hope you get some proper better answers soon! |
Well, I thought it was obvious - lava channels on the surface of another planet that I happened to be visting during the challenge period. ;-)
I didn't think it mattered what it was - it's a texture. Maybe this woulda been better for abstract Macro?
Thanks joynim for the feedback - you may be right. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 06:23:32 AM · #4 |
Perhaps the voters found it hard to find a point of focus in this shot or something that holded their attention. Don't know if the last sentence is a correct one in English ;) But that's the only thing I can think of why this shot got a low score.
Message edited by author 2006-04-14 06:24:59. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 07:08:52 AM · #5 |
I think the biggest factor was the "kickass" nature of the challenge to begin with. And yes, it would have been great for abstract macro. I think in this one, people were used to seeing textures they could identify. I gave it a 5 - it was a good picture, it showed texture, but it didn't say anything more to me (and I couldn't tell what it was.)
But don't you just hate it when you enter what you think is a pretty durn good shot in a challenge, only to start voting and realize that "wow - some of these are pretty good" then "WOW - a LOT of these are really good!"? Then you see what librodo can do with a camera and the ability to "see" like very few can ever hope to have. It's all pretty darn fun, though. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 07:15:20 AM · #6 |
Ken - I did not vote on nor enter this challenge and this is one of the few "textures" images I've looked at so I honestly can't say how this one particular images compares to the rest. It is safe to say that my opinion and resulting critique has not been swayed by the other images in the challenge. That said...
I personally think this is a wonderful image and a good example of "texture" I like the colors and the perspective is OK... I think a little more "tilt" might add a little more interest to the image. There are two things that I can put my finger on that may have affected voting.
1.) It is not a "recognizable" image. Granted, I don't feel like it needs to be recognizable to qualify as a "texture", but I did notice the top three images were "recognizable". Again, I have not looked at any of the other entries, so this is simply pure speculation, but it is possible that voters considered this more of an abstract than a texture.
2.) The one thing that stands out the most to me is the very shallow DOF. For a "textures" image, the "texture" needs to be the main focus of the composition. You did capture a beautiful image and indeed a very interesting texture, but due to the shallow DOF, the texture is really only noticeable in the foreground of the image.
FWIW... I really like this image and probably would've given a 6 or 7 (depending on mood and other entries).
I hope this helps.
Message edited by author 2006-04-14 07:17:28. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 10:39:22 AM · #7 |
I think it would have dome better in the previous Macro Abstract. Voters probably liked the more sharp pics opposed to the unknown real view. In most cases ... for here ... oversharp, over saturate, over contrast and close crop.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2006 10:53:10 AM · #8 |
Hi Art-
My honest 2 cents here:
For me personally, photos that looked like they could be a background image or wallpaper for a computer did not capture my attention. Ya know, ones that are uniformly one subject in the frame. I think your shot is well executed, and indeed shows texture. It just doesn't tell a story or grab my attention much.
edited to add: For what it's worth, I personally don't mind these type of threads AT ALL. I think they are great for learning. I have a couple low scoring shots that I loved but also received low scores. To me, it is important to find out 'why' when the comments don't answer the question. Also, as a commenter, it makes ya step back and really examine a photo.
Message edited by author 2006-04-14 10:56:31.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2006 10:59:36 AM · #9 |
Hey, did better then mine
(but then I didn't expect mine to do well... since it was pushing the "texture" theme.... ;-) )
But to be honest, nothing pulls your interest in the photo. Not sure if it is because of how dark it is or the DOF.
Message edited by author 2006-04-14 11:01:24. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 11:14:44 AM · #10 |
The photos that really did well in this challenge really emphasized the texture with bright highlights and dark shadows. This photo with the backlighting doesn't emphasize the great texture of your subject. I don't think it's a bad photo, I think it just didn't move people to vote it at the next level. The voting breakdown pretty much proves that by the lack of super low and super high votes.
~Mark |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 03:24:36 PM · #11 |
Hey thank you all for the feedback. Very helpful. Can't argue with any of it. For the record, I didn't expect it to do "well" I did expect it to do "average" or middle of the pack. I kinda counted on the "mystery" of it to boost the otherwise lack of interest or the awkward DoF or the uninteresting angle or... oh crap, now I see that it just sucked. ;-)
It's all good. Thanks again for the replies. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 03:47:00 PM · #12 |
For me, there's just nothing in the composition that holds my interest; as an image, it's quite diffuse. The shallow DOF isn't helping here, there's not really anything sharp to fade away FROM, if you catch my drift? So the whole shot has sort of a casual, "accidental" feeling to it. I didn't "hate" it, I gave it a 5, but the overall low score doesn't seem out of line to me, in this particular challenge.
I've actually got TWO up right now that may score lower than this one, if that's any sort of consolation LOL.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2006 03:57:43 PM · #13 |
Ken, I think there are a lot of similarities between yours and mine, mine did do a LITTLE better - 5.15 - but not that much. I thought it was a good photo too, but comments received say dof may of killed it, and I did that ON PURPOSE!! LOL
All comments on mine are more than welcomed too, naturally!! LOL
Jacque |
|
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: 09/18/2025 07:15:54 PM EDT.
