| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2006 08:53:45 AM · #1 |
shot that it barely averaged a 5. It hovered in the mid 4's all week and finally started up.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2006 08:58:25 AM · #2 |
IMO, it's not a very interesting shot. It would have been slightly more interesting if you had used a slower shutter speed to blur the water.
June
|
|
|
|
06/26/2006 08:59:46 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:06:36 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:07:09 AM · #5 |
| One good Neutral Density Filter and a longer exposure to get a silky smooth flow of that water would have given it some serious flavor and a higher score. |
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:08:27 AM · #6 |
| I don't think its so bad per 'se, its just very busy and confusing. Foreground objects are out of focus which isn't comfortable to look at. The better scoring shots are always the ones with clean simple compositions. I hope that helps. |
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:16:07 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I don't think its so bad per 'se, its just very busy and confusing. Foreground objects are out of focus which isn't comfortable to look at. The better scoring shots are always the ones with clean simple compositions. I hope that helps. |
Forground elements being out of focus is an "advanced" photographic technique and works very well, as long as it isn't overpowering, as in the entire frame is filled with OOF forground. This photo is a good example of using that technique. |
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:18:56 AM · #8 |
it is sharp without being crisp. the colors don't pop.
I actually think it's an excellent picture. The composition is fantastic, with squares piling up to form a grid that shimmers between flatness and three-dimensionality. This kind of mature, complex viewing experience will consistently be punished by DPCers. If your picture doesn't immediately tell them what product they should be buying, it is considered a failure.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:20:15 AM · #9 |
Natural framing is also something that is very effective if done well. It can give a feeling of depth and of seeing something 'secret'...
Seems like it's almost there for this pic... |
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:22:36 AM · #10 |
EDIT: It isn't appropriate for me to threadjack, Sorry.
Message edited by author 2006-06-26 09:36:06. |
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:25:11 AM · #11 |
Your focus is not where it is supose to be. You seem you brighten dark areas a lot and they have no texture.
Message edited by author 2006-06-26 09:25:31.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:33:30 AM · #12 |
I was one of your '5' voters!
In my opinion it is one of those images which hits the challenge topic head on, but has little or no other element which makes me want to continue to look deeper into it. In my voting system they get a 5 - move on...
Technically it has elements which I don't particularly like, but not bad enough to throw it a 4. In particular I don't like the way the big white stone at the bottom left hides the water. I want my eye to follow that water.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:43:11 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
|
Framing concept for this image is fine and tumbling water in the center is good. But there are numerous aspects of the image when combined that hold it back.
First, overall image contrast is low. The blacks are not particularly strong as you can see by contrast to the black border. It is as if some type of contrast masking or shadow/highlight post processing was applied, which tends to make images look flatter with lower contrast.
Second, focus is incorrect. The point of focus is infinity. That is why the distant background is in sharpest focus. That is also why much of the foreground framing is out of focus. Center of focus should be at the waterfall. A higher f/stop setting would give greater depth of field and create more motion blur in the waterfall. Both would be improvements.
Third, greens are flat and unrealistic looking. That could be an effect of contrast mask processing too.
Lastly, the recessed couple of rocks setting in the dark are distracting. The darkness in that area of the image detracts from everything else. They are not very interesting yet hold a dominent position in the composition. They are not properly illuminated. You could burn in some detail and it would help some but it may be beyond help. Maybe composing the shot differently would have made for a better image.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2006 09:56:49 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
shot that it barely averaged a 5. It hovered in the mid 4's all week and finally started up.
|
To use your voting and commenting scale:
Meets Challenge:2
Aesthetics:1
Technical:1
Wow:0
Originality:1
Total Score: 5
Message edited by author 2006-06-26 10:01:06. |
|
|
|
06/26/2006 12:55:07 PM · #15 |
|
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 04:41:31 PM EDT.
