| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/22/2006 01:33:18 PM · #1 |
My turn for the "why didn't this do better" thread.
I thought this shot was pretty good - maybe a low 6.x range. I got one comment that made me wonder if it was perceived as a "tricky" shot - like I had done something with a monitor or a printed out photo?
Would a pre-validation have helped it out?
Was it just too odd to know what you were looking at?
Peas help me understand how this could have been better/done better - I appreciate your input immensely.
Message edited by author 2006-08-22 13:54:57.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:39:06 PM · #2 |
I didn't vote in this challenge but I think I would probably have given this a 7. I like it.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:39:12 PM · #3 |
| I hadn't viewed your image until now, so I can't say what would have gone through my mind if I had voted on it. Looking at it now, as someone who is definitely not familiar with salt flats, it looks like the peas are on white carpet. Even though your title says it's salt flats, I would have probably imagined you used a white carpet to emulate salt flats. Voting on it I would probably have given you the benefit of the doubt, but my confusion would have probably taken away from my enjoyment of the image. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:42:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by klstover:
I hadn't viewed your image until now, so I can't say what would have gone through my mind if I had voted on it. Looking at it now, as someone who is definitely not familiar with salt flats, it looks like the peas are on white carpet. Even though your title says it's salt flats, I would have probably imagined you used a white carpet to emulate salt flats. Voting on it I would probably have given you the benefit of the doubt, but my confusion would have probably taken away from my enjoyment of the image. |
ditto... also, the sunset lighting doesn't carry over on to the peas/salt flat, so yes, it does actually look fake or set up... |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:42:31 PM · #5 |
The flash does make the foreground seem very short yet the sunset mountains are so far away, it is a bit of a tricky image. Unfortunately because of that I don't think the idea comes across that you were actually at the salt flats.
IMO if you had tuned your flash WAY down and picked up more ambient light (thus allowing more of the plain to be seen) I think it would have done better.
I didn't vote in the challenge (because I entered and I don't vote on challenges I enter because I'm automatically biased) but I think I would have given it a 5. Had you shown more of the flats and it not been so confusing it likely would have been closer to a 7. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:44:25 PM · #6 |
At first glance I thought it was a monitor or photo background.
Regardless, the end result was kinda neat. ;^) |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:47:23 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by klstover:
I hadn't viewed your image until now, so I can't say what would have gone through my mind if I had voted on it. Looking at it now, as someone who is definitely not familiar with salt flats, it looks like the peas are on white carpet. Even though your title says it's salt flats, I would have probably imagined you used a white carpet to emulate salt flats. Voting on it I would probably have given you the benefit of the doubt, but my confusion would have probably taken away from my enjoyment of the image. |
Ditto.. peas on carpet with an image behind. Sorry, it really does look artificially constructed. Please forgive all us ignorant voters, heh.
Edit: I remember thinking during voting "at least the carpet is clean!"
Message edited by author 2006-08-22 13:48:23. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:48:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by klstover:
I hadn't viewed your image until now, so I can't say what would have gone through my mind if I had voted on it. Looking at it now, as someone who is definitely not familiar with salt flats, it looks like the peas are on white carpet. |
Somewhere there's a thread on how to make "real" photos look like they are studio set-ups shot with models -- I think this is an outstanding example of that genre ...
If you want it to look more realistic, you could pretty easily post-process it using graduated masks to separate the tonal zones ... I'd also maybe mask the peas and hyper-sharpen the salt crystals. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:48:55 PM · #9 |
I gave this a 7, but a big part of me was assuming that it was a printed photo in the background. I remember hesitating over this. I almost voted it downward because of that (take that as a compliment - it looked so perfect!), but then I wondered how I'd feel if it turned out to real.
I don't always vote down images that use other prints, but in this case it seemed such a large part of the beauty of the image that I was tempted to.
In all honesty, if I had known that it was all taken at the same time (which, looking at it again I probably should have figured out from the lighting & shadows) I probably would have given you a 9 or 10.
I apologize! I can't justify the way I voted, and am very sorry that your image didn't do much better. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:51:09 PM · #10 |
I thought this was a studio shot. I gave it a 6 because I thought you executed your idea very well. Sorry I didn't realize how well executed it was.
Tim
PS: I never would have guessed that the texture of the salt flats would look like this. Nice job BTW. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:54:46 PM · #11 |
definitely thought it would be fake. even after the description i was thinking "yeh right those aren't the salt flats"
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 01:55:29 PM · #12 |
I left the comment about suspecting that it was a "background photo". I didn't take any points off for thinking that. Honestly I don't there is anything wrong with using a background to get creative. Like other people have stated here- and probably I should have included it in my comments- what I saw was the stark difference between the foreground and the background. I gave this shot a "7". I thought it was very creative and a nice shot overall, you got jobbed with the 80th place.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 02:11:05 PM · #13 |
I didn't vote, and I probably would have given this an 8 or 9. It's very well done.
It appears as though you used a flash to light the peas and it ended up with the forground being much whiter than the natural lighting conditions of the rest of the image. Perhaps some yellow cellophane over the flash head would have lessened this effect, but then the peas wouldn't have been green.
Anyway, it's a good shot.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 02:12:08 PM · #14 |
| My take on the photo is that it doesn't look real. The peas aren't in a straight line, so it kinda looks like they're on a hill, in the salt flats, that doesn't really happen. The lighting temperatures look so different it's crazy, i'd have much rathered all orange lighting like the sun in the backround. Also I don't see what peas have to do with the salt flats, but hey, your idea, I just don't get it. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 02:14:21 PM · #15 |
I just left you a comment......
This definently did not serve and 80th place, I dont know whats going with the voting here
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 03:05:48 PM · #16 |
| I also thought this was staged with a photo background ... but I thought the foreground was shredded coconut! the flash is another thing that gave it the "studio" look ... |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 04:06:25 PM · #17 |
Just curious.. but why would it matter if the image was staged or not 'real' vote-wise?
I hope I don't hijack the point of this thread but the majority of the commenters so far indicated thinking it was studio shot and the tone seems like they mention it like its a bad thing?
Do people automatically vote downward for studio-looking shots? Or is it that it looked illegal or something? Is there something wrong with it not looking 'real' that would lead people to vote downward versus it the knowledge it actually was taken as presented?
Just trying to understand the reasonings! Might help me if I choose to do something that looks studio/set-up and isn't or vice versa. :)
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 05:22:23 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by LucidLotus:
Just curious.. but why would it matter if the image was staged or not 'real' vote-wise?
I hope I don't hijack the point of this thread but the majority of the commenters so far indicated thinking it was studio shot and the tone seems like they mention it like its a bad thing?
Do people automatically vote downward for studio-looking shots? Or is it that it looked illegal or something? Is there something wrong with it not looking 'real' that would lead people to vote downward versus it the knowledge it actually was taken as presented?
Just trying to understand the reasonings! Might help me if I choose to do something that looks studio/set-up and isn't or vice versa. :) |
For me it did and still does look like a picture behind some carpet with peas on it even after the description of where and how it was shot. I just don't get it I guess. I don't see it as a beautiful picture.. I see a picture of carpet and peas with a sunset backdrop. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 05:31:50 PM · #19 |
wow, thanks for the input! I appreciate it.
The salt flats are an amazing place - while the part they set land speed records on is VERY flat - the part I was at (a rest stop on I-80) there was actually a little variation in the landscape.
Here are some more shots I took while there - the close up of the peas is just to show you the amazing texture of the salt - look at those little "hairs" - there are billions of them!
//www.democard.com/photo/saltflats/
Everyone I "explained" the shot to before they shot it (non-voting friends and family ;-) ) LOVED the photos - but the reaction from voters looking at it without explanation obviously felt differently. I need to get better at communicating the WHOLE story.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 05:34:57 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
I also thought this was staged with a photo background ... but I thought the foreground was shredded coconut! |
What a great idea! |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 05:45:32 PM · #21 |
I never had an issue with whether it was "real" or not: for me, the image just "feels" unnatural, and the culprit is the harsh flash lighting, evidently. It just doesn't work that well for me, aesthetically.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 06:37:17 PM · #22 |
The thumbnail sure looks nice though in all honesty.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 06:39:43 PM · #23 |
LOL, I'll reshoot for the Thumbnail Challenge then
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 06:40:36 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
... Everyone I "explained" the shot to before they shot it (non-voting friends and family ;-) ) LOVED the photos - but the reaction from voters looking at it without explanation obviously felt differently. I need to get better at communicating the WHOLE story. |
An image should speak for itself.. if you need to expain it.. you probably need to reshoot it |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 09:14:35 PM · #25 |
this is all terrific - I think I've learned a lot - thanks to everyone for your comments, I appreciate it
|
|
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: 10/16/2025 09:56:09 PM EDT.
