| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2007 12:08:15 PM · #26 |
Just for the sake of argument, here's Rae-Ann's Kitty A recomposed, sharpened, and with whiskers cloned over to the empty side of the face. It's not enough to overtake Yanko's image, but don't you think (ignoring the clumsy PP work, a quicky) that it's closed the gap somewhat? The biggest gap remains the "expression"; Kitty B has attitude, as many have pointed out :-)
 :original  :recomposed
R.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 12:09:16.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:14:41 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just for the sake of argument, here's Rae-Ann's Kitty A recomposed, sharpened, and with whiskers cloned over to the empty side of the face. It's not enough to overtake Yanko's image, but don't you think (ignoring the clumsy PP work, a quicky) that it's closed the gap somewhat? |
It helps the composition somewhat, but the fur quality really still jumps out as being icky. I can't find the right term. clumpy. Badly recorded. I think it is just out of focus and over sharpened to compensate. But it doesn't look like fur. It doesn't look soft, it doesn't look three dimensional or real. I do wonder if it is just the shot settings that caused this - the exposure was 1/10th a second, so there is probably some motion blurring in there. Also I wonder if it was cropped a lot which might explain why so much detail was lost.
The other cat shot looks like you could reach out and touch it. That's the quality that sets them apart, not if the eyes follow some rule of thirds placement or not.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 12:26:42.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:18:32 PM · #28 |
Did anybody mention that Yanko's cat's eyes burn right through you?
That cat looks like it takes no sh&*$ from nobody. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:25:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Did anybody mention that Yanko's cat's eyes burn right through you?
That cat looks like it takes no sh&*$ from nobody. |
It does have that colour and slightly slanted eyes thing going for them. Slightly menacing. The dark/white two thirds/one third thing also gives more interesting balance, along with the fur colouring on the nose.
All of this looking at close-ups of cats makes me wish I had a cat again.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 12:27:32.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:39:01 PM · #30 |
Thanks again guys..yes Yankos cat looks as if he is taking no prisoners! I think someone hit the nail on the head here ..it is a HUGELY cropped picture..It is not out of focus, or shaky..it is the crop ..I pushed it..
I am also still learning CS2 and clearly my PP needs alot of work still.
But I will say I did not like Bears version SOOOO much more then the original, and I know he can PP me to death...SO it leads me to think the problem lies with the shot as much if not more then PP.
Its that damn ISO thing...that is my project for the week anyway...damn new camera learning curves...
Instant gratification takes too long!!! |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:40:50 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
Thanks again guys..yes Yankos cat looks as if he is taking no prisoners! I think someone hit the nail on the head here ..it is a HUGELY cropped picture..It is not out of focus, or shaky..it is the crop ..I pushed it.. |
That would explain the really blocky feel to the fur. Though I think at 1/10s if that is what you shot it at, there is blur - even if you don't think there is ;)
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:44:35 PM · #32 |
Yankos' submission would do really well as a print. Its overall quality, composure and tones make it far more appealing that Kitty A.
I can understand the frustration when you think highly of a particular image only to find that others may not share your view, but isn't that what we are here for ? To learn from each other. I am sure you will go away and think carefully the next time you submit some work.
Take critiques positively and you will do much better next, although your score was nothing to be ashamed of in the first place. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:12:59 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
...
When I look at yanko's picture, I am immediately mesmerized by the kitty's eyes, but it doesn't happen when I look at the other kitty's eyes. It's the light that does it. That triangular shaped light leading up to the eyes. That piercing look within the eyes. I'm drawn to it and I can't turn away.
It's the light, Rae-Ann! (notice I didn't say stupid, that's only when talking to myself) |
What fascinates me is that I believe the effect was deliberately enhanced by Yanko in post processing to bring this out in his image. That appears to be the case based on his comments, but I would be interested in Yanko's own comments.
I see Yanko's image as one taken by a photo artist that takes what is in the original and makes it better. It is what good post processing is all about.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:21:34 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
But I will say I did not like Bears version SOOOO much more then the original, and I know he can PP me to death...SO it leads me to think the problem lies with the shot as much if not more then PP.\ |
I wasn't showing off PP, I was working on compositional issues. Crop and whiskers. The PP sux :-)
R. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:25:28 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The thing that immediately struck me between the two is the quality of the fur. In the higher scoring image, the fur is fine, detailed, carefully sharpened and exquisite.
...
The eye quality isn't there between the two, either. Compositionally they are the same, subject wise they are the same, but it is the technical quality that really sets them apart and probably is reasonably worth a 2 point different. |
Gordon is zeroing in on qualities of Yanko's image that set it apart from the ordinary that DPC voters respond to and that easily explains its higher score.
Beyond post processing, the quality of the camera and lens has a lot to do with the difference between the two images. Rae-Ann's camera is simply not capable of capturing what Yanko's can.
That is not to say that better equipment automatically results in 'better' pictures. The best photographers (like Joey Lawrence, for example) understand and work within the confines of their equipment environments to create great images. Equipment will never prevent a great photographer from creating great images, it just makes it more challenging. Great equipment will never make a mediocre photographer great.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:15:42 PM · #36 |
This thread could serve as a quickie course in making excellent photos. :)
I mean, it has it all: composition, choice of subject, understanding equipment limitations, lighting, processing, cropping ...
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 08:39:49 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Gordon:
The thing that immediately struck me between the two is the quality of the fur. In the higher scoring image, the fur is fine, detailed, carefully sharpened and exquisite.
...
The eye quality isn't there between the two, either. Compositionally they are the same, subject wise they are the same, but it is the technical quality that really sets them apart and probably is reasonably worth a 2 point different. |
Gordon is zeroing in on qualities of Yanko's image that set it apart from the ordinary that DPC voters respond to and that easily explains its higher score.
Beyond post processing, the quality of the camera and lens has a lot to do with the difference between the two images. Rae-Ann's camera is simply not capable of capturing what Yanko's can.
That is not to say that better equipment automatically results in 'better' pictures. The best photographers (like Joey Lawrence, for example) understand and work within the confines of their equipment environments to create great images. Equipment will never prevent a great photographer from creating great images, it just makes it more challenging. Great equipment will never make a mediocre photographer great. |
Excellant observation Steve...I so agree with you..I did much better with my point and shoot..almost own the darn page simply because I learned what that cam was capable of doing.., this cam is new to me still, that may explain some..
And Bear...I sure didnt think you were showing off! You are one of my PS heroes :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 09:24:25 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
OK..first of all, I am not complaining here..and There is no doubt that the higher scoring image here is well deserved and certainly better...but 2 full points??
Now, I know its not the same challenge, and I know there is not accounting for the voters and how we vote...I am just curious...
I think it is the lack of sharpness in the eyes, but holy cow 2 points!!?!
 |
Yankos yellow eyes win it for me. At least a point difference for those eyes. They're more mysterious. The focus and mottled colors of your shot are not quite as striking. So I'd say about 1.5 pts difference.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 09:36:09 PM · #39 |
You should consider yourself lucky to have only a 2 points difference in my honest opinion.
If I had to vote on those 2 images in the same challenge, I would score your image 4 and Yankos 8.
Why 4? Mainly because of the image quality which is horrible. It looks like you took the photo with a less-than-1MP camera and then applied some weird filter in photoshop.
If you can't see a huge difference in quality between the 2 images, maybe your monitor is not good for working on photos. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:56:31 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by yann:
You should consider yourself lucky to have only a 2 points difference in my honest opinion.
If I had to vote on those 2 images in the same challenge, I would score your image 4 and Yankos 8.
Why 4? Mainly because of the image quality which is horrible. It looks like you took the photo with a less-than-1MP camera and then applied some weird filter in photoshop.
If you can't see a huge difference in quality between the 2 images, maybe your monitor is not good for working on photos. |
"How to win friends and influence people" :) |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 12:13:38 AM · #41 |
Sometimes it doesn't madder how good a shot is. Folks vote on emotion. I would have voted the similar cat higher, because it looks like our Alision (which died last year) 
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 05:22:02 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
Originally posted by yann:
You should consider yourself lucky to have only a 2 points difference in my honest opinion.
If I had to vote on those 2 images in the same challenge, I would score your image 4 and Yankos 8.
Why 4? Mainly because of the image quality which is horrible. It looks like you took the photo with a less-than-1MP camera and then applied some weird filter in photoshop.
If you can't see a huge difference in quality between the 2 images, maybe your monitor is not good for working on photos. |
"How to win friends and influence people" :) |
Was that too harsh? I was just beeing honest.
I think you're here to improve your photography just like me. I prefer when people give me their honest opinion even if it's not always pleasant to hear, so I try to do the same with others.
Just so it's easier to see what I mean:
Now I would rate these 4 - 4 - 8
//www.yannricher.com/temp/cat1.jpg
//www.yannricher.com/temp/cat2low.jpg
//www.yannricher.com/temp/cat2.jpg
Message edited by Manic - keep images under 500px/30kb or post links/thumbs. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 06:02:39 PM · #43 |
Don't get me wrong, as anyone who has seen me here knows, I am here to learn and Always appreciate constructive critism!
Bring it on, I say...
But simply casting a disparaging opinion is not helpful to anyone, It doesn't help myself or anyone reading the thread learn to improve an image.
It was not shot with a 1 mp camera, nor was there a "weird" filter applied. If you read the entire thread you will see some really great comments on how to improve an image that was clearly too harshly cropped from the original.( mostly re-shoot it, I think!! haha)
Simply saying I think this is a 4 and I think this is an 8 altho interesting, isn't really all that helpful.
Hope that clears it up :))
perhaps someone can help with the thumbnails for Yann?
Message edited by author 2007-02-10 18:03:47. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 09:57:38 PM · #44 |
Well... I read the thread and saw that alot of people left you great advices already, covering pretty much all that could have been said on the topic. There was just no point in repeating all that.
You seemed to be surprised of the 2 points difference between the 2 images and I thought it could be a good thing to let you know that if I had voted on both images it would have been a 3 or 4 points difference. You could have checked out my profile to find some useful information on me like the average vote I gave to others, my work, etc and judge by yourself if I'm a crazy guy who's opinion should be ignored or not.
But apparently it's not ok to simply give your honest opinion on the matter without going into details on how to improve the image anymore so next time I'll just pass. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 10:17:45 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by yann:
You seemed to be surprised of the 2 points difference between the 2 images and I thought it could be a good thing to let you know that if I had voted on both images it would have been a 3 or 4 points difference. You could have checked out my profile to find some useful information on me like the average vote I gave to others, my work, etc and judge by yourself if I'm a crazy guy who's opinion should be ignored or not. |
To be very honest Yann, the terseness of the comment you made, which was truly devoid of any value added information, would certainly not entice most people to go back and check your profile. In this instance, what your said, coupled with manner in which you said it did in effect leave a bit to be desired.
Originally posted by yann:
But apparently it's not ok to simply give your honest opinion on the matter without going into details on how to improve the image anymore so next time I'll just pass. |
It is indeed ok to give an honest opinion, and I certainly would encourage you to do just that. The crux of the matter in this specific instance is that you gave an opinion on the merits of the image, without taking the time to explain how you arrived at your decision, nor did you proffer any information on how the photographer could improve her submission, and therein lies the difference.
By all means do continue to comment, but by the same token do try to impart some valuable information to others that may need it...(like me)
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-02-10 22:21:55. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 10:19:47 PM · #46 |
I can see two points between these two, with Yanko's cat obviously the higher. The fact is that it was yanko's idea and he executed it perfectly while other appears to be a pale immitation. However, I actually prefer this cat picture because it has bags more character and the lack of apparent quality in terms of sharpness and exqiusite fur detail etc adds to the mood.
People are SO technically obsessed here!
Try to think of your own ideas because copying others recent ribbon winners wont get you big scores, if that's what youre after.
Personally cat pictures no matter how sharp NEVER interest me, I'm more of a dog man.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 11:03:38 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yann:
You seemed to be surprised of the 2 points difference between the 2 images and I thought it could be a good thing to let you know that if I had voted on both images it would have been a 3 or 4 points difference. You could have checked out my profile to find some useful information on me like the average vote I gave to others, my work, etc and judge by yourself if I'm a crazy guy who's opinion should be ignored or not. |
To be very honest Yann, the terseness of the comment you made, which was truly devoid of any value added information, would certainly not entice most people to go back and check your profile. In this instance, what your said, coupled with manner in which you said it did in effect leave a bit to be desired.
Originally posted by yann:
But apparently it's not ok to simply give your honest opinion on the matter without going into details on how to improve the image anymore so next time I'll just pass. |
It is indeed ok to give an honest opinion, and I certainly would encourage you to do just that. The crux of the matter in this specific instance is that you gave an opinion on the merits of the image, without taking the time to explain how you arrived at your decision, nor did you proffer any information on how the photographer could improve her submission, and therein lies the difference.
By all means do continue to comment, but by the same token do try to impart some valuable information to others that may need it...(like me)
Ray |
I think you got it all wrong. Part of that is probably because I have problems expressing myself in english and saying things the way I truly mean them. My vocabulary is pretty small, I only know the easy words.
I'll jsut do this bullet style and get it over with in 20 minutes instead of 40 cause usually when I want to write something ok it takes alot of time, probably 10 times what you would need.
"To be very honest Yann, the terseness of the comment you made, which was truly devoid of any value added information, would certainly not entice most people to go back and check your profile. In this instance, what your said, coupled with manner in which you said it did in effect leave a bit to be desired."
I would have checked the profile of the guy if I was in her position. I can understand some other ppl would prefer just ignoring the comment without looking deeper, it's their choice.
"The crux of the matter in this specific instance is that you gave an opinion on the merits of the image, without taking the time to explain how you arrived at your decision,"
Not true, I said "Why 4? Mainly because of the image quality which is horrible. It looks like you took the photo with a less-than-1MP camera and then applied some weird filter in photoshop" I seriously meant that. I was not insulting her camera or her photoshop skill. I was trying to describe how I thought the image quality looked. I think anyone can understand that the image quality coming out of a less-than-1MP camera isn't good and that's why I used that example. And the filter I was refering to is NeatImage or Noise Ninja. The fur looks like it got softed a little too much with one of those filters.
"nor did you proffer any information on how the photographer could improve her submission,"
Again, not true, I said: "If you can't see a huge difference in quality between the 2 images, maybe your monitor is not good for working on photos." I have seen good quality images that were looking horrible on some really bad monitors. So I thought maybe her monitor was really bad and it could be why she can't see the technical quality difference between the 2 images.
But you know, whatever. Just don't bother with me and let's stay on topic. I'll go see somewhere else if I can find myself.
Message edited by author 2007-02-10 23:06:05. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 11:20:48 PM · #48 |
I scored your photo two points higher than  yanko's, but I wouldn't worry about scores.  e301 and jjbeguin regularly score lower than your cat photo did. Sadly, the tastes of many DPC voters are severely limited to only certain kinds of photographs, mostly commercial and advertising, even some of the "stars" of the site have blinders on.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 11:36:25 PM · #49 |
I did vote on both images so I can tell you exactly how much difference there was in my ratings.
I gave "Miss Audrey" by Rae-Ann a 6. That is a positive rating from me and it means that I liked the shot. I really like the intense feeling that I get from the very close-cropped image.
I gave "18 Years" by Yanko a 9. That is a full three-point difference. Yanko's cat looks like it has been groomed for a show; every hair is in place. This gives the cat a regal appearance and makes it feel like a formal portrait of a distinguished being. The image almost looks over-processed to me but I decided it was OK.
In contrast, Miss Audrey looks a bit scruffy and unkempt. She does not look regal. There is also something I find unpleasant about the image quality. (I think this is what yann was talking about.) The texture isn't quite right, especially on the nose. This factor makes Miss Audrey appear to be an ordinary cat--and an ordinary image. I'm afraid I can't be very helpful about how to get beautiful texture in cat fur; I have not been very successful doing this myself.
I do prefer Ray-Ann's closer cropping. I think Yanko's image would have been better without as much of the out of focus area at the bottom of the image.
--DanW |
|
|
|
02/11/2007 12:22:02 AM · #50 |
| I'm sure you lost some crispness in the 1/10 exposure, 400 ISO and f2.8 aperture. More light would have really helped you bring out the details better. Also, because yours appeared AFTER his, it will lose some originality points, even if you intend it as a tribute. |
|
