| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/23/2007 03:24:35 AM · #26 |
Thanks a lot for the comment. You're right, maybe that was the problem. I'll try the film grain filter, and will publish the ungrained image, which I liked best.
It's very nice for you to give comments on this kind of shots.
Regards
Ãlex. |
|
|
|
03/23/2007 03:48:28 AM · #27 |
Steve
Unless my calculations are wrong then I can sneak under the wire and get one of your critiques
As ever, I would be grateful for your thoughts and views
Many thanks
Jon |
|
|
|
03/23/2007 04:58:10 AM · #28 |
I believe there is space left for one more :- )
Views and comments would be appreciated.
 |
|
|
|
03/23/2007 01:05:04 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by alexgarcia:
... You're right, maybe that was the problem. I'll try the film grain filter, and will publish the ungrained image, which I liked best. |
I don't mean to sound rude, but if an image is processed special for a challenge topic but you like the unchanged version better then it is probably a mistake to submit it. After all, grain was supposed to improve the image. :)
My reasons are a little different but here is my grain challenge entry that I did NOT submit though I specially photographed and processed it special for the challenge:
I rejected mine for submission for two reasons:
1-The electric cable... it neither fits the image nor the challenge.
2-The grain in the sky was more than I wanted there but there was less film-like grain in the rest of the image where I wanted it most. :)
|
|
|
|
03/23/2007 01:31:39 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by jonfrommk:
Unless my calculations are wrong then I can sneak under the wire and get one of your critiques
|
You are correct...
Positives:
Good perspective and choice of subject. Well done BW appropriate for the challenge topic.
Technicals:
Overall tone processing in this BW is done well. Good from 'black' blacks to 'white' whites. :) The blacks on the bottom and whites on the top are not well balanced across the image. Not always needed but probably should be in this particular choice. The bit of tree on the far right is a minor distraction.
The challenge:
No real problem in this area, it meets the challenge. It is the degree of meeting that may come into question and have a slight effect on how this image was voted. Grain-wise, yours is VERY similar to my barn image above that I did not submit partly because I did not like how the grain looked 'better' in the sky than it did over the rest of the image. I think I know how to 'fix' that now. :)
Suggestions:
If you were to take this picture further to the left where you would separate the church from the obelisk then you could cure the imbalance of dark on the bottom and light on the top by spreading it out more AND correct the distracting branches on the far right by either including more tree or blocking the tree with the obelisk.
This is not a bad image, it just has a couple minor issues, none of which are really awful. This is probably underrated even by DPC standards. That is probably because viewers were not given a big reason to love it.
For different but kinda similar reasons I think from your image I know the score my barn picture would have got in the grain challenge since ours share so many similarities. Thanks, saved me the irritation of a 5.2. ;)
|
|
|
|
03/23/2007 01:42:36 PM · #31 |
Darn it, I think I missed the boat here.....
I'm going to post one and hope you don't notice that I can't count to 10!
BTW, I was happy with my 5.9 as it was a pb, however, during the latter couple of days of voting it looked like it was going to go up to 6.0xx. The last few voters brought it right down, which did disappoint a little.
Don't worry if you are all out of comments, I realise I was late posting here. |
|
|
|
03/23/2007 01:55:48 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
I believe there is space left for one more :- )
|
Correct...
Positives:
Lighting is OK. It has no overexposed and/or underexposed areas in the frame. Cute seal image (Hope I'm right. Could be a rodent. LOL!!)
Technicals:
Overall general technicals are average. DPC voters like to think of themselves as more appreciative of art (myself included) so a centered perspective is a killer in voting unless it strongly supports the image. This one does not and would benefit from rule of thirds or other off-centered framing. Focus is OK but not strong. On my monitor it looks like the green is overdone.
The challenge:
There is grain but that is not the first thing that impacts the viewer so yours was voted lower as a result even though it clearly meets the challenge. An image needs to grab a viewer to get a high score. It got an average score because viewers saw it as an average image.
Suggestions:
Reframe this for a rule of thirds framing and back off the greens. Redo the grain processing to make the grain more 'apparent'. Obviously the last suggestion only applies to the ended challenge so use your best judgement about whether you want to do that. :)
|
|
|
|
03/23/2007 02:26:13 PM · #33 |
Again I think you're right. But don't you even think you sound rude. I asked for an opinion and thank it because it's very generous from you.
Regards
Ãlex
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by alexgarcia:
... You're right, maybe that was the problem. I'll try the film grain filter, and will publish the ungrained image, which I liked best. |
I don't mean to sound rude, but if an image is processed special for a challenge topic but you like the unchanged version better then it is probably a mistake to submit it. After all, grain was supposed to improve the image. :)
My reasons are a little different but here is my grain challenge entry that I did NOT submit though I specially photographed and processed it special for the challenge:
I rejected mine for submission for two reasons:
1-The electric cable... it neither fits the image nor the challenge.
2-The grain in the sky was more than I wanted there but there was less film-like grain in the rest of the image where I wanted it most. :) |
|
|
|
|
03/23/2007 02:42:38 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Darn it, I think I missed the boat here.....
BTW, I was happy with my 5.9 as it was a pb, however, during the latter couple of days of voting it looked like it was going to go up to 6.0xx. The last few voters brought it right down, which did disappoint a little.
Don't worry if you are all out of comments, I realise I was late posting here. |
Why you would want my opinion is beyond my comprehension but will give it since you asked. :)
Positives:
Offset framing works well. Level horizon which is important in an ocean image. Choice of BW is right for a 'grain' image. The simplicity of this image is a strength.
Technicals:
Nicely done grain. Lighting and use of grain generally implemented well.
The challenge:
Meets the challenge better than most other images in this challenge and explains its above average score.
Suggestions:
Though there is a lot to like about this image in terms of the challenge, the subject matter really does not lend itself well to a 'grain' challenge. You might consider recomposing the lighthouse to the left to match rule of thirds framing.
It got a 5.9 DPC vote and that is considered very good by DPC standards so most voters will think you 'unappreciative' of your score. (I think it is underrated scorewise but I'm a rebel. :) )
|
|
|
|
03/23/2007 02:48:36 PM · #35 |
Thanks Steve
Oh, believe me, I'm not unappreciative of the score as I said, it was a pb. It's the first time I've got one this high, so, definitely a positive for me. I like your critiques and admire your work, so I thank you very much for the time you took to review it.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Darn it, I think I missed the boat here.....
BTW, I was happy with my 5.9 as it was a pb, however, during the latter couple of days of voting it looked like it was going to go up to 6.0xx. The last few voters brought it right down, which did disappoint a little.
Don't worry if you are all out of comments, I realise I was late posting here. |
Why you would want my opinion is beyond my comprehension but will give it since you asked. :)
Positives:
Offset framing works well. Level horizon which is important in an ocean image. Choice of BW is right for a 'grain' image. The simplicity of this image is a strength.
Technicals:
Nicely done grain. Lighting and use of grain generally implemented well.
The challenge:
Meets the challenge better than most other images in this challenge and explains its above average score.
Suggestions:
Though there is a lot to like about this image in terms of the challenge, the subject matter really does not lend itself well to a 'grain' challenge. You might consider recomposing the lighthouse to the left to match rule of thirds framing.
It got a 5.9 DPC vote and that is considered very good by DPC standards so most voters will think you 'unappreciative' of your score. (I think it is underrated scorewise but I'm a rebel. :) ) |
|
|
|
|
03/23/2007 03:20:47 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Thanks Steve
Oh, believe me, I'm not unappreciative of the score as I said, it was a pb. It's the first time I've got one this high, so, definitely a positive for me. ... |
Just because you got a pb does not necessarily mean it got a "high" score. It did not.
Personally, I think 5.9, as a score, is in the high "F" evaluative range in any grading scale I've ever experienced and am disappointed in any of my images scoring below 7(I consider 7 "C" level work so I've only had 3 of my own images barely scoring at "C" level quality. 6-7 would be "D" level in my opinion) Obviously, most DPC images fail to meet reasonable scoring expectations in my opinion but then mine is a minority view at DPC.
That is why I include images up to 5.99 in my critique range. If you score below what I'd consider "F" level work you deserve some feedback.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2007 04:24:48 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Jedusi:
I believe there is space left for one more :- )
|
Correct...
Positives:
Lighting is OK. It has no overexposed and/or underexposed areas in the frame. Cute seal image (Hope I'm right. Could be a rodent. LOL!!)
Technicals:
Overall general technicals are average. DPC voters like to think of themselves as more appreciative of art (myself included) so a centered perspective is a killer in voting unless it strongly supports the image. This one does not and would benefit from rule of thirds or other off-centered framing. Focus is OK but not strong. On my monitor it looks like the green is overdone.
The challenge:
There is grain but that is not the first thing that impacts the viewer so yours was voted lower as a result even though it clearly meets the challenge. An image needs to grab a viewer to get a high score. It got an average score because viewers saw it as an average image.
Suggestions:
Reframe this for a rule of thirds framing and back off the greens. Redo the grain processing to make the grain more 'apparent'. Obviously the last suggestion only applies to the ended challenge so use your best judgement about whether you want to do that. :) |
Steve, thanks for that. Interesting that the image seems too green on your monitor as it doesn't seem that way on mine (and yes mine is calibrated) but monitors do still vary and it is always an issue how they look different on other screens.
Oh and by the way - the animal is an otter rather than a seal :- ) |
|
|
|
03/25/2007 06:55:06 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Technicals:
... On my monitor it looks like the green is overdone. |
Steve, thanks for that. Interesting that the image seems too green on your monitor as it doesn't seem that way on mine (and yes mine is calibrated) but monitors do still vary and it is always an issue how they look different on other screens.
Oh and by the way - the animal is an otter rather than a seal :- ) |
I could be wrong about the green... just looks slightly unrealistically brightish green to me, something I do to my own images all the time. :)
Message edited by author 2007-03-25 18:56:18.
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 12:25:25 PM EDT.
