| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2007 11:29:41 PM · #1 |
I can imagine 95% of the responses I'm going to get from this, but I'm going to try for the 5% that might be what I'm looking for.
A year or so ago, it seems to me that someone posted that they finally felt like they'd broken the 6.5 barrier. I feel like I've plateaued at about there.
It's been a while since a DPC score on one of my entries has really surprised me, so when I nail a shot, I'm pretty sure it's going to be between 6 and 6.5. And recently, I've had several successes at the upper end of that range.
But I haven't managed to crack 6.6, except for once, since last November. I'm not complaining about the scores themselves, just that I feel like I've hit a plateau.
Those of you who regularly score higher, do you have any advice? Was there anything that suddenly clicked for you? It may just be that my particular combination of skill, creativity, and time available means this is where I am for now, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
BTW, I have no trouble entering shots I know won't score great, for reasons of art, style, or humor. See my most recent free study, for example. I knew that wouldn't go high on the average score, but it did reasonate with a small group, which was my goal. So I'm not worshiping DPC average scores alone, but I'd like to try to push the upper levels for some shots.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 11:37:04 PM · #2 |
Aside from my ribbon, all of my top shots are in the 6.5 range.
Even though I have weak challenges fairly often, I'm still a waaay better photographer than I was a year ago.
I don't really have anything insightful to add at the present time. :-P Maybe later...
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 23:37:20. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 11:46:24 PM · #3 |
One thing I would suggest (me who has a wonderful 5.26 avg so I am REALLY an expert here) is to get out shooting with other photogs. My expertise comes form plateauing albeit at a lower level. I find that getting out and shooting with other photographers gives you a new perspective. For my own personal development, I read a lot of magazines, looked over hundreds of pictures and reviewed a lot of tutorials on the web. The best lessons I learned came when I went out shooting with other people. Just seeing how someone looks at a shot before taking it helped me out a lot.
This makes sense too. The scores you get here are from fellow photographers.
Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 11:48:30 PM · #4 |
About half of my ribbons have come in small challenges. Less competition means there's a better chance your shot will stand out if it's good and if it does the sky is the limit in terms of score. It's also a catch 22 in that if nobody is entering it usually means it's not an easy theme to shoot for but if you can come up with something that fits and make sure you do the DPC do's in preparing the shot you should do quite well.
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 23:49:16. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 11:53:41 PM · #5 |
I find that breaking out requires breaking out. Your top scores are fine photos, but they're generally common sights on DPC. Scoring really high means not only a good subject and good execution, but something fresh. It could be an unusual subject, a dramatic technique, compelling expressions... anything that would separate your photo from the rest of the pack in an appealing way (and not necessarily eye candy).
A 6 isn't SO difficult if the technicals are strong and the challenge connection obvious, but getting past 6.5 is special territory. You have to inspire the voters beyond "Nice...6" and compel them to think "Wow!" or "Cool!" You've seen enough images around here to know when one stops you and makes you admire it for a while. Ask yourself what it is about those that makes you linger or come back, then evaluate your own entries against that same criteria. If you then make achieiving that interest level your goal, you'll be on the right path. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 11:56:10 PM · #6 |
Im not exactly nailing it yet :) but Ive found I've plateaued at times as well, All I can suggest to do is think about your target market. Realy think about what will make your photo do better.
My one main success was from doing just that. Find an idea and build on it, then evaluate and see if it can be built on again. then evaluate, and build some more.
Keep in mind some of these ideas as well
Simple, Clean, Well Exposed & Composed, and tells a story.
Or out of the box, but still has the above
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 12:10:59 AM · #7 |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 12:12:41 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
I'd start here. |
I guess thats in the unexpected 5% :)
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 01:07:50 AM · #9 |
The score above 6.5 is all "wow". Technicals and composition can get a shot to a 6.5, but it can't get it much further.
There are many kinds of "wow": subject, processing, lighting. You need to find which one you are capable of and explore it. Unfortunately "wow" requires time and effort (or luck). |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 01:18:06 AM · #10 |
just wait until you break the 7.5 barrier!
it's fun
:) |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 01:47:45 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The score above 6.5 is all "wow". Technicals and composition can get a shot to a 6.5, but it can't get it much further.
There are many kinds of "wow": subject, processing, lighting. You need to find which one you are capable of and explore it. |
ture, very true.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Unfortunately "wow" requires time and effort (or luck). |
Usually true. But not always. My apple shot which is 6.5, I did because I was not interested in entering. Since I was not interested, I decided to enter something that shall score well. So spent 10 minutes setting up shot, and 20 minutes processing. Just that. At dpc there are some types of shot that do well. and they are all tested formula. I wished to score high so just used that tested formula. No efforts really.
Anyway it is better to score 6.5 then not to enter. I guess.
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 01:48:12. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 02:06:20 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The score above 6.5 is all "wow". Technicals and composition can get a shot to a 6.5, but it can't get it much further.
There are many kinds of "wow": subject, processing, lighting. You need to find which one you are capable of and explore it. |
ture, very true.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Unfortunately "wow" requires time and effort (or luck). |
Usually true. But not always. My apple shot which is 6.5, I did because I was not interested in entering. Since I was not interested, I decided to enter something that shall score well. So spent 10 minutes setting up shot, and 20 minutes processing. Just that. At dpc there are some types of shot that do well. and they are all tested formula. I wished to score high so just used that tested formula. No efforts really.
Anyway it is better to score 6.5 then not to enter. I guess. |
But notice you didn't get much past 6.5... :) |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 02:17:14 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But notice you didn't get much past 6.5... :) |
That is true. But I only tried twice (both time I made it). I usually try to score high when I am not much interested in challenge. The type of things I like usually get me 5.5 where I am happy. (my taste does not go with DPC)
But I agree with you about 6.5, since you know it best because you made it many times. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 02:41:57 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The score above 6.5 is all "wow". Technicals and composition can get a shot to a 6.5, but it can't get it much further.
There are many kinds of "wow": subject, processing, lighting. You need to find which one you are capable of and explore it. Unfortunately "wow" requires time and effort (or luck). |
I'd have to agree. I've got some "good" shots.......6-6.25, and a couple "Wow" shots.......6.6-6.7.
I knew instantly that the three that I have that are "Wow" were going to do well right out of the gate.
I just don't see the great shots very often, and I dunno how it works for those who do. I think that we do all eventually plateau to a certain extent, and that luck does play an important part.
That and living in Iceland!......8>)
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 10:00:02 AM · #15 |
Thanks for the advice so far!
Anyone else have any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 10:14:15 AM · #16 |
Nothing to add, except that I know exactly how you feel. Most of my shots have good technicals, somewhat appealing, and just lack the wow. I hit low-to-mid 6's quite frequently.
But this week I've got a 6.8 in the works for Macro, and it's really exciting. I did shoot more than 100 shots, on 2 different days, using 3 or 4 different subjects. In that regard, I gave myself a lot to choose from, and chose the best result.
Also being Macro and having a lot of entries, there's an easy possibility of a duplicate. But nobody else did my subject quite the same way I did - thus it's a little different and stands out I guess. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 10:32:01 AM · #17 |
My good friend  Yanko and I talked about this a while back. I think he put it very well.
with a 6.5 you've impressed the newer members, with a 7+ you've impressed the folks that have been on the site for a while.
IMO, good techincals (lighting and post processing) gets you in the game, after that meeting the challenge, after that composition, and then to put an image over the top it has to have that extra little spark that separates the image from the rest. Some people refer to this as the "wow" factor.
Give a voter a reason for lowering the vote and they'll almost always do just that. If there is a flaw in your lighting or technicals, you can be sure that someone will bring it up or vote lower because of it.
Also, planning your shot and previsulaizing the desired result will yeild better results. Hoping to go out and find that 7+ shot by accident rarely works. The best exapmples are DrAchoo,  Scalvert and De Sousa. They plan thier shots very well and usually know what they want before they shoot.
I'll throw equipment into the mix as well. While there are plenty of examples of people doing very well with P&S cameras and less expensive lenses, in my experience, when I upgraded my gear my scores and placement went up.
When I started here I had a Canon 20D and the kit lens. In my first year I had 6 top 5 finishes and 1 ribbon. Right around my first aniversery here I upgraded to the 5D and some nice "L" glass. In the next 7 months, I've had 4 top 5 finishes and all 4 ribboned. I already have more top 10 and top 20 finishes than I did last year with much fewer entries. Now some may say I've learned how to shoot for DPC and that may be true, but I don't honestly think I'm doing anything that much differently than before. Maybe that extra bit of sharpness or range of possibilities got me that extra .1 or .05.
Again, there are plenty of 20D and (D70) users out there that have far more ribbons and 7+ scores than I do, but for me something clicked with better gear. Maybe the better gear made up for a lack of PP skills. And I still pull mid 5 scores even with the better gear. Pure talent can over come mediocre equipment. DrAchoo had plenty of success with a Canon 300D and De Sousa uses a 20D, but they both invest in high quality glass.
Getting the basics down pat, lighting, meeting the challenge, good PP, and that extra little something is the best formula for a 7+ score. The camera gear, at whatever level should help you achieve those goals.
Good luck
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 10:34:50. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 12:07:44 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
But this week I've got a 6.8 in the works for Macro, and it's really exciting. I did shoot more than 100 shots, on 2 different days, using 3 or 4 different subjects. In that regard, I gave myself a lot to choose from, and chose the best result. |
There's your answer, right there.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 12:11:50 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by smurfguy:
But this week I've got a 6.8 in the works for Macro, and it's really exciting. I did shoot more than 100 shots, on 2 different days, using 3 or 4 different subjects. In that regard, I gave myself a lot to choose from, and chose the best result. |
There's your answer, right there. |
For those of us who aren't experienced enough to really envision what we want ahead of time, this seems to make sense.
For those who are experienced enough, I guess it could probably still take as much time/effort to obtain the vision! |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 12:18:37 PM · #20 |
Looking back at the files for my last few shots above 6.5 I find:
Macro: ~175 shots, multiple days
Flora: ~70 shots, two days
Deja Vu: ~100 shots, multiple days
Rural Landscape: ~100 shots, one day.
You see the pattern.
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 12:19:01.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 01:11:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'll throw equipment into the mix as well. (...) when I upgraded my gear my scores and placement went up.(...). Maybe the better gear made up for a lack of PP skills. |
You mean equipment like in :
"a Minolta DiMAGE 7 can make you  Joey Lawrence or whiterook"
Just teasing you david. But I always thought that equipment lead to better score only because people improve over time and in parralel buy better gear. Trying to short circuit experience with better gear... not fully convinced. However it's true that some lenses beyond the kit lens and some lighting and such equipment can definitely help. I'm much more doubtfull about camera body. For example I thought about buying the 40D, but just told myself: not until I feel that I am actually constrained by my 350D.
But I may not be the best placed to judge.
I do however strongly agree on your second point re. PP. PP skills help A LOT. If you have you basic composition and lighting skills ok, I would urge anyone to invest some time in PP.
And then of course all what the other said about work, planning, trying and testing etc.
Well I'm really only starting all that myself...
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 13:12:41. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 01:43:11 PM · #22 |
I think the equipment can help, but it's no guarantee.
Someone said something to me when I upgraded from my P&S (which still hold 4 of my top 5 slots) to my DSLR:
low skill, low-end gear: so-so results
high skill, low-end gear: good to great results depending on how far you push the camera's envelope
low skill, high-end gear: so-so results
high skill, high-end gear: fantastic results
But this is an issue that's been discussed endlessly, so maybe we needn't rehash it here?
I tend to think that the time invested typically does matter, but is no guarantee. It's the creative spark, the ability to think of that breakout idea, that's so important.
My own current case in point is that my recent fauna entry took about 15 seconds to see and shoot, plus maybe an hour of processing. My current macro entry took a couple of hours to shoot, using three different ideas and subjects, plus a couple of hours to edit, and it's at about the same score. And I've had other entries where I did take more than 100 shots.
It seems hitting the high notes means several different things are clicking at the same time, as opposed to any one thing: time, visualization, technical skill, and creativity.
Which is cool with me. At this point in my life, I shoot when I can. So hitting the mid-highs is working, and now I know what I need to try when I have the time.
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 14:04:39.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 01:50:16 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
... those of you who regularly score higher, do you have any advice? Was there anything that suddenly clicked for you? ... |
I am not one of those big shots here, but I think I can answer your question..
1-learning to take better shots
2-getting better machines and lenses
3-learning to use Photoshop or similar programs
4-seing other's shots, developing better "photographer's eyes"
my 2 cents :) |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 02:13:01 PM · #24 |
Scores are all very subjective...as long as you pleased yourself by taking the pictures, then you are doing something good.
I do no longer take into consideration this criterion. There are some pictures with rates higher than 7.0 that I really can't stand...
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 02:17:07 PM · #25 |
Many voters wont look further than the following basic things:
-landscape or a square format
-very modest or no frame
-the rule of thirds (simple)
-no burned out highlights (manual + histogram)
-no closed shadows (manual + histogram)
-rich contrast, but within the restrictions of the first two points (Photoshop and/or lighting)
-bright and catchy colors (props + Photoshop)
-sharpness (tripod, cheap lenses stopped down or buying expensive lenses, combined with Photoshop)
Each of these points is simple to master, but to cut through you need to combine them all with a great idea which has a very obvious connection to the theme.
If you manage to step out of this box and make the great, damn you're good!
regards
mr. No-Ribbons
|
|
