DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Was it the background?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 9 of 9, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/18/2009 07:31:07 PM · #1
I curious as to the reason that this entry did not do as good as I expected. I have a few ideas as to what the problem was but I didn't hear any of this in the feedback so I'm just not sure.

Was it:
-The white background? (keep in mind that the original had pretty much the same background... I didn't get rid of it)
-Over processed?
-The way the feet were chopped off a little?
-The out of focus fencepost he's standing on?
-Something else???

Any feedback would be great, especially if you gave it a low vote.

09/18/2009 07:56:53 PM · #2
My entry in the same challenge, which got so much attention and faves over on Flickr, didn't score too much above yours. I thought it was at least good for a very high 5. Wrong. Tough crowd here, especially for freestudies.

The somewhat grayish background may have been part of it. Didn't detract, but didn't add anything either. I didn't vote on yours.
 09/18/2009 09:00:14 PM · #3
Yeah, I think it was probably mostly the background. There's really no context, so that it almost looks like it could be a stuffed bird sitting on your mantle. Freestudies are killers, and entries have to have something incredible, above and beyond good photography, to score well. I think it's a very good shot, and would do well pretty much anywhere but in a DPC freestudy :))
 09/18/2009 09:13:33 PM · #4
I didn't vote, but you hit a lot of the spots:

missing feet I think is a big issue (imo, of course)
It's not a white background, it's light grey. Some people hate missing backgrounds, but sometimes the background is just plain white! But your background is muddy. I would have lightened it to white and I think it would have looked much better.
There's something about the lighting that makes him look very flat and 2 dimensional, he looks over processed, but comparing to the original, he's not, particularly.

back to the background, the original is actually whiter than the processed. If you topaz'd him, topaz has a tendency to mess up white backgrounds (at least in my experience)
 09/18/2009 09:16:42 PM · #5
I'm not expert, but I may tell you what others said about one of my photos, of a rooster. I've had a hard time editing it to compensate lack of natural light, and to make it sharp without exaggeration, but then ended up with low scores...

THey told me it was like a snapshot of the rooster, no context, no real interest. And it was also a Free Study, so I think you got the same result as me.
I did not take any other snapshot after that, now I would look for interesting stuff on the rooster and if it does not have anything, I'd just don't take that picture...

For me, it looks good technically, I see it is focused, sharp, good contrast, etc. It's not enough to score high, especially on the Free Studies...

Hope it helps...
 09/18/2009 09:55:11 PM · #6
I agree with the background being a bit bland, but I believe that it is the Free Study alone that deducts .5 to 1 point from your potential score. I thought my shot was one of my better recent images, but came in at 5.2
So similar to yours, a bland bg and nothing else really outstanding about it to compensate.
 09/18/2009 10:12:36 PM · #7
Originally posted by fldave:
I agree with the background being a bit bland, but I believe that it is the Free Study alone that deducts .5 to 1 point from your potential score. I thought my shot was one of my better recent images, but came in at 5.2
So similar to yours, a bland bg and nothing else really outstanding about it to compensate.


again, it's a grey background. White backgrounds can work. Compare the two:


but he's still missing a foot, and the thing he's standing on is soft and not that interesting.

Message edited by author 2009-09-18 22:13:26.
 09/18/2009 10:31:28 PM · #8
Everyone, thanks SO much for your input (here and in the comments). I did change the background to gray because I thought the white was too hard on the eyes in this shot, although I've seen many gorgeous pictures on here with white backgrounds (like yours Wendy!) mine didn't seem to work as well. Maybe it's because it was too white against too dark.

I couldn't put my finger on it but I guess you're all right, it does seem too two dimensional.
 09/19/2009 08:19:43 AM · #9
I think you would've gotten an increase in score if there was a bit more dynamism to your shot... some tension. Either if the bird was hunting, flying, landing... something dynamic. If you don't have the dynamism, you need to balance this lack with something else wonderful in the scene in order to score high in FS. One or the other typically doesn't do it.
In non-FS, this isn't so much the case IMO, though you'll do better if you can manage it. FS's are brutal and it's more of an expectation.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 07:57:57 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/09/2025 07:57:57 AM EDT.