| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2004 12:25:22 AM · #1 |
Make the obvious use of multiple light sources
a key factor in your composition this week.
I see MANY shots that only had 1 source of light, yet ranked well in the challenge, and I suspect many voters were thinking way too far outside the box on this one.
It was a very difficult challenge to vote on as it is, aprtially due to some shots were so evenly lit, a second source was not readily apparent.
I read back through a number of the comments and see I may have mis-judged a few. I did not want to DQ anyone for a single light source, just in case, but there are a few that flat out did not meet the challenge.
Is it an "Oh Wow, what a shot!. Doesn't meet the challenge, but because it is such a good shot, I'll give it a 10 anyway" kind of thing?
I am confused.
It either meets the challenge or it doesn't. The doesn't catagory shouldn't place, especially not above 100 out of 221. A DQ should be if someone cheats on a shot (or is suspected of), hence I suggested none for DQ.
Opinions?
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:27:49 AM · #2 |
It's hard to tell is shots had used multiple sources. You can;t say if they did or did not so I just trusted that they did. Some only had only clearly, like a sunset shot of something but the majority you could not tell so how can you score them low based on an unproved suspicion?
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:31:34 AM · #3 |
That's why I put a huge title on mine - I figured you couldn't see the light source so people would mark it down. Someone asked for a DQ on it anyway, but I was validated.
[/url] |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:37:23 AM · #4 |
so how can you score them low based on an unproved suspicion?
Images I knew didn't meet the challenge were the ones I ranked low.I did make a mistake on a few, but some were very obvious, yet scored high in the challenge. As I read the comments of the other members, they too mirrored my comments.
To those I goofed on, I appologize.
I am still confused on many, as they simply did not meet the criteria.
Not meaning to ruffle feathers here, but.....
As an example, and everyone feel free to jump in (flame suit is on) and help me understand so I can better my skills:
 ranked 26th
 ranked 31st
 ranked 68th
 ranked 96th
 ranked 98th
 ranked 108th
 ranked 111th
 ranked 115th
My question to the group is, how did these rank as high as they did, not meeting the challenge?
What am I missing?
Mine came in at 102nd. I know it's not great, but did meet the challenge. (Next time I will have my tripod with me)
Thanks all, and I honestly do not mean to put down the above shots, as they were very good, with a few being absolutely stunning.
Message edited by author 2004-06-02 01:02:29.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:46:37 AM · #5 |
| I noticed a lot of comments for shots where I could detect that more than one light source was used yet the other commenters determined that there was only one and scored low for that. I myself got lots of those comments and I know I used several available light sources. Was it obvious? Well I actually showed one in the photo so that is at least one obvious light source. I think that people thought that was the only light. Well, their mistake. Unfortunately, that was the case for a lot of photos in this challenge. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:50:27 AM · #6 |
Not meeting the challenge topic isn't a reason for DQ, so you shouldn't request one just for that. If you see what you believe to be violations of the rules, then you should request a DQ.
As it were, this was a very difficult challenge as the interpretation of what multiple light sources is was viewed very differently by many people.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 02:02:37 AM · #7 |
To respond to your specific questions, that dog picture has a very nice neon light reflection in the dog's eye. I thought it was one of the better photos in the challenge. The one with the power lines is a fun play on the challenge subject. The water droplets on the leaf is questionable since there is no obvious additional light source, unless you count the glare itself as a light source, but I'm willing to give people some benefit of the doubt.
As for the rest of them, I tend to agree with you. It's possible to force them into the challenge, but I don't think photos should be shoehorned into a particular theme. I think they should reek of it. Even if they're subtle, there should be no mistaking that it meets the challenge. I usually score 1-5 on how much I like the photo and another 1-5 on how well the photo meets the challenge. So the most I ever give a photo that clearly doesn't meet the challenge is a 5.
But that's only my opinion about the challenge submissions themselves. A lot of those images are really beautiful -yours included- and the people who took them should be proud. Even if they don't meet a challenge's requirements, they do meet the site's requirement of creating the best photos possible.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:24:24 PM · #8 |
Even if they don't meet a challenge's requirements, they do meet the site's requirement of creating the best photos possible.
Even if they don't meet the challenge??? I thought that was what it was all about?
I am at a loss here, and can ony assume most will look the other way on this issue. I hate voting low on an outstanding photograph, some of which, I could only ever hope to come close to in quality.
Make the obvious use of multiple light sources a
key factor in your composition this week
seems pretty black & white to me....
(pun intended)
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:37:51 PM · #9 |
| Obviously many of the entering photographers, and perhaps an even higher proportition of the voters, read only the title of the challenge and not the details. Unfortunately this worked to the disadvantage of those who did. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:43:16 PM · #10 |
My image had three sources of light and they were very key to the composition of my image. This was one of my favorite entries yet and it was a pretty low score for me. I had really expected to do better but as I have learned from this site, these things are completely unpredictable. I think my main mistake here was to overestimate the voters knowledge of lighting. In any case I was happy with my picture and I could have made the multiple light sources even more obvious but I think it would have really detracted from the photograph.
Greg
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:45:51 PM · #11 |
| There is something called 'fll light' which can be used very subtly to capture detail without ruining the effect of the available light. Fill light can be added using a reflector, a diffused light, fill flash setting. It is a very useful source of lighting. With many photos I assumed this is what was used by the photographer (most definitely the dog with the neon reflection). If the photographer had used flash the neon reflection would have been obscured and the dog's eye would likely have the green-eye effect. It is quite likely fill light was used to capture some detail in the dog's face besides the reflection. A black dog (or cat) is a very difficult subject to photograph effectively. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:47:56 PM · #12 |
I have found that if you put a title on your pic to explain it you get lots of nasty comments saying how it only fits the challenge because of the title and that you are really stretching itâ€Â¦blah blah blahâ€Â¦
Greg
Originally posted by mandyp:
That's why I put a huge title on mine - I figured you couldn't see the light source so people would mark it down. Someone asked for a DQ on it anyway, but I was validated.
[/url] |
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:49:28 PM · #13 |
| In the case of the leaf with all the dew drops, the drops themselves become tiny reflectors for light. I think some folks just have a more subtle eye then others. Reflection and refraction are both 'sources' of light to my way of thinking. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:54:47 PM · #14 |
(Quote: It's hard to tell is shots had used multiple sources. You can;t say if they did or did not so I just trusted that they did. Some only had only clearly, like a sunset shot of something but the majority you could not tell so how can you score them low based on an unproved suspicion?)
My submission had comments to the effect that a 'flash' was used. It is clear that I didn't do a good job of showing that multiple light sources were used (no flash was used) so next time I will have to convey the theme better so that it will be easily seen/understood. I am gaining a lot on this site and just chalk it up as a awesome learning tool. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:57:06 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
I have found that if you put a title on your pic to explain it you get lots of nasty comments saying how it only fits the challenge because of the title and that you are really stretching itâ€Â¦blah blah blahâ€Â¦
Greg |
I try not to be nasty, Greg, but I will comment when the photo does not seem to support the idea of the title. My opinion on this is that a good photo should be able to speak for itself, at least universally. Obviously, a title can help tell us what is happening in a news photo, or what kind of creature it is we are looking at, or where this gorgeous tree was discovered. But in terms of the challenges, it should be fairly evident by the photo alone whether it meets the challenge. A title can hint at something more subtle that a voter might miss, or perhaps suggest the mood or theme the photographer was aiming at. But there are some titles I've seen in the past where it really seemed the photographer, by his/her title, was asking the viewer to defy sensibility. My response to this is a polite, 'the title should not be doing the work of the photo". I don't think that is a nasty comment; just an observation. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 12:59:53 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by riley:
(Quote: It's hard to tell is shots had used multiple sources. You can;t say if they did or did not so I just trusted that they did. Some only had only clearly, like a sunset shot of something but the majority you could not tell so how can you score them low based on an unproved suspicion?)
My submission had comments to the effect that a 'flash' was used. It is clear that I didn't do a good job of showing that multiple light sources were used (no flash was used) so next time I will have to convey the theme better so that it will be easily seen/understood. I am gaining a lot on this site and just chalk it up as a awesome learning tool. |
I may have made a comment like this but it would not have been meant as a suggestion that the photo didn't meet the challenge. To my understanding, flash is a source of light :D. The guidelines didn't suggest that flash should not be one of the light sources.
Melissa
Edited after looking at riley's photo: I looked at your photo and left comments. :D
Message edited by author 2004-06-02 13:06:43. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 01:36:11 PM · #17 |
I think the point of the original post is getting lost. His point, to me a valid one, is that the challenge was to take a picture of something obviously lit by multiple light sources. Not something emitting multiple light sources. Not something vaguely lit from two sources (e.g. ambient light and fill flash). But something more akin to the photo that got the blue ribbon.
I really don't have a problem with people giving a lot of weight to the "doesn't meet the challenge" argument. It's the very thing that keeps this from being just another photo sharing website, dominated by kittens, frogs and the occasional ruddy armchair. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 01:59:02 PM · #18 |
The problem is that the voters vary wildly in experience so what is obvious to some is completely missed by others. You can either just make it completely blatant like the blue ribbon photographer in this challenge did or you can make it less obvious and just accept that you won’t get as high a score because there are people who just can’t see how your pic meets the challenge. For me the biggest benefit of these challenges is that they frequently get me to go do something that I don’t normally do. This week I broke out the macro setup and took pictures of butterflies. I played around a lot with multiple light sources and learned a few things. I got lots of photos that I was very happy with and submitted one that I thought fit the challenge well and at least some of the viewers appreciated it. I think that the challenge served its purpose for me. If you want to win ribbons and avoid comments about your picture not meeting the challenge then you should make everything very blatantly obvious. As far as I am concerned this site is about having fun and learning new things about photography. Sometimes I get comments I feel are undeserved but I try not to get upset about it since at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter and a lot of the time the comments are helpful anyway. I got some comments suggesting that my pic didn’t meet the challenge this week and they were helpful because they were telling me that I wasn’t being obvious enough. As far as voting is concerned, if you don’t feel the picture meets the challenge then deduct some points, there is nothing wrong with that. It is even better if you leave a comment saying why you didn’t think it met the challenge. Voters shouldn’t feel bad about how they vote if they are being honest with it.
Greg
Originally posted by bledford:
I think the point of the original post is getting lost. His point, to me a valid one, is that the challenge was to take a picture of something obviously lit by multiple light sources. Not something emitting multiple light sources. Not something vaguely lit from two sources (e.g. ambient light and fill flash). But something more akin to the photo that got the blue ribbon.
I really don't have a problem with people giving a lot of weight to the "doesn't meet the challenge" argument. It's the very thing that keeps this from being just another photo sharing website, dominated by kittens, frogs and the occasional ruddy armchair. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 02:04:23 PM · #19 |
If it's "hard to tell" if the photog used mls, then it's not "obvious".
Originally posted by dadas115:
I have found that if you put a title on your pic to explain it you get lots of nasty comments saying how it only fits the challenge because of the title and that you are really stretching it |
If you feel a need to "explain it" with your title that should tell you that your entry is "stretching" the theme, and you shouldn't be surprised if the voters perceive the same thing that you did.
What is particularly irksome about this challenge is that the voters rewarded many good photos that "flat out" didn't meet the challenge with high scores while many that made the effort to meet it, and did, placed behind them. Perhaps more careful selection of topics, and more careful wording of the details, could avoid repetitions.
Did the sentence in the rules about keeping the topic in mind while voting fall unnoticed by the wayside like the one about photographic integrity? |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 02:08:01 PM · #20 |
Or it could mean that you feel the audience is too dumb to figure it out.
Greg
Originally posted by coolhar:
If it's "hard to tell" if the photog used mls, then it's not "obvious".
Originally posted by dadas115:
I have found that if you put a title on your pic to explain it you get lots of nasty comments saying how it only fits the challenge because of the title and that you are really stretching it |
If you feel a need to "explain it" with your title that should tell you that your entry is "stretching" the theme, and you shouldn't be surprised if the voters perceive the same thing that you did.
What is particularly irksome about this challenge is that the voters rewarded many good photos that "flat out" didn't meet the challenge with high scores while many that made the effort to meet it, and did, placed behind them. Perhaps more careful selection of topics, and more careful wording of the details, could avoid repetitions.
Did the sentence in the rules about keeping the topic in mind while voting fall unnoticed by the wayside like the one about photographic integrity? |
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 02:08:05 PM · #21 |
"Make the obvious use of multiple light sources a key factor in your composition this week."
If I couldn't tell there were multiple light sources and it wasn't key to the shot, you got a low score from me. Obvious... Key factor... I don't see how it got so mis-interpreted??? Simply read the challenge description.
I was dissapointed in my score. Mine was obvious and a key factor. I got a lot great comments, yet the score was lower then I expected. I'm not sure if people voted it down because they didn't get the title, didn't see mutiple lights, or just didn't like it. I wish the low voters would comment... I got 17 very positive comments, which seems really high for a shot that only scored 5.4 |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 02:22:31 PM · #22 |
Your picture certainly did obviously meet the challenge. I thought the title was very clever but maybe the subject could have been more interesting. As far as the mass voting is concerned, it doesn’t have any bold and bright colors nor it doesn’t have any terribly interesting shapes or textures (though it does make use of shape and texture) and I think those things are what hurt you. I personally think it is a good shot.
Greg
Originally posted by louddog:
"Make the obvious use of multiple light sources a key factor in your composition this week."
If I couldn't tell there were multiple light sources and it wasn't key to the shot, you got a low score from me. Obvious... Key factor... I don't see how it got so mis-interpreted??? Simply read the challenge description.
I was dissapointed in my score. Mine was obvious and a key factor. I got a lot great comments, yet the score was lower then I expected. I'm not sure if people voted it down because they didn't get the title, didn't see mutiple lights, or just didn't like it. I wish the low voters would comment... I got 17 very positive comments, which seems really high for a shot that only scored 5.4 |
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 04:19:06 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
In the case of the leaf with all the dew drops, the drops themselves become tiny reflectors for light. I think some folks just have a more subtle eye then others. Reflection and refraction are both 'sources' of light to my way of thinking. |
Yes! Thank you for noticing. I knew when I submitted this shot that a number of people would not make the creative connection between the "stars" and light sources and expected to score lower than I actually did. I was pleasantly surprised.
From the wording of the challenge, I think either using multiple sources to light your subject OR using multiple sources as your subject works. Either way, my shot requires some stretches of the imagination. The only true source of light for my shot is the sun. The water drops appear as stars. I also used a reflector to the left of the shot to throw some more light onto leaf, though it isn't enough to qualify as "obvious" in my opinion. So... in my mind I have met the challenge requirements. Apparently enough other people agree and thus the decent score. BradP- I see your point of view, but respectfully disagree. Thanks for leaving a comment to at least explain your point of view.
Message edited by author 2004-06-02 16:27:34. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 04:35:07 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
The problem is that the voters vary wildly in experience so what is obvious to some is completely missed by others. You can either just make it completely blatant like the blue ribbon photographer in this challenge did or you can make it less obvious and just accept that you won’t get as high a score because there are people who just can’t see how your pic meets the challenge. |
dadas- I think you got robbed on your score. That was one of my top picks for this challenge. I guess the lighting must have been a little too subtle. As I mentioned in my comment, I couldn't tell for sure that there were multiple sources, but I could see that there very probably could be so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I'm a big fan of subtlety! :) Sadly, that always seems to hurt my scores. Maybe we should have a "subtle" challenge. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 04:59:39 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
As far as I am concerned this site is about having fun and learning new things about photography. |
Indeed. For me, the technical aspects of photography are not nearly as difficult as the creative aspects. Therefore, I love the "challenge" aspect of the site and seeing how different minds approached the same task. To me, this has less to do with learning new things about photography but more to do with learning about imagery, creative thinking, and artistic (and unartistic [i.e. stock photography]) method.
Message edited by author 2004-06-02 17:01:00. |
|
