| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2004 01:20:12 PM · #1 |
I went from my best score to my worst in 1 weeks time. High/Low, this is exciting stuff. Anyway, my entry got hammered with 21 1's, 25 2's, and 39 3's. Obviously, voters either didn't like the photo or didn't think it met the challenge. I didn't get much feedback so I'm not sure which to blame, maybe both. I'm a glutton for punishment so I'd like to know.
I used 3 light sources to get the "product" or "studio" look that I was going for. I pulled that off pretty well but the light sources aren't exactly "obvious" which might have hurt.
My other suspicion is that the subject was a model, almost toyish in appearance. Perhaps this put off some voters.
I'd like to get some opinions so I can avoid making a similar mistake in the future. Thank you all. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 01:23:16 PM · #2 |
| not having obvious sources of light hurt alot of people in that challenge, including me. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 01:36:03 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by longlivenyhc:
not having obvious sources of light hurt alot of people in that challenge, including me. |
I think nyhc is right.. you did a good job using multiple light sources to illumionate your subject, unfortunately, they're not a "key" factor in the composition of the photo. I think this challenge was less about subject matter and more about light.
Chalk this one up to conflicting interpretation of the challenge criteria and keep taking good photos.
As always, IMHO.
BTW, saw your Habits photo on Dreamstime... nice job. I really liked that one :-)
Message edited by author 2004-06-02 13:36:58. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 01:51:56 PM · #4 |
| I, too, would have voted this down for not really meeting the challenge. However, I would have been forced to give it a 6 simply because it is such a fine example of a studio lighted model. Truly, you could throw any variety of object in that lighting situation you've created and have a marketable stock image. Also, a still life shot with your light tent using colored gels would look fantastic. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 01:55:39 PM · #5 |
| It's well taken, but... the subject is simply a toy and not all that interesting or artistic. Also, the fact that multiple light sources is not obvious hurt you. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 02:02:32 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by lbWhaples:
I think nyhc is right.. you did a good job using multiple light sources to illumionate your subject, unfortunately, they're not a "key" factor in the composition of the photo. I think this challenge was less about subject matter and more about light. |
Well said.
Thanks for the compliment. I'm still trying to figure out if Dreamstime is worth the effort. I don't have a portfolio so I'd be creating it from scratch. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 02:09:57 PM · #7 |
| i think its a nice picture but not that interesting photographically. i gave you a 6, but i tend to rate technique and "meets challenge" (which you did) most highly but lack of *wow* does influence the score. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 05:53:30 PM · #8 |
| I think you took the lighting to an extreme. Your comments say you created a white background but I could just as easily say that you blew out (overexposed) the background so much that you really don't have a background at all; and in so doing obscured your three light sources when the challenge wanted them to be "obvious". The model looks very smooth, almost unreal, as if it were a computer generated image rather than a photo, or as if you over did it with Neat Image. It's a very good shot for a model catalog but for this challenge I think you would have done better with some shadows to emphasize the light sources and some texture in the background. Also, I'd bet money some of those 1s, 2s, & 3s came from people who were turned off by the Intimidator. He was pretty controversial, people either loved him or hated him. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 06:01:39 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by longlivenyhc:
not having obvious sources of light hurt alot of people in that challenge, including me. |
that's bc people are whack, anal and looking for any reason to vote peeps low. I think, folks should have trusted that there were multiple lights sources ergardless of whether it was obvious bc that's what the challenge called for. There were a few that were crazy obvious but the rest were not.
If you wanna win here, you gotta go for broke when it comes to obvious things. Your shots have to OBVIOUSLY fit the challenge. Leave no room for interpretation, if you do, well... your score will suffer. Gotta be creative but not too creative that your message is something anyone has to think about. Remember, folks mostly look at any given shot just a few nano seconds to get your message/focal point/whatever to be sharp and super easy to understand/get.
If your shot easily appeals to the masses/populace, well you got a winner!
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 06:31:56 PM · #10 |
| I left a comment on your photo. I think you probably got hurt for two reasons; a) people apparently really needed to be slapped in the face with the multiple light sources; b) the subject has limited appeal. |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 06:32:00 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by louddog:
It's well taken, but... the subject is simply a toy and not all that interesting or artistic. Also, the fact that multiple light sources is not obvious hurt you. |
Louddog summarizes the DPC view of your image succinctly. His points are well taken. There have been many model cars in challenges and they rarely ever do well.
Some of my personal favorite images that I've done well and submitted to challenges have scored very poorly. Same thing has happened to you. It will happen again, I can assue you. Don't take it personally.
Yours is a very good picture. I thought you did a masterful job with lighting. It obviously was too good for most people to recognize. I gave you a 6, but it might even rate a 7 in the "real" world.
Message edited by author 2004-06-02 18:33:18.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 09:32:05 PM · #12 |
| Thanks to all of you for your comments and opinions. I appreciate all of them and now have a very good idea why this pic just didn't fair well in this challenge. Thanks again. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:58:43 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by louddog:
It's well taken, but... the subject is simply a toy and not all that interesting or artistic. |
I agree, if you were making a catalog shot of this toy car, then you've got it. But, as a photograph, standing on it's own artistic merit, it's not really very interesting.
To me, the multiple sources are obvious.
I think you did a very good job with the lighting BTW.
|
|
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 11:03:57 AM EDT.
