| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2005 01:46:19 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
As long as we're in the business of asking "why", I'd be interested in opinions as to why my entry placed so low (84th, with a 5.8ish score) when I honestly expected a score easily above 6.0, based on my past experiences in here. |
bear, I didn't vote on this entry, but in looking at it, it has a chaotic mixture of textures, none of which are prevalent enough to "make" the shot. That, and the overall subject lacking interest as someone said, would be factors.
All that said, top 14% of a 611 entry challenge - - damn good in my book!
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 01:46:50 AM · #27 |
Carter,
I saw your comment regarding the lighting and it confuses me; on my (calibrated) monitor there's a complete range of tonalities falling short of any sense of blown highlights whatsoever. In all the bright areas there's full detail... Otherwise I understand the points you're making.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 01:50:16 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
All that said, top 14% of a 611 entry challenge - - damn good in my book! |
Yeah. it's an ok finish, I realize that. I just thought it was a fair amount better than 5.8, is all. I have a LOT of finishes in that range that IMO are nowhere near the image this one is.
Thanks, all, for the feedback. Off to bed with me now.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 01:51:47 AM · #29 |
Help!!! Why why why was this one buried in the mid-obscurity? Too many leaves? please tell me any and all of my faults, I need to get better!!!
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 01:53:26 AM · #30 |
My entry - Some 8 or 9 people said it was out of focus. They must all be wrong. ;-) There was some motion blur from long shutter, low light, but I sharpened it up a bit and thought it looke more unique that the outtakes below I was thinking about submitting...
Entered:
Outtakes:
 - 
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 01:55:56 AM · #31 |
Robt:
Over on the far right and right corner are the areas I was referring to. My monitor has been calibrated as well, but those parts of the mushroom just don't portray the same amount of texture as the other parts do, and I think/thought it was due to the light color of the mushroom itself and the way the light was playing on it (as it doesn't have the same darker veins or shadows). Yes, I can make out a little texture and detail, but it doesn't afford the same level that seems consistent throughout the other areas of the image. It's a relatively minor point honestly - and knowing who the photographer is now (as someone on this site I hold in quite high regard) - I'm starting to second-guess myself. :-) I'll recalibrate my monitor.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 01:56:52 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
As long as we're in the business of asking "why", I'd be interested in opinions as to why my entry placed so low (84th, with a 5.8ish score) when I honestly expected a score easily above 6.0, based on my past experiences in here.
... Is it just that people think mushrooms are yucky?
Robt. |
I think that's part of it, and the black background gives it a feeling of darkness and low-contrast which belies the full tonal range. from this, I'm guessing a histogram might show significant peaks at the extremes and a marked dip in the mid-tones.
I just wonder how the votes would go with a much lighter BG. Of course, even so, I'd have expected it to finish above 6 as well. |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:00:14 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Help!!! Why why why was this one buried in the mid-obscurity? Too many leaves? please tell me any and all of my faults, I need to get better!!! |
The image is, first of all, not NEARLY as textural as you'd want it to be for this topic. It's luminous, but it doesn't really say "texture" to me. Compositionally, it's divided vertically into an in-focus and an our-of-focus section more or less precisely on the vertical bisector of the image; that's a very static composition. Fully half your image is out of focus, but it's unfortunately rendering the same VALUE as the in-focus part (the leaves are lit the same), so it looks vaguely like sloppy work.
Try making a selection of the in-focus leaf, invert the selection, and use levels to tone down everything but that leaf; I bet you'll find that a distinct improvement. I realize that wouldn't have been legal in this challenge, btw, but try it and watch what happens.
Finally, the way the left arc of the subject leaf is truncated by the left edge of the image doesn't feel right to me, especially inasmuch as there's (as I mentioned) fully half the image out of focus on the right, an area that could easily have been eliminated to osme degree by panning the camera left on the subject leaf, so the ratio was more like 2/3, 1/3.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:00:50 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Help!!! Why why why was this one buried in the mid-obscurity? Too many leaves? please tell me any and all of my faults, I need to get better!!! |
Laura - Obviously I'm not a worthy critic as my shots suffer the mid 5's often enough. But I think the shot suffers from the same malody that Bear's did, lack of interest. It does not have anything to hold my attention and seems a bit cluttered in the background. The texture is there but does not jump out at you. Anyway, one guys opinion. Keep shooting! |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:00:59 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
My entry - Some 8 or 9 people said it was out of focus. They must all be wrong. ;-) |
Kinda the same with mine ... I think the part in the focal plane (spikes against the sky) is sharp enough, I just seem to have ended up with a rather shallow DOF.
 |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:03:29 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Robt:
Over on the far right and right corner are the areas I was referring to. My monitor has been calibrated as well, but those parts of the mushroom just don't portray the same amount of texture as the other parts do, and I think/thought it was due to the light color of the mushroom itself and the way the light was playing on it (as it doesn't have the same darker veins or shadows). Yes, I can make out a little texture and detail, but it doesn't afford the same level that seems consistent throughout the other areas of the image. It's a relatively minor point honestly - and knowing who the photographer is now (as someone on this site I hold in quite high regard) - I'm starting to second-guess myself. :-) I'll recalibrate my monitor. |
Well, that's where the light was COMING from and that's one of the areas I had to be sure was controlled. Certainly, to my eye it does not look "too bright"; it's flatter there, due to the particular complexities of the shapes being rendered, but that's not the only flattish area... I donno.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:07:25 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
My entry - Some 8 or 9 people said it was out of focus. They must all be wrong. ;-) There was some motion blur from long shutter, low light, but I sharpened it up a bit and thought it looke more unique that the outtakes below I was thinking about submitting...
Entered:
|
I loved this shot and rated it in my top 20. It is not tack sharp but it is not out of focus. Who knows? My votes and entries seem to be out of the mainstream lately. But these type threads are helping me get it right! I hope. |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:10:11 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by kpriest:
All that said, top 14% of a 611 entry challenge - - damn good in my book! |
Yeah. it's an ok finish, I realize that. I just thought it was a fair amount better than 5.8, is all. I have a LOT of finishes in that range that IMO are nowhere near the image this one is.
Thanks, all, for the feedback. Off to bed with me now.
R. |
To me, the placement within a challenge is a lot more telling than the numbered score since the voting dynamics vary greatly from challenge to challenge. Take Langdon's Blue Ribbon shot with an 8.6! Out of 20 entries. No offense to Langdon, but that score would never hold up in recent challenges.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:13:44 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
My entry - Some 8 or 9 people said it was out of focus. They must all be wrong. ;-) There was some motion blur from long shutter, low light, but I sharpened it up a bit and thought it looke more unique that the outtakes below I was thinking about submitting...
Entered:
|
Your plane of sharpness in this image is where the digits meet the paw; the "first knuckles". Your DOF is not very great. Consequently, the claws are noticeably less sharp than this indeterminate, almost-hidden plane back there in the middle-ground. Had the focus been on the claws, this owul d have scored at least half a point better I suspect, enough to bring it up the 5.8 range. I liked it.
If you used center-point autofocus, that's your culprit; the sharpest point is damned near smack in the middle of the frame. Next time frame the claws in the center, depress shutter halfway to seek and lock focus, then while holding the button down reframe and shoot. Or did you already know this? The 20D allows me to select from 9 focus points, another way to deal with the issue; I'm not sure if the 300D does this as well.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:14:08 AM · #40 |
Robert - I didn't run across your image during the challenge, but here goes: I think the subject is certainly interesting, but it seems slightly soft on my monitor
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:15:43 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
Robert - I didn't run across your image during the challenge, but here goes: I think the subject is certainly interesting, but it seems slightly soft on my monitor |
Yeah, it IS soft; mushrooms are soft. The light's a glowing sort of light. You think "soft" is the problem? hmm....
R.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:17:30 AM · #42 |
I'm not sure, but the first thing I thought of (though they're certainly different images) is e301's Mushroom that won the textures - a very sharp image.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:17:43 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by brianlh:
Robert - I didn't run across your image during the challenge, but here goes: I think the subject is certainly interesting, but it seems slightly soft on my monitor |
Yeah, it IS soft; mushrooms are soft. The light's a glowing sort of light. You think "soft" is the problem? hmm....
R. |
For textures, it apparently is.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:19:33 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by brianlh:
Robert - I didn't run across your image during the challenge, but here goes: I think the subject is certainly interesting, but it seems slightly soft on my monitor |
Yeah, it IS soft; mushrooms are soft. The light's a glowing sort of light. You think "soft" is the problem? hmm....
R. |
I don't think the reason is technical, at all. It's technically a very sound image. I figure people just didn't find it attractive, and I doubt many voters are voting on technicality alone. Subjective attraction is very likely a big factor in most people's scoring criteria. |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:21:30 AM · #45 |
Got 33rd place, far better than I expected. Now my second highest-rated photo.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:21:39 AM · #46 |
Siugh... and me a charter member of the "shoot ugly and make it lovely" school of photo-realism LOL. I am doomed I tell ya, doomed...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:23:25 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Siugh... and me a charter member of the "shoot ugly and make it lovely" school of photo-realism LOL. I am doomed I tell ya, doomed...
Robt. |
LOL and I thought you were going to bed! Lucky for me I caught you for a critique ;0) |
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:27:29 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Got 33rd place, far better than I expected. Now my second highest-rated photo. |
Laura (oOWonderBreadOo) - Do you see the differences between your entry and this one? This is the stuff Robt. was talking about I believe.
-
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:28:41 AM · #49 |
People thought I was lying! And setting up the shot! I had been looking forward to shooting for this challenge as I love the warm light of the "hour before sunset" Took some wild oats and a nice looking textured material up on the roof of my house, there's some gravel there as well to keep down insulation and that even looked nice to me. Then I got thirsty and went down to get a drink, coming back Cleo had all but ruined the setup and really pulled the material so that I couldn't use it anymore...here are some outtakes though, should I have entered those rather than my naughty kitty?
Favorite colors and favorite light
Here's the destructive feline Cleo, being really cute, I thought :)
|
|
|
|
07/27/2005 02:42:49 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by kpriest:
My entry - Some 8 or 9 people said it was out of focus. They must all be wrong. ;-) There was some motion blur from long shutter, low light, but I sharpened it up a bit and thought it looke more unique that the outtakes below I was thinking about submitting...
Entered:
|
Your plane of sharpness in this image is where the digits meet the paw; the "first knuckles". Your DOF is not very great. Consequently, the claws are noticeably less sharp than this indeterminate, almost-hidden plane back there in the middle-ground. Had the focus been on the claws, this owul d have scored at least half a point better I suspect, enough to bring it up the 5.8 range. I liked it.
If you used center-point autofocus, that's your culprit; the sharpest point is damned near smack in the middle of the frame. Next time frame the claws in the center, depress shutter halfway to seek and lock focus, then while holding the button down reframe and shoot. Or did you already know this? The 20D allows me to select from 9 focus points, another way to deal with the issue; I'm not sure if the 300D does this as well.
Robt. |
As usual - great and constructive feedback. I probably did use the center spot focus and I did not use a very large aperture because of low light, hand-held with caffeine shakes. ;-) Will work on improvements. THanks bear.
|
|
