| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/22/2006 02:16:26 PM · #1 |
I don't want to get flamed here, but I am very very interested in knowing why this image scored as high as it did..
As for my POV, it is way over-sharpened--to the point where it has lost all detail quality.
The chest area and the nose area is completely blurred out.
The background quality is extremely bad--so much so that the image looks "cut out"
I just don't understand how this image scored so well. I have NOTHING against the photographer, I looked at his other images and he has some outstanding work. I'm just miffed on this one.
Message edited by author 2006-11-22 14:18:11. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:22:46 PM · #2 |
it had spots?!?!
;0)
smile, life could be worse!! |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:27:57 PM · #3 |
Well I liked it, I gave it an 8. Hmm come to think of it, yours too. Seems a little brutal to call out someone's shot when they haven't asked for it.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:29:07 PM · #4 |
I've had similar issues with my own photography, to distance it from picking on a particular entry. I used to do this sort of thing. I wasn't even consciously aware of it. I just couldn't see the problem, because I didn't know it existed.
Much like musicians have to develop an ear I think photographers develop an eye for technical issues, that someone without any training just isn't aware of at all. They can't see it, because they don't know it is there to even look for.
As you learn more about photography, you become sensitised to particular things - over sharpening, the hideous things that neat image does to faces, etc. Again there, I just don't think people can see what a mess they make with over smoothing. Until you learn to see it, you can't see it.
I look back at my early photographs that have horrible halos, nasty sharpening etc that I though at the time looked great. It wasn't that I didn't know how to do it subtly or I was technically lacking - I was visually lacking - I couldn't see it.
It makes me wonder what I'm completely oblivious about in my current photographs that more experienced photographers look at them and wince about, just now. No doubt I'll learn enough to see it in a couple of years - and so it goes on.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:29:34 PM · #5 |
It's one of the first thing I think of when I saw the challenge topic "Spots". Closer cropped. Less contrived.
Didn't vote but probably would've given a "6".
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:29:46 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:33:24 PM · #7 |
| That is a little suprising that it scored so well.. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:42:19 PM · #8 |
Well, it has spots in it, anyone can see that.
Human nature is to glance quickly at it and than go to the eyes. Eyes look good, finished looking, looks cool, high vote, next image.
Only when you look at it longer you see all the other stuff/flaws.
So basically Alfresco did a good job with the material he had. :)
(it is not your monitor, it is just the way people use their eyes, maybe you can use it to your advance next time)
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:43:41 PM · #9 |
Interesting PG comments on that one btw. :)
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 04:03:11 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Well, it has spots in it, anyone can see that.
Human nature is to glance quickly at it and than go to the eyes. Eyes look good, finished looking, looks cool, high vote, next image.
Only when you look at it longer you see all the other stuff/flaws.
So basically Alfresco did a good job with the material he had. :)
(it is not your monitor, it is just the way people use their eyes, maybe you can use it to your advance next time) |
Yeah. What he said. I gave it a 6, although looking much closer I now see the issues you raised. Probably still would've given it a 6, since I probably noticed it subconsciously, which is why I didn't vote it higher. It's not only about the technicals.
Kevin, the next time you consider starting a thread like this, can I suggest that you type it all up, then step away for an hour or two before sending it?
If you come back and still think it's a good idea to slam another person's photo in public, I suggest another hour or two.
Now, if you're baffled by a score your own shot earned, feel free to ask about it.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 04:10:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
sour grapes. |
Well I apparently offended someone (or lots of someones) with my first post which was deleted. I didn't really mean to offend but Spazmo99 has said what i feel in a much less mean way.
edited to add: Jefferey has some good advice.
Message edited by author 2006-11-22 16:11:48. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 04:19:49 PM · #12 |
I gave that one a 7 and commented that it looked oversharpened. It still was a pretty decently shot image and better than a vast majority of what was submitted.
I didn't agree with most of the voting in this challenge though. I just wasn't on the same path as everyone. There was one in the top 10 that I had given a 4 and a couple I had given 5's to.
It absolutely blows me away that my top pick didn't get a blue. To me nothing compared.
Sometimes we all agree.. most of the time we don't. =)
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 04:21:55 PM · #13 |
this doesn't seem like a sour grapes thread, all his points are valid. All the processing steps he pointed out are there and this image did score surprisingly high. He wasn't attacking anyone, he was attacking for lack of a better word the photo. there ins't anything wrong with that. You can be respectful of someone while trashing their work. Im sure at some point someone told Ansel Adams that they were surprised a certain image sold as well as it did.
I love when someone trashes my work that I thought was good. It stings for a second, but in the end I usually learn something new. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 04:23:31 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by KevinG:
I just don't understand how this image scored so well. I have NOTHING against the photographer, I looked at his other images and he has some outstanding work. I'm just miffed on this one. |
I don't understand a lot of scores given to many other pictures. But I look at it a little more and try to see what people see in them. I even read through comments left to the person.Ya know I find lots of info that people do and don't see. You said something to the effect of not wanting to get criticized for asking....stop and think if the photographer who took this picture wanted to get criticized.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 04:29:56 PM · #15 |
just because an image is way over processed doesn't mean it won't score well.
I give you jrjr's Singe Tree entry
Came in 2nd. I started a thread on this image. jrjr seemed to like the attention. ;-)
What I can't tell you is when an overprocessed image will do well and when it will get trashed.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 04:37:21 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by KevinG:
I don't want to get flamed here |
Hahahaha hohohohoho heheheheheh
Originally posted by KevinG:
but I am very very interested in knowing why this image scored as high as it did |
Oversharpened, poorly processed, unimaginative photo - but with a connection to the challenge so strikingly obvious that it only requires two functioning neurons for a voter to see it, wipe drool from chin, and click a number on the right side of the scale.
I don't see anything wrong with posting questions and honest criticism about photos on a supposed photography site that offers public forums for the purpose of communicating with the community. What difference does it make if someone leaves you a "what a complete piece of shit" comment beneath your photo (where it will remain for all eternity) or someone posts the same photo in a forum and says the same thing about it there? At least in the forum such criticism falls off the collective radar faster.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 04:41:13 PM · #17 |
This sort of thing is quite common. I've seen ribbon winners that were infested with halos to the point where it has alias edges to them in addition to the outlines it creates. I've also seen over saturated images that have gradient "breakups" yet it doesn't matter to the voter if there are other things going for it. It's one thing to accept poor quality when it can't be helped but it's another when it's a setup shot and yet even those get a pass most of the time if say the lighting was really good.
Basically, it pays to over do it in the challenges.
Message edited by author 2006-11-22 16:43:19.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 06:29:36 PM · #18 |
My opinion:
The image has massive thumbnail-appeal, decent composition, and exotically meets the challenge. A quick scan during voting (since images only get a quick scan) will be enough to give it a 5+ mark. During post vote mark-up the thumb appeal should have increased sales --- all imo.
Did I overdo the PP? Yes (after I saw it on a lower-res monitor the next day (first day of voting) I emailed my fellow DoF Llamas to apologize). Damn my high-res monitor!
If you were to view the image on a higher-res monitor the oversharpening isn't as apparent (and why the thumb looks good).
FWIW - I don't mind Kevin asking the question about (aboot for our Canadian friends) the image, we are here to learn.
Oh, if anyone wants to see that particular cat he lives in Vegas at The Mirage in the Sigfried and Roy Petting Zoo and Exotic Game Diner (otherwise known as the Secret Garden and Dolphin Habitat).
Peace, my friends :) |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 06:35:41 PM · #19 |
It does look good as a thumb :-)
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 06:37:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Oh, if anyone wants to see that particular cat he lives in Vegas at The Mirage in the Sigfried and Roy Petting Zoo and Exotic Game Diner (otherwise known as the Secret Garden and Dolphin Habitat).
Peace, my friends :) |
Ok wheres the picture of you petting the big-kitty? :) |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 06:38:30 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Did I overdo the PP? Yes (after I saw it on a lower-res monitor the next day (first day of voting) I emailed my fellow DoF Llamas to apologize). Damn my high-res monitor!
If you were to view the image on a higher-res monitor the oversharpening isn't as apparent (and why the thumb looks good).
|
I agree with you on this. I first saw this thread on my home machine and thought- a little oversharpened, but not bad.
Then when I brought it up at work it was really obvious.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 06:39:00 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Damn my high-res monitor! |
Curious, just exactly how "high-res" is that monitor? |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 06:43:05 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Damn my high-res monitor! |
Curious, just exactly how "high-res" is that monitor? |
I want to know also. I have a pretty high res monitor myself. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 06:55:46 PM · #24 |
Ah, now I get it. I couldn't figure out why it would look better at high res. Now I see - the image appears smaller the more pixels are on the screen.
At smaller sizes, the flaws really aren't easy to see.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2006 08:45:43 PM · #25 |
I'm glad you took the time to respond alfresco. Like I said, I just wanted to hear from the voters on the image and the thread was in no way an attack on you as a photographer. I viewed a lot of your work before I made my thread and you have some amazing images.
Regards. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 02:11:27 AM EDT.
