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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Score 4.5-5.99 and need a critique?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/22/2007 12:12:33 PM · #1
In honor of the fact I finally have an image scoring in the 6 range for a pleasant change I will take on the first 10 images posted here for critique. :)

As always, I just give my personal opinion and that isn't always correct but I expect that you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff in order to improve your own photography.

Most important advice... have fun!
03/22/2007 12:21:28 PM · #2
I don't know if I'm doing this right to post a picture, new to this site...531744798NzNoqu_th.jpg
03/22/2007 12:25:17 PM · #3
483741.jpg

Feedback much appreciated. :)
03/22/2007 12:30:09 PM · #4
Originally posted by kellyrc01:

I don't know if I'm doing this right to post a picture, new to this site...531744798NzNoqu_th.jpg

Ya done right... I will critique. :)
03/22/2007 12:31:40 PM · #5
479251.jpg thanks in advance!
03/22/2007 12:32:43 PM · #6
That's very kind of you. Thanks.

482268.jpg

Álex.
03/22/2007 12:35:05 PM · #7
Originally posted by kellyrc01:

I don't know if I'm doing this right to post a picture, new to this site...531744798NzNoqu_th.jpg

OK... maybe I spoke to soon. ;)

Nice thumbnail, but I'd like to see the whole image. Can you link me to that, please?
03/22/2007 12:40:28 PM · #8
Not sure how to do that, I have the link to a website I have uploaded it on: //travel.webshots.com/photo/1531744798083616487NzNoqu?vhost=travel How do you post the picture on here without it being a thumbnail?
03/22/2007 12:42:55 PM · #9
Would love one on this one!

482331.jpg

Thanks.
03/22/2007 12:53:47 PM · #10
Originally posted by krnodil:

483741.jpg

First off... welcome to DPC. I'm not on the welcome wagon committee so if I say something to offend your sensibilities I apologize in advance. :)

Positives:
Crispness of the image and framing are very good. Contrast is excellent. BW is a great choice for this subject.

Technicals:
All the above applies. Your use of the rule of thirds is good. Your image is soft focused in the bottom and right side of the image and that probably hurt it in voting. Focus, or the lack thereof in the bottom and bottom left, is its greatest technical flaw. Shooting at f/2.8 contributed to this.

The challenge:
This affected your score more than anything else. This is entered in the grain challenge but there is really very little grain visible. You got trashed in voting for that. That is not to say this is as bad an image as the score would indicate, it is not, just not a good choice for the particular challenge.

Suggestions:
This image screams to be sharply focused over the entire image. I suspect the way you held your camera is what caused the out of focus issue in the first place. Reshoot and concentrate on focus and depth of field that will insure the whole image is in focus.

None of this will help you for the challenge. The image did poorly scoring wise because it did not meet the challenge. For that I would recommend reviewing forum discussions and the Internet to find out how to put grain into a digital camera image and then experiment with that.
03/22/2007 12:59:21 PM · #11
Great, thank you.

I wasn't happy about the out of focus area at the bottom, either. :)

What I attempted to do (not actually knowing at the time that I could *add* noise in Photoshop), was to make an image with as much natural noise as possible and then trying to boost the effect by playing with contrast and sharpening. I guess in some small part I equated "grain" with "contrasty". I did have some plugin filters that would have given a grain effect, but I figured (correctly?) that the basic editing rules didn't allow it.

Very insightful, thanks.
03/22/2007 12:59:38 PM · #12
Ok, I think I got it to work, thanks in advance! image.php?IMAGE_ID=487054

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 13:01:31.
03/22/2007 01:04:03 PM · #13
Originally posted by kellyrc01:

Ok, I think I got it to work, thanks in advance! image.php?IMAGE_ID=487054


487054.jpg fixed link

edit to say ... congrats on the membership and welcome to the madness!

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 13:04:47.
03/22/2007 01:06:39 PM · #14
Here's my below 6er

457036.jpg
03/22/2007 01:08:08 PM · #15
Thanks pamelasure, I'll get the hang of it eventually :)
03/22/2007 01:11:42 PM · #16
Originally posted by pamelasue:

479251.jpg

Positives:
BW is always a good choice for subjects like yours. The setting is very interesting to the casual observer and makes them wonder what this image is all about. Including the overexposed glaring overhead light contributes to the overall'interrogation' feeling of the image.

Technicals:
I am looking using a monitor that brings out sharpness detail. On it this image is oversharpened. It is close but goes over the top. There is kind of a digital 'jaggies' look to the top of the far wall and white haloing around a lot of the objects in the image. You committed the same oversharpening sins I do on a regular basis with my own images.

Camera settings did not play a large roll in the overall effect of this image.

The challenge:
This was a very good choice for the challenge but the technical defects held down its score even though it scored above average by DPC standards. It would have done better if the technicals would have been better.

Suggestions:
Like me, in my own you need to concentrate on the technicals. You don't want any digitalization in your images regardless of content. Tjose are always major distractions. If the technicals, sharpening in particular, in this image were better it would have scored a lot higher.
03/22/2007 01:27:16 PM · #17
Originally posted by krnodil:

Great, thank you.

I wasn't happy about the out of focus area at the bottom, either. :)

What I attempted to do (not actually knowing at the time that I could *add* noise in Photoshop), was to make an image with as much natural noise as possible and then trying to boost the effect by playing with contrast and sharpening. ...

I understand your choices. It took a while (and I think DrAchoo might have pushed the issue) but the idea of adding noise and/or grain to in 'basic' rules was clarified.

I was surprised by the SC decision to allow ADDING of grain and noise. Normally, in a basic challenge, I'd have thought adding grain would be like adding a previously non-existent effect to an image so would be disallowed.

No big deal, but remember that in the future for 'basic' rules challenges.
03/22/2007 01:38:33 PM · #18
Thanks again. In it mostly to learn and I don't sweat the scores too much (so I say, being this is only the first time I sweat it out!); having said that, I am at least relieved that a) I didn't completely bomb with mostly 1s and 2s, and b) my own voting assessment of the image seemed to jibe with the majority of the voters on the image. I know I'm on the right track if I can fairly accurately assess my own weaknesses...:O
03/22/2007 01:49:28 PM · #19
Originally posted by kellyrc01:

Not sure how to do that, I have the link to a website I have uploaded it on: //travel.webshots.com/photo/1531744798083616487NzNoqu?vhost=travel How do you post the picture on here without it being a thumbnail?

OK... I can see this image with this link.

Positives:
What is most likable about this image is the seated person on the right side on the bench and the runners and walkers on the trail to the left. There is something about that juxtaposition of those two things that commands attention.

Technicals:
This is another example where technicals slightly overshadow the image content. Though not done badly so, the contrast for this image is slightly 'weak'. It might benefit if the contrast were stronger.

The challenge:
Since this image was not entered in a DPC challenge it is imposible to say how it would have performed.

Suggestions:
Try increasing contrast in this image to see how you like it. Seems weak to me, but what do I know. LOL!
03/22/2007 01:55:37 PM · #20
473939.jpg Am I too late?
03/22/2007 02:08:39 PM · #21
Originally posted by joekent:

482331.jpg

Positives:
Perspective and outdoor timing (early sunset) are the strengths of this composition. Overall impact, though not strong, is good.

Technicals:
Not bad, but not strong either. The sunset itself doesn't have a strong impact on the overall composition itself and would have made a difference in overall scoring if it had. Because of that the backlighting had more negative impact on scoring than it otherwise would have had.

The challenge:
It has an unmistakable connection to the challenge topic but during voting it is impossible for the viewer to know it is one of the few steam powered clocks there are, so you should have no expectations in that regard.

Suggestions:
Under advanced editing you could brighten and highlight the front of the boat by adding a greyscale layer and adding highlighting with a 'vivid light' brush.

03/22/2007 02:45:45 PM · #22
Originally posted by Dseale:

Here\'s my below 6er

457036.jpg

Understood about the below 6...

Here is my soap box on scoring... If I vote like everyone else then I should not be surprised how they vote on my images. I've changed how I do things and currently more than 90% of voters give my images a lower score than I give theirs.

Positives:
Color and DOF are the things most likable about this image.

Technicals:
I am looking at this image on a monitor that shows defects in sharpening moreso that the other one I use. With it the image is slightly oversharpened in a way that is hard to describe, but one that I identify with closely with my own images. Contrast is just a bit to much and gives it an oversharpened look. DOF and other technical aspects are fine.

The challenge:
This is a free study so I would expect technicals to take presidence in overall scoring of your image. You need to Judge for yourself. You got a 5.85 and I scored yours a 7. I'd normally score even higher than that over DPC voters so they obviously saw things in it they did not like that I overlooked.

Suggestions:
Two suggestions... One, back off on the overall sharpening a bit and; two, recompose to put the shell off centered more than it already is, possibly aligned with the rightmost rule of thirds line or close to it.
03/22/2007 03:10:24 PM · #23
Originally posted by Greetmir:

473939.jpg Am I too late?

No... Not at all... mostly fewer than expected take me up on my offer, probably because I don't give very good advice. :)

Positives:
In terms of the challenge there is a lot to like about this image. Using vignetting for effect is good and the connection between topic and challenge is good.

Technicals:
Generally good, but not exceptional.

The Challenge:
Meets the challenge unmistakably, but is that all there is to good photography? Clearly not. Technicals played a roll in its low score.

I know some people might say it is an average score and you should be happy with it. I wouldn't be and do not think it is 'average' so don't think you should think it is either. Just learn, what DrAchoo so fondly refers to as 'the game' at DPC, play it and you will score higher.

Suggestions:
Overall it is generally good but working on sharpening and working to reduce noise reduction would help. Reduce those two things and it would score higher.
03/22/2007 03:18:37 PM · #24
Ooops, I understand you dislike mine posted earlier so much that preffer not to comment it, LOL.

Álex.

Originally posted by alexgarcia:

That's very kind of you. Thanks.

482268.jpg

Álex.
03/23/2007 01:03:30 AM · #25
Originally posted by alexgarcia:

Ooops, I understand you dislike mine posted earlier so much that preffer not to comment it, LOL.

Álex.

Originally posted by alexgarcia:

That's very kind of you. Thanks.

482268.jpg

Whoops... sorry... accidentally overlooked this one. :(

Positives:
Well composed, generally good lighting and perspective. Water drops on the swan add interest.

Technicals:
Nice the way you centered the swan's eye on the upper right rule of thirds intersection point. The sunlight, which you have no control over of course, is on the harsh side and overwhelms the forehead detail, creates a dark shadow below the neck and a bright streak along the left side of the swan's neck. Noise looks more like noise than film grain.

The challenge:
The added noise looks a lot more like noise than grain and this probably hurt this image in voting. Most voters probably relate better to an old style softer grainy film appearance than a sharp noisy appearance. Your subject did not lend itself well as a subject for a grain study and some voters probably felt it was just added to meet the challenge and did little to improve the composition so might have voted lower because of it.

Suggestions:
You might consider some dodge and burn to tone down the bright areas and brighten the shadow under the head. A decision was made to allow added film grain and you might, if interested, go back and experiment with the film grain filter in PS to see how that could be used to give your image a film grain look. You might also consider a different subject to be used for grain in the future. Typically grain is used to make something old look older and/or add roughness, tension or hoplessness to a scene. Swans usually work don't work well for that. :) BW is also a good choice for grain images.

Message edited by author 2007-03-23 01:05:36.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/26/2019 04:46:09 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 03/26/2019 04:46:09 AM EDT.