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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> How does it look to you?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/03/2002 01:05:16 PM · #1
I am frustrated. I keep getting comments on photo, about not being able to see the baby's face. It shows up quite clearly on my screen. I would like to know if people really do not like the look I was going for, or my monitor calibration is different from their's. Everone I have shown this to, and emailed to too has raved about it. I was really going for texture and highlight and shade. I like the highlight on her head. On my monitor there is plenty of detail in the eyes, mouth, and nose. I was hoping I would at least rate over a 5!
06/05/2002 06:19:06 PM · #2
06/05/2002 06:20:44 PM · #3

06/05/2002 06:39:27 PM · #4
Bad lighting is just the excuse people are giving for voting down a lame snapshot.
06/05/2002 06:52:17 PM · #5
do you have your brightness level on your monitor cranked up to 100%? If you do, what looks normal to you may look dark to others who aren't stretching the monitor that far...

Originally posted by Zeissman:
I am frustrated. I keep getting comments on photo, about not being able to see the baby's face. It shows up quite clearly on my screen. I would like to know if people really do not like the look I was going for, or my monitor calibration is different from their's. Everone I have shown this to, and emailed to too has raved about it. I was really going for texture and highlight and shade. I like the highlight on her head. On my monitor there is plenty of detail in the eyes, mouth, and nose. I was hoping I would at least rate over a 5!


06/05/2002 06:57:06 PM · #6
Originally posted by ryano:
Bad lighting is just the excuse people are giving for voting down a lame snapshot.

You are the expert in lame snapshots.
06/05/2002 06:58:44 PM · #7
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
do you have your brightness level on your monitor cranked up to 100%? If you do, what looks normal to you may look dark to others who aren't stretching the monitor that far...

Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]I am frustrated. I keep getting comments on photo, about not being able to see the baby's face. It shows up quite clearly on my screen. I would like to know if people really do not like the look I was going for, or my monitor calibration is different from their's. Everone I have shown this to, and emailed to too has raved about it. I was really going for texture and highlight and shade. I like the highlight on her head. On my monitor there is plenty of detail in the eyes, mouth, and nose. I was hoping I would at least rate over a 5!



[/i]

Actually, it is at 50% it is brand new too. I may have calibrated it a little higher than normal though.
06/05/2002 07:05:50 PM · #8
Originally posted by Zeissman:
I am frustrated. I keep getting comments on photo, about not being able to see the baby's face. It shows up quite clearly on my screen. I would like to know if people really do not like the look I was going for, or my monitor calibration is different from their's. Everone I have shown this to, and emailed to too has raved about it. I was really going for texture and highlight and shade. I like the highlight on her head. On my monitor there is plenty of detail in the eyes, mouth, and nose. I was hoping I would at least rate over a 5!

Zeiss:
I have seen your web page. The baby looks great in color.- I'm no expert, but maybe the shadow on the face is just intensified in B&W? A little light on her face rather than on her head maybe? Anyway... it's a beautiful angelic shot! And NOT a snapshot. I am a newborn baby photographer at a local hospital. We look for angelic shots so as not to present the parents with a "mug shot" or "typical hospital photo".
;)

06/05/2002 07:46:48 PM · #9
>SNIP>>I keep getting comments on photo, about not being able to see the baby's face. It shows up quite clearly on my screen. Everone I have shown this to, and emailed to too has raved about it. I was really going for texture and highlight and shade.______________________

Hi Zeissman. Sorry your photo isn't being received like you wished. That's the way the digital pixel.....
Anyway I know what you mean---I think we all have felt your pain. However, I wanted to point out that this is all cloak and dagger and you shouldn't reveal which photo is yours. Shuuuuu! Monday <or> MoanDay you can get everyone's reaction and I'll bet in more detail. Don't worry about it just knock them dead next week! Good luck.

www.justineo.com

06/05/2002 08:26:47 PM · #10
Originally posted by kee:
>SNIP>>I keep getting comments on photo, about not being able to see the baby's face. It shows up quite clearly on my screen. Everone I have shown this to, and emailed to too has raved about it. I was really going for texture and highlight and shade.______________________

Hi Zeissman. Sorry your photo isn't being received like you wished. That's the way the digital pixel.....
Anyway I know what you mean---I think we all have felt your pain. However, I wanted to point out that this is all cloak and dagger and you shouldn't reveal which photo is yours. Shuuuuu! Monday <or> MoanDay you can get everyone's reaction and I'll bet in more detail. Don't worry about it just knock them dead next week! Good luck.

www.justineo.com



Kee,

Nice site, I always wanted to do a shot for downtown Portland from the North 405 bridge (Fremont? Bridge). I did a couple of cool pics when I was water skiing - ok getting dragged behind the boat, back in 1995 or 96.
06/05/2002 08:35:18 PM · #11
I gave your photo a "5" because I did feel the lighting was bad (and my monitor is fine) and it did have the look of a typical "snapshot." I also went to your website and saw the photo in color and it really doesn't look any better in color. I mean, no offense, the baby is adorable, but it does look like you typical "shoot the baby with my disposable camera" shot. I was extremely impressed with the other baby shot in this week's challenge with the hand caressing the baby's face. I think it was called "sweet caress." Anyway, those are my thoughts. Better luck with the next challenge.
06/05/2002 10:04:17 PM · #12
Sweet caress is a nice photo. All the other baby shots were very good.
06/05/2002 10:34:19 PM · #13
Zeissman, I understand your frustration, your photo is very nice on your monitor, you have emotional involvement, and everyone is criticizing the same thing.

I have to say, I am one of them. I commented on your photo before you started posting here about it. And I said that it was too dark. I rated that one from work, now I am at home and I can see the face even less.

I''ve taken the liberty to download the photo from your website and re-converting it to b&w, so that it looks good on my computer. I''ve then uploaded it next to your shot from this challenge for comparison.

The lighter one is likely to look better to many of those that commented. I just wanted to show the difference in brightness to you and give you an indication what may look better.

Better luck next time - and most importantly of all - you have two very beautiful baby daughters, don''t get upset about what people say about one of your photos! :-)

Hannah

Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]I am frustrated. I keep getting comments on photo, about not being able to see the baby''s face. It shows up quite clearly on my screen. I would like to know if people really do not like the look I was going for, or my monitor calibration is different from their''s. Everone I have shown this to, and emailed to too has raved about it. I was really going for texture and highlight and shade. I like the highlight on her head. On my monitor there is plenty of detail in the eyes, mouth, and nose. I was hoping I would at least rate over a 5![/i


* This message has been edited by the author on 6/5/2002 10:34:34 PM.
06/05/2002 10:45:36 PM · #14
Originally posted by gr8photos:
Zeissman, I understand your frustration, your photo is very nice on your monitor, you have emotional involvement, and everyone is criticizing the same thing.

I have to say, I am one of them. I commented on your photo before you started posting here about it. And I said that it was too dark. I rated that one from work, now I am at home and I can see the face even less.

I''ve taken the liberty to download the photo from your website and re-converting it to b&w, so that it looks good on my computer. I''ve then uploaded it next to your shot from this challenge for comparison.

The lighter one is likely to look better to many of those that commented. I just wanted to show the difference in brightness to you and give you an indication what may look better.

Better luck next time - and most importantly of all - you have two very beautiful baby daughters, don''t get upset about what people say about one of your photos! :-)

Hannah

Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]I am frustrated. I keep getting comments on photo, about not being able to see the baby''s face. It shows up quite clearly on my screen. I would like to know if people really do not like the look I was going for, or my monitor calibration is different from their''s. Everone I have shown this to, and emailed to too has raved about it. I was really going for texture and highlight and shade. I like the highlight on her head. On my monitor there is plenty of detail in the eyes, mouth, and nose. I was hoping I would at least rate over a 5![/i


Thanks for going through all that effort. I think this must be a matter of people not liking the look I was going for. It is important an for artist to know their audiences. The adjustments you made look great, but I was going for the contrast and the texture of her face, and the light on the head. I have some of my other daughter like this, that are so dark you really can't see some areas. It makes the shape of the head, and the texture of the hair the center of focus. I played with a whole range of midpoint adjustments, and almost went with a lighter one, but this was my favorite so this is what is used.
My real frustration is that people were obviously putting real though into the comments. But after 8 "too dark, I can't see the face" comments, I got the point. There was a comment about using a reflector, that is a really good idea. Again, thanks for going through the effort you did.
06/05/2002 10:49:51 PM · #15
I had a similar level of frustration with my "child shot" last week. People were very insistent on seeing the face, when what I was going after was the hand. (At least that''s what I''m telling myself about why it scored so low!)

What I took away from that challenge was to be thinking of any number of viewpoints and angles beyond what you set out to do during a shoot.

* This message has been edited by the author on 6/5/2002 10:50:00 PM.
06/05/2002 10:50:27 PM · #16
Zeiss -- I looked at both, and though I can see how people would rate the fixed (for lack of a better word) one better, I think I still like the darker one. I don't know, I just like the mood it conveyed. But, listen to the others, not me, their scores are A LOT higher than mine. :-)
06/05/2002 11:06:59 PM · #17
Originally posted by karmat:
Zeiss -- I looked at both, and though I can see how people would rate the fixed (for lack of a better word) one better, I think I still like the darker one. I don't know, I just like the mood it conveyed. But, listen to the others, not me, their scores are A LOT higher than mine. :-) Small Wonder is a very interesting shot. My wife and I both like photos like that. I guess we all need to decide, just like any artist. Do you we alter our entry to how we think the audience will like it? Or how we like it. My biggest fear would be to put up something I think the audience would like, and have that reviewed poorly.

Thanks for the comments everyone.

06/06/2002 04:39:06 AM · #18
Here's an idea you might want to try although it'll take a bit of time and maybe self education: go to any search engine and find a Web site that offers "free" websites, such as geocities. Create your own simple Web site with next week's challenge and then upload it to the Internet. Go to several different computers at local libraries, friends, and family and see if the photo looks "good." Everyone has different configurations on their monitors so you probably would want to "test" first before summitting. It isn't reasonable to ask everyone to configure their machines to match yours so this might help?
06/06/2002 05:32:52 AM · #19
Of course it isn't reasonable to ask everyone to calibrate their monitor to match yours. What kind of standard is that? What is reasonable is to ask everyone to calibrate their monitors so they display the most correct range of brightness and color possibe. Doesn't cost anything but a little time. This won't mean they'll match your monitor exactly, but it will at least get them close.
06/06/2002 06:09:08 AM · #20
This is only my second entry but the comments on it, which were very helpful, and going through the archives have shown me where my worst mistakes can be corrected. Thanks for the help guys.
D
06/06/2002 10:17:35 AM · #21
well if you just submit your photo you can view it in full size by going to the submit page again. go elsewhere, login and dont save a cookie.
06/06/2002 10:57:52 AM · #22
Two things:
First, I have built a color chart and Gray scale and resized it to conform to this sites submission format. It includes a 10 step gray scale with the bit number used to arrive at the gray. Below that are color samples, RGB, CYM, and two RGB sets that are darkened and lightened. Each color block has the bit setting for each color channel used. The chart background is middle gray.

It is insturctive to see how the grays and colors change as one swings the brightness and contrast controls on the monitor.

(Drew, if you tell me how to email, I will send the file to you so it can be placed on the site somewhere.)

Second: We all should remember that babies and small children have a special place in our cultural psyche. This seems to raise any photo or other image of a child to a higher -different- critical standard.

Looking at both the images being discussed I'll make the following observations; if the intent is to draw visual focus to the highlighted hair, DoF, cropping and composition need to be used with skill to diminish the visual interest in the face and draw it to the hair. DoF is difficult with digital because of the short focal length of the lens. The other tools are within reach but require thought and planning. Often, 90%+, one's intent for a photo does not work out as desired. That's why the editing room waste basket was always full. With digital the waste is gone but the need to REALLY LOOK at an image to see if it does what we want it to do remains.

Similar suggestions for the baby's hand image. The large area, including the head, dominates visually and even though somewhat out of focus draws the viewer there and away from the hand. People want to look at a baby's face so it has to be more repressed visually to give the hand visual prominance.

Many years ago, when I was doing advertizing photography we would always plan on wearing out 2 or 3 babys or young children before we got the image we wanted. That's 4-6 hours and maybe 200 shots after the art director had sketched the basic composition for us to follow.

Another thought, my artist friends, doing painting and watercolor, always have a series of sketches leading to the image they want to finally present. If we are attempting to use digital photography as a medium for our artistic expression we need to be willing to understand the effort required and small percentage of images that get outside the artist's studio for public viewing and critique.

DMW
Originally posted by irae:
Of course it isn't reasonable to ask everyone to calibrate their monitor to match yours. What kind of standard is that? What is reasonable is to ask everyone to calibrate their monitors so they display the most correct range of brightness and color possibe. Doesn't cost anything but a little time. This won't mean they'll match your monitor exactly, but it will at least get them close.


06/06/2002 11:02:30 AM · #23
Very nicely put, DMW. :-)
06/06/2002 11:04:44 AM · #24
dmward, Thank you! Very well said!
06/06/2002 11:13:31 AM · #25
dmward... thoughtful post ... That won't last long here though ;-) You'll see :-)

This site is such an eclectic mix of styles, attitudes, ages, experiences and skill levels this surely must be what it is like to try and bring peace to the middle east. >:-)

I can see that the addition of moderators was done to add some kind of "moderation" which scares me a bit. I haven't seen enough here that needs moderation (in comparison to what is on the rest of the forums all over the net).

Anyway, dmward back to your post. I had thought that it might be a good idea to add a monitor calibration section to this site. DP Review has one so that people can compare camera performance correctly. The same should probably go for here as well to give all photos equal "lighting" foooting. If yours has a similar simple form and some step by step instructions for absolute computer novices I think it would be a good thing.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/25/2019 12:43:13 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: 03/25/2019 12:43:13 AM EDT.