| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2004 01:20:05 AM · #1 |
I realize my entry was not perfect (I agree with some of the comments regarding it lacking a focal point). However, it surely did not deserve the high number of 1's, 2's, and 3's it received. The average vote per commenter was 3.714. I'm wondering if a lot of folks thought I used a flash and just made a random shot? I used a tripod and a long exposure (10 seconds at 3.5). What I liked about the shot was the contrast of the autmunal colors against the glowing blue starlit sky. Careful observation would reveal the motion blur of the grass closest to the water's edge due to the briskness of the evening. Anyway, I'm disappointed to finish behind photographs that were technically far worse than mine (lots of camera shake) and containing no greater focal point than some buildings and cars. I haven't complained about my placement in awhile but this is just really disappointing. Ten 2's and 25 3's is ridiculous to me.
Here's how the voting went:
1 3
2 10
3 25
4 65
5 65
6 34
7 14
8 4
9 2
10 1
Here's a photo I considered and rejected (I had a small series of these).
Cambridge, Massachusettes |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:34:47 AM · #2 |
| Unfortunately I do not find much of a focal point in your photo either. The contrast with the sky and colours of the grass is ok however I would not consider it a "glowing" sky. The motion blur is actually quite hard to miss, and I do not think it adds intrigue to the photo. If I had of voted I probably would have given it a 5, I generally vote on a higher scale, but many don't, so I would say that is why you got so many 3's. 55 people thought you photo was above average so I don't think you did too badly. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:40:33 AM · #3 |
| I liked it... I gave it a 6. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:41:09 AM · #4 |
I gave it a 5.
You just have to take what you get sometimes.. A better approach to this would be to just ask for some honest critique on the photo, instead of talking about the scores. Scores won't change for a challenge that's already done.. but you can certainly work on making a better image by listening to people give you feedback on why they did, or didn't, like it.
As for me.. I just found it to be an average night shot.. no real focal point, the grass in front was a little distracting, and the composition was plain at best. Thus the score.
That's my input.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:49:35 AM · #5 |
I like your image. As for a comment about weeds in the corner of your entry,I find insulting because even if it is weeds they add to the image. IMHO
I did not vote as I am busy getting ready to move house again but I find images like yours are true night time shots
I got wasted in this challenge.I tried something different and someone even thought it was a door when it was a window.
I got a load of votes under 5. It was in focus and obviously night-time. So I am really wondering why also Why so low? |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:53:51 AM · #6 |
| too dark. no real center of interest. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:32:12 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
I gave it a 5.
A better approach to this would be to just ask for some honest critique on the photo, instead of talking about the scores. Scores won't change for a challenge that's already done.. but you can certainly work on making a better image by listening to people give you feedback on why they did, or didn't, like it.
|
Of course honest critiques are important, I agree. I'm just incredulous that 25 people gave it a 3. I think 5 is a respectable vote for this shot. I can even understand a few 4's, as someone who will give a 4 if I really find a shot boring despite its technical merits. I took a hiatus from DPC for about a month and in that time there seems to be a lot of new members and I'm wondering if the newbies are a particularly exacting bunch. :-D
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
too dark. |
Too
dark? It's a nighttime shot! But seriously, it really isn't too dark for a night shot. I suggest you check the DPC grayscale bar and make sure you can discern a difference between the last two bars. Your monitor may need re-calibrating. This isn't me being grouchy---I can see plenty of detail in the shot; stars in the sky, gradiations of color in the horizon progressing from cobalt to lavender, reflections on the water. There is also a glow in the sky over the trees from the lights of Downtown Providence. I had considered emphasizing this by dodging highlights but decided to keep it simple.
I wouldn't have blinked if I had placed somewhere in the 35th or 40th percentile. I'm familiar with that territory. :-D Anyway, this is the forum for discussing the challenge results so I don't really see a problem with venting a little about excessively low voting. The fact that 55 people gave scores higher than 5 makes the 3's that more baffling.
Just for the record, I did find the comments helpful (even though it was obviously the commenters who were giving me the 2's and 3's grrrrr). If enough people make the same comment (lack of focal point) it can't be ignored. However, all else being equal, that is just not enough of a reason to give a technically good photo taken under difficult conditions a 3.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:47:41 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
too dark. |
Too
dark? It's a nighttime shot! But seriously, it really isn't too dark for a night shot. I suggest you check the DPC grayscale bar and make sure you can discern a difference between the last two bars. Your monitor may need re-calibrating. This isn't me being grouchy---I can see plenty of detail in the shot; stars in the sky, gradiations of color in the horizon progressing from cobalt to lavender, reflections on the water. There is also a glow in the sky over the trees from the lights of Downtown Providence. I had considered emphasizing this by dodging highlights but decided to keep it simple. ... |
I have to agree with Thousand_Fall, it is too dark; but only when taken together with the lack of a focal point. Sure all the detail you mentioned is there, and clouds floating about the city as well -- but you have to look closely at the image to notice much of that. It is too dark to be noticed by a casual glance; and for better or worse, a casual glance is all it is going to get without a dominant focal point to get and hold the viewers attention.
As for the number of 1's, 2's and 3's -- just numbers; the natural slope of a well defined bell curve that is to be expected from this sort of voting. Nothing to be concerned about.
David
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:48:02 AM · #9 |
It's not too dark in terms of being able to see anything. It's just too dark in general. I can see what's on it, but there is no contrast in it, nothing to focus on, no real "attention-attracter". Darknes itself shuold fill the photo obviously, but there is nothing to emphasize it.
I understand you saying it was a night shot, hence overall darkness, but look at other pics, the top 10 let's say: they are all dark, yet they all have something to attract viewer and they emphasize the darkness by contrasting it with something "not-as-dark".
I gave it a 5, but I must say I was quite generous with it.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:51:18 AM · #10 |
I felt it was a " middle of the road " type shot, technically good, but just lacking that point of interest like reflections in the water or similar. I gave it my average score for a decent picture 5.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 03:15:31 AM · #11 |
| Not being a paying member of the site, I could not vote on this challenge, but I would like to say that while the picture quality is fine, the composition and the image itself don't do anything for me. I probably would have given it a three of four. The vibrancy of the grasses in the foreground immediately draw my attention there, but they are uninteresting. The diagonal line they form takes my eye straight up the left side, right to a featureless black blob. The only interesting part to me, is the purple sky silhouette in the center, but that is such a small part of the image, so indistinct in the background, that it is not that interesting. Only my opinion, of course. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 04:48:17 AM · #12 |
I didn't vote or participate in this challenge since I missed the deadline so I'll get right to the point.
When critiqueing photos, I've explained my stance several times and will repeat it here just for emphasis since it relates to this thread.
"I'd rather give a creative shot that's out of focus or technically flawed higher points, than a perfectly executed bland shot. I tend to reward creativity or how the photo makes me feel, rather than basing it on technicality. A boring photo taken perfectly results in, well... a perfectly boring photo."
I'd have given this photo a 4 at best.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 05:03:49 AM · #13 |
must confess, i'm one of the givers of a three. purely judging it on a matter of taste, i felt that visually it just didn't do anything for me and left me a bit empty. the comment someone else made about it being too dark is i think valid - there really isn't enough to look at. and i think my screen is set up on the conservatively too bright side - i'm regularly getting slagged off for having submitted "too dark" images (like the guinness one).
the only stuff that is illuminated (namely the grasses) appears a bit out of focus, so i wasn't entirely sure what my eyes should be drawn to. other problem i had with it was the sky; i have no idea what the technical term is, but it appears a bit "blotchy", with single shades of greys and blues and clear demarcation lines. a bit of softening / neat imaging / smart blurring might have reduced this effect.
|
|
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 09:50:04 PM EDT.
