| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2005 12:21:13 AM · #1 |
Congrats to the winners.
However, I have gone into despair mode. The challenge asked us to make lighting a KEY element, which in most cases was ignored IMHO. I feel like I've joined the horticultural society. If there were a challenge that said shoot a picture on the moon...flowers would still be there and everyone would vote them into the top 20.
I'm developing hayfever on this site... |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 12:23:32 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by amber:
Congrats to the winners.
However, I have gone into despair mode. The challenge asked us to make lighting a KEY element, which in most cases was ignored IMHO. I feel like I've joined the horticultural society. If there were a challenge that said shoot a picture on the moon...flowers would still be there and everyone would vote them into the top 20.
I'm developing hayfever on this site... |
That is your best score so far. I like your shot. You did well. I wouldn't worry about it. Just go with it. ;) |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 12:26:55 AM · #3 |
I know the feeling....I too thought that making lighting the KEY element would count for something. Guess I was wrong. :-(
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 12:28:17 AM · #4 |
| Thanks, but I feel like giving up - unless I shoot a flower for every challenge - or perhaps a flower splashing into a wine glass, held by a nude female model, watched by a pet?? then I might as well leave now. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 12:43:11 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by amber:
Thanks, but I feel like giving up - unless I shoot a flower for every challenge - or perhaps a flower splashing into a wine glass, held by a nude female model, watched by a pet?? then I might as well leave now. |
Don't give up Amber! I got the brown and I'm sadly kinda proud about it...perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment...anyway, don't despair and keep pluggin' away...keep entering images YOU like and be true to yourself. {{{sniff sniff ACHOOO!}}}...darn flowers |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 12:44:28 AM · #6 |
I do lighting for a living.
Mine definetly was average, and the submissions I gave low scores to that beat mine definetly had no lighting value.
Oh well, what ever.
Time to consentrate on the subjective value submission now....won't this be fun.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 12:48:02 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by amber:
Thanks, but I feel like giving up - unless I shoot a flower for every challenge - or perhaps a flower splashing into a wine glass, held by a nude female model, watched by a pet?? then I might as well leave now. |
Do you see a flower on the front page? And just because you shoot a flower it doesnt mean you'll automatically get a high score and a top finish. Try it and see. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 12:48:02 AM · #8 |
| I went strictly with light and got socked. It all depends on the collective judgement of the voters. They decide. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 01:10:27 AM · #9 |
[quote]Do you see a flower on the front page? And just because you shoot a flower it doesnt mean you'll automatically get a high score and a top finish. Try it and see. [/quote]
Top ten page - 3? Top 20...gave up counting. First page of Beauty Challenge 11....
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 01:13:21 AM · #10 |
I thought it was a great shot. I was surprised where it finished. But then, there were a number of shots that I loved that finished much lower than expected.
I left you a more detailed comment... |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 01:20:35 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by amber:
[quote]Do you see a flower on the front page? And just because you shoot a flower it doesnt mean you'll automatically get a high score and a top finish. Try it and see. |
Top ten page - 3? Top 20...gave up counting. First page of Beauty Challenge 11.... [/quote]
There are also three landscape shots in the top 10, including 2 in the top 3. There are eleven people shots on the first page of the beauty challenge.
People are going to shoot what they have to hand and/or what they enjoy. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 01:44:08 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by amber:
The challenge asked us to make lighting a KEY element, which in most cases was ignored IMHO. |
Agreed. While I wasn't expecting a great finish for my photo, I was expecting to be outscored by photos that were about lighting rather than well-lighted (mind you, I think the ribbon winners were absolutely excellent photographs about lighting and not just well lighted). I suppose the mental test I'd do on the contest is pick a dozen photos at random and see if you can guess what the contest theme is - in this case, I don't think you can.
Heck, I was debating whether or not I want to be controversial, but why not? It is good for conversation - while the technical aspects of photography are important (and something I am still somewhat new to), I think the creative aspects are what elevates it from advertising to art and a large proportion of photos in these contests seem to strive to be advertisement and not art. If that is the aim of many, great, but it isn't what all of us are after. We want to capture light not just good lighting. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 01:49:17 AM · #13 |
Exactly markmulkerin!
Yes there WERE 3 landscapes in the top 10 - and they had lighting as A KEY ELEMENT..whereas the flowers had FLOWERS as a key element.
Message edited by author 2005-05-30 01:59:33. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 02:11:47 AM · #14 |
I believe lighting was a key element in the floral shots that I rated well. The same flowers, shot with poor lighting, would not have been good images.
The challenge is for lighting. I found it strange that many people went for "light sources" like candles, light fixtures, etc. Lighting is integral to any image, and as such, yes, this was yet another free study challenge, as far as I was concerned. Just like the beauty challenge is pretty much a free study as well.
Freedom is good :-) |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 02:19:45 AM · #15 |
As long as we're speaking about "lighting", the following shot is ALL about lighting, and very careful lighting at that. It's crisp and sharp, the colors are strong, the composition is good. I didn't expect a top 10 or anything, but does anyone care to comment as to why this image finished in the 45th percentile, below the middle of the pack? I'm not whining, I'm just curious...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-05-30 02:20:16.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 02:20:00 AM · #16 |
| You are not alone. I put a lot of thought and effort ito my entrty and it went down the track jack,. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 02:25:16 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
As long as we're speaking about "lighting", the following shot is ALL about lighting, and very careful lighting at that. It's crisp and sharp, the colors are strong, the composition is good. I didn't expect a top 10 or anything, but does anyone care to comment as to why this image finished in the 45th percentile, below the middle of the pack? I'm not whining, I'm just curious...
Robt. |
Robert, I think the colors and lighting are fantastic. However, the duckie (or any such toy) often "cheapens" the shot (makes it less serious), and I think it does here as well. Also, on a technical level, there's noticeable grain/noise on the duck. I am not sure I understood the theme, but I gave it a 5 on a pure geometric, color and lighting level. If it had been something less toyish, I think it would have scored better. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 02:35:26 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
As long as we're speaking about "lighting", the following shot is ALL about lighting, and very careful lighting at that. It's crisp and sharp, the colors are strong, the composition is good. I didn't expect a top 10 or anything, but does anyone care to comment as to why this image finished in the 45th percentile, below the middle of the pack? I'm not whining, I'm just curious...
Robt. |
I reckon voters are so subjective that they ignore the technical aspects of a shot. On the lighting challenge, something that is very technical, I did think some images that were well shot, but didn't contain a "conventionally appealing subject matter," got the short end of the stick.
I think one of the reasons why your contributions are valuable here is that you do shoot and process with a high level of technique and capacity, but you'll shoot your own thing. I have some confidence that if you'd wanted to, you could ribbon once every couple of weeks, but the fact that you don't is borne out of choice.
For what it's worth, I rated your lighting shot a 7, and I do hope to learn enough about images and technique so that one day, I could instinctively react to something like this and hit a higher number. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 02:51:05 AM · #19 |
It IS sort of amusing, in an odd way, that we can be given a "technical" challenge and yet find our work hammered by images that really don't address the challenge specifically just because there's something whimsical about the work. And then, every now and then something does sneak by; witness the following ribbon winner, which gave me the courage to actually use a ducky.
The thing of it is, I loved the way the duckie's eyes picked up the blue of the bowls... I guess I should have gone with plan "A" and stuck with the mango, huh? But I was in K-Mart and stumbled across this shelf of duckies. I never had a duckie before, couldn't even enter the duckie challenge, so I couldn't resist the temptation to buy one. Three, actually... I have a flotilla of duckies now.
Robt.
Oh, btw, the reason the damned duckie shows so-called "noise" is because he's backlit and his physical structure is manifesting itself since he's somewhat translucent to this strong backlighting. I'm beginning to get a bit teed off at this apparent fetish DPC-as-a-whole has against ANY visible manifestation of "graininess" in photographs. There's only so much a guy can DO with a camera like mine; it's a tiny little sensor and a noisy little beast. I think sometimes how frustrating it must be for people with point-n-shoot cams, 'cuz they are trapped in a world of noise by their equipment, not by their lack of skill. Hell, take a close look at my sole ribbon-winning effort; it's noisy, people! It's a miracle it made the cut!
R.
Message edited by author 2005-05-30 02:56:26.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 08:17:04 AM · #20 |
I agree keep shooting,,As long as YOU like it thats all that matters,,We will never be able to apease all but as long as you please yourself thats what truly matters!!
Jen
p.s. I know its fustrating trust me! |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 10:49:41 AM · #21 |
I am curious what people thought about this entry from lighting. It finished with a 4.8, and while I didn't expect to be at the top, I thought it would at least be a 5+. I only got one comment, which of course, was positive.
Any suggestions or comments as to why this wasn't a stronger entry, or ways to improve??
Thanks! |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 11:02:17 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Oh, btw, the reason the damned duckie shows so-called "noise" is because he's backlit and his physical structure is manifesting itself since he's somewhat translucent to this strong backlighting. I'm beginning to get a bit teed off at this apparent fetish DPC-as-a-whole has against ANY visible manifestation of "graininess" in photographs. There's only so much a guy can DO with a camera like mine; it's a tiny little sensor and a noisy little beast. I think sometimes how frustrating it must be for people with point-n-shoot cams, 'cuz they are trapped in a world of noise by their equipment, not by their lack of skill. Hell, take a close look at my sole ribbon-winning effort; it's noisy, people! It's a miracle it made the cut!
R. |
Amen on the noise rant. I'd like to propose a "NOISE" challenge: Photograph noise, preferably in a noisy way.
Additional rule: Neatimage banned.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 11:35:33 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
As long as we're speaking about "lighting", the following shot is ALL about lighting, and very careful lighting at that. It's crisp and sharp, the colors are strong, the composition is good. I didn't expect a top 10 or anything, but does anyone care to comment as to why this image finished in the 45th percentile, below the middle of the pack? I'm not whining, I'm just curious...
Robt. |
Had you used nearly any other small object than a rubber duck (particularly a nebulous reflective item), I feel this image would have vaulted at least 30 places. Rather than seem creative, the duck comes across as trite and conveniently eye catching, which took away from an outstanding lighting arrangement. |
|
|
|
05/30/2005 11:43:19 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by tsheets:
I am curious what people thought about this entry from lighting. It finished with a 4.8, and while I didn't expect to be at the top, I thought it would at least be a 5+. I only got one comment, which of course, was positive.
Any suggestions or comments as to why this wasn't a stronger entry, or ways to improve??
Thanks! |
While the lighting itself is creative & interesting, the image is rather dark and muddy; the end result being that the lighting you created and put in effect is not really well-featured in your entry. Lack of clarity and detail cost you points on this one.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2005 12:48:00 PM · #25 |
i would like an honest review of this shot so i can grow and understand better....if anyone has time can you please critique my entry...thanks i really have learned alot so far and what to continue to do so
hugs to all
 |
|
