| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2003 03:24:41 AM · #1 |
I'm not ranting, I'm just wondering why the picture didn't get over 5 at least. Was it too simple? Wasn't it considered a real still life? Was it because it was a Moose and not flowers or a bottle of wine?
The overexposure in the middle was intentional, though not necessary perhaps. I just thought it would add a more graphic look to the whole. I'm not saying it's a really great shot, but I'm wondering about some other shots ranking higher than this and I'm curious why.
The comments I got were rather positiv, so I would be interested in the negatives too.
Thanks :) |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:44:52 AM · #2 |
I think the overexposed is bad, and not sure why you would want that anyway?
Th subject being a stuffed toy isn't very 'classic' or pretty so i don't think getting over 5 was ever going to be a realistic average IMHO.
i do like the composition though.
Wines galsses and fruit hold a lot of colour and bounce light well hence why they are popular and why they do well. they are also harder to shoot right and as a result even more impressive.
Shooting a stuffed moose on the other hand isn't very interesting to me.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:51:51 AM · #3 |
I think the overexposed was a bad idea. The brightness distracts my view from the subject.
I think the overexposed is bad, and not sure why you would want that anyway?
Th subject being a stuffed toy isn't very 'classic' or pretty so i don't think getting over 5 was ever going to be a realistic average IMHO.
i do like the composition though.
Wines galsses and fruit hold a lot of colour and bounce light well hence why they are popular and why they do well. they are also harder to shoot right and as a result even more impressive.
I do agree with jonpink |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 03:53:37 AM · #4 |
Ok, I see a trend here. I wanted to do something other than flowers and stuff. Wasn't the right contest then ;o)
Thanks anyway! |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 04:02:47 AM · #5 |
I think that this photo has a lot of merit.
The way that the lines disappear into the centre, but with the main subject placed in a completely different section of the frame, sets up a nice tension. The overexposure seems to work here.
The subject might not be the most enthralling, but it's exposed nicely.
I suppose the reason I want to support this nice shot is that it shows another, very viable, way of camera art. We don't need to always play by the rules, or always aim for stock fotos. There is a spunk in this shot. It bears repeated viewing, well beyond the 30-second rule.
Keep up the good stuff.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 05:46:52 AM · #6 |
I loved it and gave it an 8.
I thought the title let it down though.
Forget how the photo scored here... did YOU like it? It seemed pretty obvious to me that the blown highlights were deliberate, but many DPCers look for a more traditional approach. Don't get put off more creative photography by the very conservative voters here. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 06:03:01 AM · #7 |
| Its a cool picture he is very cute But the white part is too distracting yes, and I think he should have been looking into the picture in stead of out of it. I thought the picture was cute I gave it 7 |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:16:26 AM · #8 |
Thanks for the encouraging words and the constructive critiques. I appreciate them.
To the admin: could you please transfer this thread to the "Individual Photography Discussion" if possible. I should have started there in the first place. Thanks. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:20:44 AM · #9 |
| I think you got a score just above average. (Ribbons always win with 6's and 7's so anything above a 4 is slightly above average, not a failure.) |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:22:07 AM · #10 |
| I didn't consider it a failure anyway! ;o) I was just trying to understand the voting pattern. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:22:21 AM · #11 |
For myself, I thought the overexposure was too much of a distraction for the piece.
Conceptualy I liked it. |
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:35:00 AM · #12 |
I didn't vote on this one. just didn't get to it.
I think the background is interesting, and I can accept the effect you tried with the overexposure. I think it's pretty obvious it was intentional.
It's a decent photo, but think about it: your background effect draws attention to it. But does the moose? The lighting on the moose is pretty flat, and he's even positioned outside of the "glow". (Note if you put him in the glow, you would probably need to change the crop so its not the center.)
One other thing, the perspective distortion is obvious on the left because of the tile lines. It might also have been interesting to have a square perspective here.
I'll post this in the photo comments too, so you have it with the photo.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:39:10 AM · #13 |
Did you try a different background, like a white card board or something more natural? Like by a tree or on a shelf?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2003 10:44:49 AM · #14 |
| Well, I simply didn't understand this one. I gave it a 3. The background was overexposed (it didn't look intentional to me), and the lighting in general wasn't especially interesting. Also, I didn't understand the title. Why was there a moose sitting on what looked to me like a bathroom counter? Don't feel bad about the 3 though--I gave out a ton of 1's, so at least your photo got past my initial "Is it a still life?" criteria. :-) |
|
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: 04/24/2024 10:33:57 AM EDT.
