| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2010 07:42:12 AM · #1 |
Update on January 29, 2010 after the Best of 2009 Challenge
Scroll down to 1/29/2010 please
This is not intended to be yet another "gripe" thread even though I am disgusted and extremely disappointed. This is a sincere request for your help.
I need to understand what it is that people are seeing differently than I am. I am seriously concerned when my challenge entry lands itself in 244th place and the 27th percentile. 5.1 is the second lowest score that I have ever received in my 4 1/2 years here on DPC.
I thought that this was one of my best shots of the year, but when I saw my score after the first day of voting I considered self DQ'ing. But then my average score would not be quite accurate would it? Despite my talking about scores here, it is much more than just a contest to me. It is supposed to be confirmation that what I am doing is correct, good, and appealing to the masses. No, I am not just shooting for myself...I intend to make the sales of prints become a major portion of my income. But that won't happen if what I think is good is, in fact, not worthy of a higher score or if it doesn't garner enough interest for comments or (could I even hope?) for being faved.
The only comment that I received indicated that I my entry could have had "face slapping colors". I did boost color and contrast but I didn't want to create something more artificial than what I have done so far. I wanted to keep it real. Still though, I think it is far better as it is than what voters indicated.
So, if I thought that this was so good, where is my judgement so far off? I really need to understand.
I would greatly appreciate your evaluation and assistance. Thanks.
Message edited by author 2010-01-29 08:33:19. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 08:28:26 AM · #2 |
This is tough, because I'd really rather not do this, but I understand where you're coming from.....I got a 4.9306 for my FS entry, and I didn't think it was so bad or I wouldn't have entered it since my last three FS entries have been 6.4+......8>)
Really and truly? It's kind of a bleah image. It's just not very exciting. The sky is secondary to what looks like a trailer on stilts.
Bear in mind that's wholly subjective, but I'm assuming that's what you're looking to hear.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 08:39:30 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
It is supposed to be confirmation that what I am doing is correct, good, and appealing to the masses. |
You created a beautiful image of "The Shack" and it represented the backstory of Stiltsville well. I personally don't see anything wrong with it and if you were trying to sell it as a local photographer in the area it is located it would probably be well recieved.
What I want to say to you is to keep doing what you think is good, correct and appealing and don't worry about the results. You have to do the same thing in life itself... Do what is right, no matter how difficult and your conscience will be clear no matter the results. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 08:43:53 AM · #4 |
i gave it a 7
the colors look forced, and there seems to be too much pink (lighthouse, white clouds), and everything is a bit washed out - needs some more contrast maybe |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 08:48:38 AM · #5 |
| I was also surprised to find it had placed where it did. I thought it was an interesting location and photographed from a dramatic looking angle. Since I liked it and gave it a 7, I don't think my input will be of much help in figuring out what went wrong. Best I can figure is maybe it didn't have enough of the elusive wow-factor. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 08:55:33 AM · #6 |
| You and I are both surprised at our results....left you a nice long comment/critique on your photo. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 08:57:16 AM · #7 |
I agree with  EL-ROIcontinue to do what you regard as good , and continue to enjoy what you create ,
In my opinion the picture is not bad BUT you have to remember that people not only have a view on the subject but see the picture based on what their monitor tells them i.e on my screen (laptop) the sky colours look somewhat washed out and lack contrast and a little definition.
I posted this picture for the challenge and was extremely disappointed in the score that I received ,
but I think what is important is I am happy with what I have achieved in this picture and will continue and strive to improve
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 09:02:33 AM · #8 |
| Left a comment on the photo... |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 09:15:30 AM · #9 |
| Looking at it for the first time,it seems like your subject(shack) is to busy for the large space around it.I love the lighthouse in the back and the colors, but again the "shack" has so many things going on,roofs,decks,railings, ect. in such a small space.I'm no expert by along shot. But that is what I see when I look at it, but others may not. Just my opinion as a person looking at it for the first time. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 09:20:41 AM · #10 |
Thanks for the feedback so far.
I'm short on time right now and I have to go to an appointment. I'd like to respond to many of your comments and, considering the critques, I'd like to show you all the original. I'll check back in this afternoon.
Thanks again, I very much appreciate it. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 02:28:28 PM · #11 |
Okay, after reading all of responses here and the comments on the image I decided to upload the original and a revised version. Warning: this new version is eye searing, at least in my opinion. But what do I know anymore?
 - - - - - - 
Original, out of camera - - - 'Bleah' challenge entry - - - New eye searing version
Here are some of the paraphrased comments and my reaction/reply:
It's a boring, ho-hum image, it's bleah, not an interesting subject, etc. Wow, that's surprising. I find it to be a very interesting subject but maybe only because I am familiar with the area and know that other than the land in the background (which is the island of Key Biscayne) these seven house are about five to six miles offshore. I suppose the context that is omitted from this image helps me to appreciate this even more. This is a really cool place to visit. A month before I went for this shot I even paddleboarded out to it from beyond the lighthouse. It was an extremely difficult paddle due to wind and tide and out of 15 who started I was the only one who was able to make the crossing.
The colors are flat, the light is not right, the colors look forced, there was huge possibility for face slapping colors, etc. Well, as you can see in the original, the colors were never quite there in the first place. This might account for the fact that they seemed flat because I was already concerned that I had already pushed them too far. Anybody who has ever been to Stiltsville would know that this house is not as bright as I have presented it and I like to stay somewhere close to reality in my images. That, however, doesn't please DPC voters and I might have scored higher if I had pushed even farther past reality. As far as the sky goes, I really, really pushed color into it. It was definitely a gray day at sunset due to a heavy cloud bank to the west over my right shoulder and the colors had to be introduced to produce a colorful image.  CNovack mentioned that "the sky almost competes with the house for color". I was trying to create some sort of pastel coloration that complimented the house colors, not compete with them and I thought that I had done that. In fact, I thought that complimentary pastels are what made this image so good. As far as the light not being quite right...I was trying to maintain the dusk type of lighting. The type of colorful light that you see as the is setting or within the first ten minutes after sunset. It was very dim light and I wanted to keep it that way.
Composition, aspect ratio, border, distant lighthouse Someone mentioned that this image would have been better utilizing the rule of thirds. It seems to me that the house is in the bottom right third of the image as much as it can be without pushing the dock out of the frame. I have other shots of the house with numerous different compositions, but I thought that this one was best because of the lighthouse in it. I do wish the lighthouse was more prominent, however. As far as the ratio I chose to make this feel like a panorama, I thought it was a good choice. Looking at the original that I had to work with, do you think I was wrong to crop out the sky and create a pano look? I wonder. Yeah, I also questioned the border choice and thought twice about going with it. Now that we can go to 800 pixels I thought it would look better to frame it this way.
That's my summary of what I have gathered after reading all of the comments and critiques. Mostly, I overestimated the interest in the subject and I didn't realize that the whole scene wasn't ever going to be good enough even after I pushed the colors.
I'll keep this in mind from now on when considering my future choices and remember that just because I appreciate and admire something that I am in the physical presence and context of, doesn't mean that it can be wholly communicated through a photograph. Hmmm, or maybe therein lies the real challenge.
Thanks again everybody. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 02:33:50 PM · #12 |
| Left you a comment on your original. The colors don't need to be wild, in my opinion - it's a low contrast, low saturation kind of scene to begin with - don't make it something it isn't meant to be. :-) |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 02:35:56 PM · #13 |
I agree... I gave it a 4 because it looked like the colors were oversaturated to the point where they were unappealing.
Originally posted by Melethia:
Left you a comment on your original. The colors don't need to be wild, in my opinion - it's a low contrast, low saturation kind of scene to begin with - don't make it something it isn't meant to be. :-) |
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 02:55:48 PM · #14 |
Since it was advanced, I would have worked on the flat light...here I used a layer with a COI glow to focus the light on the subject. I also did a multiply layer to increase contrast. Effectively, the same as doing some dodge and burn to change the lighting to something more dramatic.
ETA: Forgot to mention...I also did a multiply layer with a copy of the image in BW from one of the color channels. The first multiply layer was just with a levels layer.
For all layer work, reduce opacity to taste. Then once and a while, save a backup, collapse, copy, and paste it back over the original, and use that to decide what helped and what didn't. Sometimes I fade the edits back into the original by using layer opacity (but I didn't here).
Started with your small original:
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 16:45:59.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 03:00:34 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Since it was advanced, I would have worked on the flat light...here I used a layer with a COI glow to focus the light on the subject. I also did a multiply layer to increase contrast. Effectively, the same as doing some dodge and burn to change the lighting to something more dramatic.
Started with your small original:
|
DAMN! That's some fine processing Neil. What a difference! |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 03:03:39 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Since it was advanced, I would have worked on the flat light...here I used a layer with a COI glow to focus the light on the subject. I also did a multiply layer to increase contrast. Effectively, the same as doing some dodge and burn to change the lighting to something more dramatic.
Started with your small original:
|
What a difference! Much better. I still don't find the subject all that interesting, but this would have gotten a 6 instead of a 4. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 03:45:51 PM · #17 |
| Excellent edit, Neil - you brought out the color but kept it natural and kept that nice muted feel of evening even with the additional contrast. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:04:37 PM · #18 |
Uhhhh, okay Neil. How can I arrange for some one on one post processing tutoring? What you have done is to take my original image in a totally different direction (in a good way) from what I did.
This opens my eyes to the fact that there are so many options and I need to work a little more on puttin to use different ideas about how to process my photos. This is a bit scary considering how many 'keepers' I have in my portfolio that I have never posted on DPC that might possibly look ten times better than they do now. Who knows what I am missing out on?!? |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:10:41 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
...here I used a layer with a COI glow to focus the light on the subject. |
Maybe a dumb question: What is a COI glow? ()
edit to add: Found it! Feivel's Center of Interest Gothic Glow action.
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 16:17:24. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:47:15 PM · #20 |
Here's my quick-n-dirty version. No attempt has been made to crop the original. This is Topaz Detail, some shadow/highlight, some sky and foreground gradients, some hue/saturation tweaking. No sharpening, no glow, nothing else like that. There's artifacting in the sky that's a result of working Topaz on such a small original. Wouldn't be a problem from the full version. There's plenty of potential in the image, it's just a matter of processing for luminosity.
R.
Oh yeah, I did a smidge of skewing for the horizon and to square up the boxes.
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 16:48:25. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:09:07 PM · #21 |
this is your mistake...
Originally posted by yakatme:
Despite my talking about scores here, it is much more than just a contest to me. It is supposed to be confirmation that what I am doing is correct, good, and appealing to the masses. No, I am not just shooting for myself...I intend to make the sales of prints become a major portion of my income. But that won't happen if what I think is good is, in fact, not worthy of a higher score or if it doesn't garner enough interest for comments or (could I even hope?) for being faved. |
there are a handful of people who have won over the dpc masses with images that could generate a major portion of their income, but not many.
most people who ribbon here and/or score well here have done one thing: they mastered the art of winning an online digital photography contest. maybe they read scalvert's post about 'how to ribbon' or maybe they figured it out on their own. but rest assured, robert, there's a huge difference between voting with a mouse and voting with a wallet.
if you really want to sell prints, go to people's homes and offices and see what they've paid to hang on their walls. it's more important to see what's selling than to see what's for sale. as with anything, if you're a sales person and know how to market yourself, you can go pretty far, even if you don't have an award-winning inventory.
the only other thing i'd tell you is that you might want to hire bear to go through your inventory and have him help you with your post-production ;-)
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 17:10:25. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:11:09 PM · #22 |
Yeah, I have been poised on the edge and abou to pull the trigger on Topaz. I've been debating which to get and I am leaning toward the bundle. I found a 10% off coupon code for any Topaz product on a phographer's blog.
I've liked a lot of what I have seen on the conservative side of Topaz applications. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:30:15 PM · #23 |
I did an image... It was an improvement.. But was completely inferior to
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 17:52:12. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:31:15 PM · #24 |
Now, I feel like an idiot for posting my version but my new yr resolution was to improve my editing..so here goes nothing..
I favour a darker image as well..
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:34:27 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Skip:
most people who ribbon here and/or score well here have done one thing: they mastered the art of winning an online digital photography contest. |
Yes, I understand that. One of my blue ribbon winning entries (the frog) was an exercise in creating a "DPC winner". It wasn't my style but it was fun figuring out that aspect of this site.
Originally posted by Skip:
as with anything, if you're a sales person and know how to market yourself, you can go pretty far, even if you don't have an award-winning inventory. |
I wholeheartedly agree. Peter Lik is a good example of a pretty good photographer who has done an extraordinary job of marketing himself. He and I have a few photos from some of the same places, almost from standing in the exact same spot and I like my versions better. But it can't be denied that his successful career is due mostly to his skill (and perhaps some luck) in marketing himself.
Originally posted by Skip:
the only other thing i'd tell you is that you might want to hire bear to go through your inventory and have him help you with your post-production ;-) |
I have had a lot of respect for Bear from the first day I saw this website and I know that I could benefit from his review and critique of my portfolio. Is he for hire? I never knew he was and I never thought about it. When I make some more sales maybe I can hire him. That would help me increase sales and then I could hire him. Wait a minute, one has to come first. I'm in a catch22 situation.
Thanks for your input, Skip. I agree with you and I appreciate your time. |
|
