Cefalu Cathedral
by p2jvr

Comment:
You may be voted down by those that cannot see how you've applied the rule of thirds.

Pheasant
by seti

Comment:
Needs filler flash to bring out detail around bird's eye.

Dew drops
by scotthadl

Comment:
Use of DOF to highlight the ROT is really well done! Slight oversharpening on some of the very fine detail but overall very, very well done.

Lake, Canoe, Sky
by yonderman

Comment:
Overapplication of noise reduction shows up in tree detail

CRASH
by Jib

Comment:
You got a 4. Since scoring in this challenge was about the DPC norm that indicates the group thought your image "sucks". Since an Arizonan got the blue in that challenge then voters obviously got things right.

It is likely they thought it was a chintsy, last second setup and oversmoothed by noise reduction. I liked the composition and felt the noise reduction, though overdone, supported the image concept. I gave it a 7 which in my world means it is average. It met the challege and does not have any super serious technical defects. Reviewing it again doesn't give me any reason to change my mind. :)

lines of communication
by roz

Comment:
Positives:
This image has a simplistic elegance to it. The light fog and background trees and grass; and the vivid blue sky and highlighting of the telephone pole go together well. Framing good and one of the few images where wires aren't distractions. :)

Something unusual about your image is that the bright streak up from the boxes is natural. It looks anything but.

Technicals:
The color of blue in this sky is the cement that binds this image together. Nicely done. Brightening the pole is a good idea though it may not be have been done in isolation.

The haloing around the near mailboxes is a major distraction in this composition. The silhouetting of the mailboxes is a good idea but seems a bit wishy washy.

Reading the nice comments I was struck by how different commmenters percieved the image than I did. So I brought the image up on another monitor and made this unusual discovery: There is an astounding difference between how it looks on one monitor from the other. I've known that my normal monitor is a bit on the dark side but I've never seen an image affected by it so much. It is quite disconcerting.

My review is based on the better looking image. ;)

The Challenge:
In Free Study challenges voters expect the highest technical quality in the submissions. You got a 5.2 which is about .1 below the overall DPC average given and about .4 lower than the average given for the challenge you entered it in. That means the group felt it was below overage, but not outragiously so.

It is likely that at least some voters believed the bright streak was added artificially and voted it lowere as a result. The haloing around the mailboxes had a big negative effect on voters. I strongly suspect that others with poorly calibrated monitors would be unable to see the other subtle lighting qualities of this image and vote it lower as a result. That might explain a few of those lower votes, but it looks like a couple "friends" thought it was pretty good though. ;)

Suggestions:
If nothing else, remove the haloing around the mailboxes. That hurt this image moreso than anything else.

Regarding the mailbox silhouette, either go all the way and make it solid black or back off and give the front of the boxes a darkened glow with the detail they have.

Perhaps a 5-10% brightening of the background fog will make it stand out more for added effect. Might want to try cropping off some, not all, of the dark area below the mailboxes.

Outside the distracting border your outtake "Australia" may have been a better submission choice that would have scored higher. BTW, your other outtake is severely overexposed in the center sky. I provided a technique in a critique above that you could use to correct that.

Wine Country
by cutlassdude70

Comment:
Positives:
Very well composed and framed. Composition is the strength of this image. The angle on the grape vines has a nice flowing look that acts like leading lines right up to the sky.

Technicals:
HDR might not have worked well because the two images combined were really not the same. I'm no expert so could be wrong. In any regard, what you did was a sky replacment. The reason I know you did an above average job with the sky replacement is because I didn't notice it had been done when voting. Now that I know I reviewed it closer and can see the edging on some of the trees is a little sharper than it should be and noted the lighting on the grapes is a little flatter than it should be for that sky.

That aside, the biggest technical defect in this image is the overexposed sky. DPCers tend to tolerate overexposed patches in images moreso than the "real" world. Also, sky color is overdone with the lavender/blue color cast. Ironically, the color cast that I don't like made the thin levender part of the border a nice framing choice. :)

The Challenge:
Big shocker! This meets the challenge.

In expert editing voters expect higher technical quality than in other challenges and the color cast sky and overexposed patch may have hurt it in voting.

You got a 5.7 which is .3 or so above the overall DPC average .1 above the average for its specific challenge. Basically voters said it is OK but still average. Looks like the strength of composition counterbalanced the technicals.

I gave it a 6. That means I thought it was below average but not a failure. That is a damning score from me. The group liked it better than I did and that is unusual. The overexposed patch and the color cast is what brought down the image for me. Under normal conditions, like in your image, I think overexposed areas should almost never be allowed, especially under advanced and expert editing rules. In basic rules I'd feel the image should not be submitted at all.

Suggestions:
This is a great image and there is much that can be done to turn it into a ribbon contender.

First off, correct that hideous overexposure.(Is this the Simon Cowell coming out in me?) Its easier than you think. A simple trick is to clone light cloud or sky detail from another part of the image over the overexposed area. The key is to use a very low opacity feathered brush and paint in some detail, just don't go over 25% total. I guarantee you'll be AMAZED at the improvement and it won't look the least bit cloned.

Back off the magentas and blues in the sky. There are several ways to do that. One worth considering is simply to desaturate the sky some to make it look more naturally realistic with the ground while still maintaining the colors you want. You'll be surprised the amount of positive effect can that can come from a small amount of desaturation.

Apply dodging to lengthen and enhance the light beams in the sky for added drama and effect.

Sky Replacement Considerations
The things you have to keep in mind in sky replacements are:
1-You need a really good sky selection or mask to start with (looks like your selection or masking was good)
2-No matter how easy they tell you it is in tutorials you will ALWAYS have to "hand" work the boundaries. (I'm guessing you spent considerable time and effort with yours)
3-Any defects in your sky replacement processing will show up like a sore thumb in a print when you can get away with it in a web graphic. (Defects would in prints of this image)
4-It is paramount that your border softness is exactly the same pixel width as other similar areas of the image. Use blur tools for that.
5-Lighting quality and color, intensity and direction must be perfectly matched between sky and ground. Yours is OK but not great. Always strive for perfection because faults easily show up in sky replacements.

That being said, you might consider applying a bit of blurring to the sky/horizon boundary and darken the lighting on the grapes. Chosing a brush in mode "vivid light" set to black might make the lighting of the grapes more consistent with the sky and add an attractive dusk-like glow to it. You might consider an overall darkening, sorta like an internal vignette, near the horizon for a more natural transitional look.

bone collector
by mia67

Comment:
Positives:
Nicely composed and conceived B&W. Well done technically and with the title adds errie interest to tantalize the viewer into ghoulish thoughts.

Technicals:
Technicals are strong. Lighting is good and lacks technical defects. Softness and tones in this composition are just right. BW treatment is perfect. Solid white background for this composition is the right choice.

For its thickness white is the wrong choice of border because it disappears into the background at the top. That is unnerving to many viewers.

The Challenge:
It is a nice abstract but it is possible that some voters gave a slightly lower score because they knew what it was and feel in an abstract they should not be able to recognize anything. (Yeah, there are voters like that)

It got a 5.7 which is .3 or so above the overall DPC average and .2 above the average for that particular challenge. I personally think it is much better than the group thinks but I am, GASP!, biased toward liking well done BW images. Pssst! Please don't tell anyone I am biased in my voting, its against the rules. LOL!!!

Suggestions:
You might consider changing the white border to black. A border should frame the whole image, not just up to the background. Generally speaking, in a BW image if the background is black then a white border works best and if the background is white then a black border works better.

There's a Storm Blowin' In
by Hipychik

Comment:
Positives:
Pastoral setting, composition and framing of the farm are its best features. Unusual lighting and color has attractive features.

Technicals:
Subdued color works well for this composition. Thought at first the color/contrast was off but checked and it appears right. Dodging the area of the red barn works well to attract attention to it and add interest to the image.

Overall the technicals are weak in several areas. As mentioned in comments it appears to much noise reduction was applied. When overdone noise reduction shows up as the 'smoothies'. In this image it shows up most obvious in the dome of the barn and trees. In the trees you can see the image goes all smooth where there should be fine detail. Clouds are probably oversmoothed as well but clouds can be smooth like that under certain conditions.

The image is framed to highlight the clouds but they lack enough detail and "drama" to command enough viewer attention to justify the title.

Sharpness is to soft, probably affected by the noise reduction process. There is a small speck at the bottom of the top cloud bank that, though real, acts as a viewer distraction and should be cloned out. There is haloing along the treeline.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise reduction alert!
Noise reduction is always a battle between getting rid of unwanted electronic noise in an image and losing real detail. You want to get rid of the noise, but not the good detail. That is done through careful balance of parameter setting adjustments. A good way to approach the problem is to display problem areas, like pesky trees with a lot of fine detail, while you try several adjustments. Just before the trees lose significant detail you stop. Another approach to take is to apply a lot of noise reduction over the whole image and back it off in the trouble areas with masking. Sometimes you might have to work on some areas by "hand". Do whatever is easiest and least destructive.
Alert over!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Challenge:
Yup, its a landscape all right. No question. In a challenge with expert rules voters expect higher technical quality and that is the primary reason this image got a low score.

4.9 is about .4 below the general DPC group average for scoring and almost .8 lower than the group average for this challenge. That means the group felt it was not very good. I gave it a 7 which is what I give an average image. I was struck by the composition and lighting and apparently overlooked the technicals. To be honest, if I were scoring it now I would give it a 6 which means it is barely passing but below average and it is at the lower end of that.

Suggestions:
This image is well concieved and composed and improved technicals would dramatically improve it, though I suspect there may be some inherent aspects of your camera that would be hard to overcome. I noticed a characteristic softness and 'clumpiness' to many of the images in your portfolio.

Obviously, you want to redo noise reduction and work on better sharpness. This image begs to show sharper detail. :) Whatever you did in post processing to generate the haloing along the treeline should be corrected. Clone out that speck in the clouds. Do other stuff like that you might find.

The clouds are the biggest issue. Dodge and burning the heck out of them to add drama like we often see(and sometimes malign) with skies at DPC is recommended. Your title and the amount of image real estate devoted to the sky demands more drama be added somehow. Since it is expert editing you might even consider a sky replacement though that would be difficult given the two larger trees on the right but well worth consideration. There is nothing that says you cannot combine a great sky picture with a great ground picture to make a great landscape picture. Photo "purists" who might suggest otherwise don't understand that in photography... Image is EVERYTHING!

Just One (On a Brush)
by freakin_hilarious

Comment:
Positives:
Brave abstract and good choice of red (T-shirt lol!!) for a background. The sharpness of the main subject, the single hair, is very good. Vignette highlights the hair well.

Technicals:
This is probably an artifact of post processing but there is banding, most notable on the right side, in the "smooth" background that acts as a distraction. The object holding up the hair looks to be very, very slightly oversharpened in a couple places. Red might be a little oversaturated and the reflection off the 'object' is slightly overexposed.

The Challenge:
As is true of most every image, it meets the challenge and does so uniquely with a single hair. It is possible some voters expected hair to be more prominent and may have voted lower because of it. The banding in the red had a negative effect on voting. The 'object' balancing the hair is unidentifiable and though it is a tricky call in an abstract it is possible that voters wanted to know what it is and the fact it is unidentifiable acted as a distraction.

Suggestions:
Suggestions to reduce banding. In images captured in RAW do as much color processing and saturation in the RAW converter as possible and open the image in 16-bit mode in a high density color space like "Prophoto RGB". All this will preserve more color variations in color tones and reduce banding. In fact, that is one of the main reasons for taking in RAW in the first place, to preserve all that image detail possible. Color processing in your image editor will degrade your color tones and if you overdo it banding shows up. Don't change image to 8-bit and sRGB until just before you save for the web and your tones will be best preserved in your output file.

Also looks like your cloning may have left some artifacts in the smooth background on the right. The blur and healing tools are good for removing that.