| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2007 11:12:31 PM |
Hi from the Critique Club..
I think that stdavidson said all that needs to be said..
I like the photo and love the DOF..
Good Luck in future challenges
Karen
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 01:03:59 PM |
Positives:
Traditional in-camera technicals - DOF, focus, lack of noise - are done well. You will never go wrong with central focus on the eyes. The mottled lighting is its best feature.
Technicals:
Though the general in-camera technicals are not bad the "No Edits" approach was probably not the way to go. Even a simple "AutoContrast" selection improves contrast and gives the image more impact. The background does not overwhelm the composition, but then it doesn't add much viewer interest either. The mottled lighting is OK but more should be done with it to bring that out.
The tops of the wings are to close to the edge of the frame and that acts as a distraction. Near center framing is not bad, but not all that interesting either.
Edit vs. No Edits
Purist photographers feel that post processing is overdone and destroys the accuracy of photographic images. They feel if you do the job right in-camera then no post processing should be needed. DPCers often brag about how little post processing they applied to an image.
Non-purists feel cameras are incapable of capturing a scene as it really is so post processing is necessary to bring that out for either accuracy or for artistic expression.
Which is right? Probably both to a certain degree. Only a fool would depend on post processing to "save" a badly conceived and captured image. But equally foolish is the belief that cameras in their current form can accurately capture and record reality.
The Challenge:
This image will come across to many voters as nothing more than a photograph of an art object and you were faulted for that.
The viewer's first impression when looking at this image is not "silky smooth". Yes, if you look closely you can see elements of that, but if the viewer must do that then you are doomed. DNMC hurt this image. Also, besides that there is just not a lot to excite the viewer. All those things combined is why voters gave this a significantly below average score.
I voted this image 7. In my voting that means it is average, "C" level work. I gave you credit for lack of significant defects and, with effort, meeting the challenge... In other words, a "C". My issue was whether or not to give you an unsatisfactory "D" (6 in my case). Voters essentially went with a low end DPC "D". I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not so sure they were not more correct than I.
Suggestions:
If possible leave more space above the wings to keep them away from the edge of the frame. If that is not possible them crop smaller and clip them to remove the distraction.
Apply "AutoContrast" at the very, very least for post processing. This image would benefit greatly from additional advanced editing like dodge and burn and color enhancements. A little post processing sharpening never hurts. It only hurts when overdone.
My son's image placed 5th in this "silky smooth" challenge. I hope I do not embarrass him by saying this, but his needs many of the same types of post processing yours does, including even "autocontrast". His would have scored higher and might have even ribboned if he'd done the same type of post processing yours needs. |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 09:53:45 AM |
| This is very well shot...good execution...but would have to say those statues aren't normally silky smooth. Really like the image though. |
|
Comments Made During the Challenge  |
|
|
05/22/2007 07:56:15 PM |
| Not so much silky as it is rough concrete. Not quite sure if you were attempting more of the symbolism side of something or I am just missing the silky-smooth. |
|
|
|
05/22/2007 03:07:40 PM |
| Nice shallow DOF but the lighting on the top spoils it a bit :( |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 08:34:42 PM |
| A nice photo, but unfortunately it doesn't say "smooth" to me. Although the soft focus parts are smooth, the very nature of speckled stone is a rough texture. Otherwise I like your lighting and the effective use of depth of field. Nice color "backdrop", too. |
|
|
|
05/21/2007 03:27:40 PM |
| when i think silky, stone isn't the first thing that comes to mind... |
|
|
|
05/19/2007 05:00:08 AM |
| I wonder whether you could have got away with a smaller aperture on this one, it would be nice to hvae more of the figure in focus. |
|
|
|
05/18/2007 08:22:42 PM |
| great picture, love the lighting, love the framing, the low depth of field... but I totally fail to see the "smotthness" in stone work... |
|
|
|
05/18/2007 06:30:51 PM |
| I love the lighting here, and DOF is also great. 8. |
|
|
|
05/18/2007 04:54:06 PM |
| interesting use of depth of field , |
|
|
|
05/18/2007 01:24:09 PM |
| WOW love the DOF, light, but subject escapes me for thi challenge |
|
|
|
05/18/2007 11:32:43 AM |
| I like the soft background in this image. Very pretty. |
|
|
|
05/18/2007 12:10:57 AM |
| wow! killer dof but not sure of how a statue is silky smooth, still i give it a 9 |
|
|
|
05/17/2007 12:58:12 PM |
| The DOF is perfect, as is the lighting. But this just does not convey silky-smooth to me. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 11:09:35 PM |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 09:47:16 PM |
| Wonderful lighting and use of shallow DOF |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:13:55 AM |
| lovely picture, but I miss the silky-smooth |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 01:33:51 AM |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 12:48:14 AM |
| Sorry, but I don't really see the connection wit silky-smooth. I think the angle is great, but the narrow focus could've been done better if the rest of her chin was in focus. |
|
 Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
05/16/2007 12:30:02 AM |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/03/2025 01:11:33 AM EDT.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
