Dog's Best Friend
by realpdm

Comment:
Aww - I hope your friend got a lot of peanut butter! The focus on the dog is a little soft - I think a deeper depth of field would have been better.

Pink-a-licious
by cheegirl

Comment:
Very cute - I love her expression! While the shot is very crisp & clear, I'm not crazy about the intense saturation of the feathers.

What If Ink Was Never Invented?
by Gatorguy

Comment:
It's not clear to me what the "ink" is - is it peanut butter? If so, perhaps leaving it in its original packaging would have helped. The focus seems soft, and the hot spot of the candle flame really pulls the eye. But it's a clever idea - good effort, keep trying!

Skippy: It Gives Every Woman a Lift!
by liebe

Comment:
Great idea - and I think the selective desat. was an excellent choice. One suggestion would be to level the floor.

Caught
by Jutilda

Comment:
Excellently conceived! The more I look, the more I like the exposure.

Perfect Match
by Sonifo

Comment:
I agree! The selective desaturation works extremely well in this photo.

The big race
by eirasi

Comment:
You really create a sense of movement with this photo - I keep expecting them to run off the screen! Was this done by panning?

Commitment
by cadbike

Comment:
Good job - good idea, nice lines & curves. My only critique would be that the rings are a litlte out of focus.

The End of Fun Gifts, or "It's just what I wanted!"
by tpoc

Comment:
The concept is perfect, as is the composition. I'm not crazy about the sepia & deckle edged look, though.

Invisible attacker
by henning

Comment:
<< Critique Club >>

Initial Impression:
The photo is a little confusing at first. At first view, I did not really understand what was going on, but after seeing the title, and then looking again, it became clear.

Composition:
To be honest, it's not the best. I think the top chess pieces (the black ones) are positioned well, but like another commenter, I do not like the top of the white piece in the foreground. Also, I think the little bit of table showing is distracting as well.

Color/Tone:
I agree with the commenter that said that there is a lot of grey and nothing it truly white. If you could have adjusted the levels/curves to set a white point, that would have made the photo "pop".

Focus/Exposure:
The focus seems a little soft, and the exposure is a little on the dark side. There is definitely some detail loss in the shadows of the dark pieces. I see you used a f/29 & 30 second exposure, I'm guessing in order to get the ghost effect on the white attacker. I've never experimented with this type of photography, so perhaps it's not possible, but could you have done this with a larger aperature & shorter shutter speed so you could get more light? Or maybe just light the subject a bit more? As it is, it seems murky, but maybe that was your intention - to give a somewhat sinister feel to the photo.

b]Title:[/b]
Great title - in fact, without it, I think I would have missed the point of the photo. I'm afraid that's probably what happened with some voters. And there are also some voters who hate that a title has to "explain" a photo. I'm not saying your photo needs the title, but without it, I was a bit lost (not that unusual for me, though!)

Meets the Challenge:
Yes, I think so. Invisibility is the ultimate camouflage, really. And using chess pieces to show an invisible attack is sheer genius.

Summary:
This is a very good concept for the challenge, and while you succeeded admirably well in creating the "invisible attacker," it's not quite the "stunning" image DPCers crave. I think a sharper, brighter image, with a slightly different composition, would have done better in the challenge. But your creativity is certainly a welcome breath of fresh air!