| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2002 01:06:47 PM · #26 |
ah, thanks for the pos comments, alecia. i wasnt referring to this last week''s pic, however, but rather pics past. last week''s pic was actually my highest placing pic yet : ) ..*and* had a good number of comments.
also, the more i look at your photo ''emma'', the more i like it. good crispness and colors, and the candidness really seems to reveal something about this child.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/4/2002 5:08:22 PM. |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 01:15:43 PM · #27 |
magnetic9999:
Yours was my highest-rated photo, alone with a "9" vote. I absolutely LOVED it, and am surprised it didn't do better.
The colors are other-worldly. |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 02:03:06 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
also, the more i look at your photo ''emma'', the more i like it. good crispness and colors, and the candidness really seems to reveal something about this child[/i]
Funny how this voting works----I thought Emma was a 9, would have been a 10 except I kinda objected to the upper background. But look at Langdon's comment. I can't figure what he was thinking myself. This little girl was captured beautifully. IMO
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 02:17:21 PM · #29 |
wow. thanks. you just made my day : ) .. well, i dont consider 5 out of 110 to have done badly but I appreciate the sentiment, for sure.
as for the colors. I've found that if you underexpose some and then boost levels after, you can get these insane, film-like colors. that's all i did.
and for those who had inquired, the color combinations were *fully* intentional. ; )
here are a smattering of other pics from that session, if anyone is interested.
more pics of CH
Originally posted by welcher:
magnetic9999:
Yours was my highest-rated photo, alone with a "9" vote. I absolutely LOVED it, and am surprised it didn't do better.
The colors are other-worldly.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 03:22:31 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Patella:
Hokie,
To be honest, I'm not sure how to read your last post to this thread. I can't tell if it's a veiled attack on my intelligence (whether personally meant or not) or if it's simply a statement about how you comment.
My goal with starting this thread was because I got what I felt were a number positive comments without enough negative comments to justify the score I saw. So, when I'm asking for an explanation I'm not asking for a discussion of technique or to have someone tell me/teach me how to take a better picture. I know the technical aspects of the craft -- I apparently don't know what people think. I'm a magician (for real) not a mind reader. As such, I'm trying to elicit the negative comments I apparently didn't receive during voting in an attempt to understand what other people are thinking about my shot.
I gave you a low score, and here is why: I think that this photo lacks the qualities that make a good black and white photo. There are not good textures and the lighting is extremely flat. The grain was a good touch. Watch Psycho, or any of the old black and white movies, and notice the lighting. Better yet, pick up an Ansel Adams Guide to Photography. I also do not give much credit to people how try to recreate other's ideas. Take away the title and what do you have here?
Also, asking for input, but then making the "sucks to be you" comment may be why you are not getting much realistic criticism. it seems to me you have your mind made up that this is a good photograph, and do not really care what anyone else says.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 04:18:50 PM · #31 |
w.brian.martin,
Just as a note, the "sucks to be you" comment was not referring at all to how I feel about any voters. It was meant to be a simple descriptive phrase about what happens to the photographer when someone doesn't "get" the photo. In this case, it literally sucks to be me because voters aren't seeing what I put together in a photo.
As for your other comments, thanks for being honest. I may or may not agree with your individual points, but you are the first person (that I recall) who has told me they gave me a low score and their reasons behind it. That's exactly what I wanted to know. So, thanks.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 04:40:56 PM · #32 |
Since my shot was constructed on memory alone, I just went on a photo search (per suggestion) for the shower scene in Psycho. This was the first one I found: shower scene.
I'm noticing all kinds of cool things between the two shots. And, like a teacher, I want to share them with everybody. But I'll just let you look at 'em if you want and stop beating a dead horse.
I'm off to find some chocolate syrup...
...for my ice cream. Sheesh -- what were you thinking?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 06:59:42 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
ah, thanks for the pos comments, alecia. i wasnt referring to this last week''s pic, however, but rather pics past. last week''s pic was actually my highest placing pic yet : ) ..*and* had a good number of comments.
also, the more i look at your photo ''emma'', the more i like it. good crispness and colors, and the candidness really seems to reveal something about this child
thanks kollin and david--actually though, most of the comments were right on--i took some advice and redid it--it looks way better now and frankly i''m not too happy with the original anymore!! the main reason i wanted to photograph her in the first place is that she is really a cute girl, but unfortunately gets funny in front of the camera! there is another picture that was taken the day before, which of course fell out of the challenge week window! but she was frowning anyway! I actually liked her expression in the first one though and certainly don''t think she was at her worst (what an odd thing to say)--just the photographer''s lack of skill!
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/4/2002 11:05:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 07:05:56 PM · #34 |
thanks kollin and david--actually though, most of the comments were right on--i took some advice and redid it--it looks way better NOW and frankly i'm not too happy with the original anymore!! the main reason i wanted to photograph her in the first place is that she is really a cute girl, but unfortunately gets funny in front of the camera! there is another that was taken the day before that of course fell out of the challenge week window!
[/i]
Amitchell: Looks great now. Liked it before, but not it's really a winner!! Good correction.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 07:11:46 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by kee:
Amitchell: Looks great now. Liked it before, but not it''s really a winner!! Good correction.
Not? Oh rub it in!! Just kidding!:)
Seriously though, thanks for that and thanks to the criticism that actually says something constructive--we really do listen to the advice!
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/4/2002 11:19:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 07:42:58 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by amitchell:
thanks kollin and david--actually though, most of the comments were right on--i took some advice and redid it--it looks way better now and frankly i''m not too happy with the original anymore!! the main reason i wanted to photograph her in the first place is that she is really a cute girl, but unfortunately gets funny in front of the camera! there is another picture that was taken the day before, which of course fell out of the challenge week window! but she was frowning anyway! I actually liked her expression in the first one though and certainly don''t think she was at her worst (what an odd thing to say)--just the photographer''s lack of skill!
Don't take this the wrong way, but I like the new version ten times better. I also really love the picture that fell out of challenge week. Nice job :)
Drew |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 07:47:44 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by amitchell:
actually though, most of the comments were right on--i took some advice and redid it--it looks way better now and frankly i''m not too happy with the original anymore!! the main reason i wanted to photograph her in the first place is that she is really a cute girl, but unfortunately gets funny in front of the camera! there is another picture that was taken the day before...
I'm only relpying because I don't think I got across my point in my comment on your image (sad thing is I made the same comment to a few other people). What I meant to mean :) was that he child was obviously very cute, but that I didnt think the shot was very appealing of her. You don't really see too many shots of children in their bathing suits, that expose a lot of their skin... I guess for good reason too. It's just not cute for children. She looks a little red too, maybe sun burned, maybe heat exhaustion, who knows. I think the second shot makes her look a little better, and the determination in her face is great. Just wanted to clarify my comment, although I probably dug myself into a deeper hole.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2002 01:59:03 AM · #38 |
>Don't take this the wrong way, but I like the new version ten times better...
Trust me--none taken! That's why I am here--it is cool to have other opinions thrown in--sometimes you agree, sometimes not--but many (like for this pic) are valid and you learn!
Just wanted to clarify my comment, although I probably dug myself into a deeper hole.
No hole Langdon--it's all good. Thanks for clarifying even though it wasn't a big deal. I really didn't take what you said as really bad--just strange at first--but then again, I know first hand how hard it is to get your personality across on this site!;) But that's what is so cool about this place-- the more you talk, the more you start to get to *know* each other. So, herein lies a lesson---don't take a picture of your friend's kid and post it on a public site unless you are VERY sure it is good--because you WILL have to answer to the parent!:)
|
|
|
|
06/05/2002 05:56:07 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by dpchallenger:
OOP! I guess my monitor sucks ass. I didn't see the person in the shower :( When I look at it now I can see a vague shape but it doesn't look like a person. Sorry :(
It definitely changes the whole complexion of the composition with a person inside the shower. I guess my monitor is getting kinda old (21" NEC and it has been calibrated with photoshop software). Once again I must apologize because I would've definitely scored it higher if I saw a person in the shower.
My monitor also didn't show the person in the shower, and I downgraded the picture for it, since the challenge was a "people" shot. When I viewed it on a bigger and better monitor and saw the figure, I thought it deserved to be a point higher. That would have moved the picture from a 4 to a 5. I studied the picture quite a while before voting, because I could see a lot of effort went into it, but the picture wasn't interesting to me. I wouldn't have gone higher than a 5, because even with the person behind the curtain I thought it didn't meet the challenge as well as most. Just MHO. |
|
|
|
06/05/2002 06:13:21 AM · #40 |
| Even without the person behind the curtain it meets the challenge IMO, Its not like the challenge said, "You must see a persons face" Obviously a person is standing there holding a knife. Challenge met. |
|
|
|
06/05/2002 06:21:41 AM · #41 |
Of course, to be honest, there really isn't a person there holding a knife. Stuffed clothes and a knife hanging from a string in the doorway. But hopefully you wouldn't know that unless I said...
;-)
|
|
|
|
06/05/2002 07:14:21 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Patella:
Of course, to be honest, there really isn't a person there holding a knife. Stuffed clothes and a knife hanging from a string in the doorway. But hopefully you wouldn't know that unless I said...
;-)
After hearing all the work you put into it, it makes me feel badly that I did not rate it higher. The fact that there is not someone holding the knife is pretty interesting. I never would have guessed.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2002 07:18:18 AM · #43 |
|
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: 04/09/2025 05:27:03 AM EDT.
