Nice dramatic lighting. A shame the crop was not more even. I like how the statuette appears to be "floating above the floor".
However I have marked it down somewhat and I hope the following, which I have sent to some other entries helps explain why.
-----
I would like to explain a little more my reasons for reducing the score on this entry. That way even if you disagree/agree, you will understand my rationale.
Firstly, -
I have been lucky for the last 25 years of my 30 in photography to have been able to judge (I dread to think) many hundred competitions for local photographic societies, magazines, industry and professional photographic organisations some with very considerable prizemoney/professional awards/photographic qualifications. The method I and other judges are enforced to use is the method I continue to use. This has its limitations. Normally with a competition it would be that you were looking at a print or slide. That makes a huge difference. In many competitions the opportunity is there to see (handwritten) exposure times, details, technique etc. That also helps.The DPchallenge forum is the first time I have judged photographs on-line. There are many problems with this. Different monitor calibrations being possibly the most problematical. Lower resolution of photographs remove some of the subtlety and nuance of a picture which may be apparent in a print. This results in having to make a "what you see is what you get" judgement. Not ideal in any way.
Normally in competitions, many hundreds of photographs are placed in front of you and you have only 2 or 3 seconds to eliminate the first batch it is important that it "appears" to fit the criteria. This is the sticking point. You may have used the correct method/technique and the picture could be 100% but if in that 2/3 seconds it did not "appear" to be painted with light - thats where the rejection comes. Very unfair I know, but can you see where I am coming from?
Having to check techniques where there was ambiguity would make the task impossible.
I also think it fair to say that in an educational setting - when teaching photographic technique - "painting with light" does still have a very narrow definition. That is not to say that the end photograph has to look like it has been "PWL". The end result could, if that is the required end, still look ordinary. Interiors are a classic example. In order to get sufficent illumination of a large auditorium for example, painting with light would almost certainly be used but you would not want the end result to look as if it had been "PWL". That picture could therefore be a classic example of "PWL" but in a competition could be about as much use as a chocolate tea-pot!
The problem with this sort of competition is that two people could submit almost identical photographs, Both beautiful, both appearing to be lit in the same way - One may have thought of "PWL" in the photographic sense (moving light source) the second thinking of "PWL" in the artistic sense - (a beautiful picture simply using light to make an object the image) - How do you judge these? Do you see my difficulty - It is almost a case of asking you "Please don't do it so well so I can see how you did it!"
I do hope I have been able to put my point of view across and that I have not been misunderstood.
Text is difficult to write without sometimes it being read in a harsh way when in fact had the words been spoken, it would have been interpreted in the way it was meant.
David |
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
