I haven't been trying to post on 1x as I'm pretty sure I have nothing they want at this point. Here are two I tried over the last three weeks that didn't make the cut...
I've had loads of rejections (2 published, 1 in screening) and I keeping thinking about De Souza's words of wisdom:
DPC care about sharpness; 1x care about light.
pawdrix, I do note that your fine images are very sharp and I'm aware that one of my recent rejections came back with a comment that sharpness isn't always good... Food for thought??
pawdrix, I do note that your fine images are very sharp and I'm aware that one of my recent rejections came back with a comment that sharpness isn't always good... Food for thought??
one of my rejections was because it wasn't sharp enough. :P
I've had loads of rejections (2 published, 1 in screening) and I keeping thinking about De Souza's words of wisdom:
DPC care about sharpness; 1x care about light.
pawdrix, I do note that your fine images are very sharp and I'm aware that one of my recent rejections came back with a comment that sharpness isn't always good... Food for thought??
I would say it's impact, light and tone and that sharpness is not of a premium on 1x. They love their candy but the image does need to be strong first. Some weak images slide by on processing or basic content. A basic non-event, third world image will usually make the cut. People love third world.
The turtle shot isn't that sharp and is one of my oldest images taken with a cheap lens on my D70. I'm not a sharpness freak but I did try to "doll it up" for the audience, which is always a mistake for me to do.
I was hoping to recreate the tones in this image from 1x in the Coney Island Pier shot but the tones/light simply wasn't there to work with. I shot on a bright overcast aftrenoon so the warm tones are nowhere to be found. So again, I tried to "doll it up" which isn't my way of working but still fun to try. It'also look richer on my mac than my work/pc monitor.
Honestly, I have difficulty seeing after a long day of work and if I edit late at night, I can't tell what I'm doing. I need to look at things a few times over before I post. Is the pier image way, way too sharpened?????
IF the Coney Pier shot is over sharpened, it is only apparent in the splashing water. The rest looks very natural. To my eyes it doesn't look overdone.
You may have done this already, but I'd sharpen an image like this selectively. The naturally smooth areas, obviously, do not benefit from any added sharpening.
Comments as follows;
I don´t understand, what´s going on here. Are these two pictures?
this is creative editing not abstract
Additional feedback: Of those who voted against your image, five indicated that there is a problem with story, five noted disturbing objects as a weakness and five selected impact as a reason for not publishing the image
As my younger brother used to say, its far better to get a reaction, even if it's negative. it means you've hit a chord........!
...after about 25 submissions I settled on approximately 1/3 acceptance ratio. some of my recent rejects
somehow most of my street stuff gets rejected, and my "eye candy" flies in... which is a bit disappointing to me.
I was thinking of posting up at the 1x Forum but realized I don't care enough to stir things up over there but in regard to my Third-World-A-Licious theory, I'll share here.
I've begun to notice (actually, for years now) that third world images don't have to be good to have impact. They just have to be, which is more of a comment on the simplistic nature of many viewers than anything else. Images can be whatever they are but third world seems to wow without much effort or meaning. Take an average shot of an expressionless...emotionless guy BUT put him in a funky third world hat and you have an instant winner...
None of them are great technically not that that matters but more important they are pretty boring. The subjects are expressionless and aren't delivering much of anything in terms of interest or action with the exception that they are all Third World, they are pretty void and non-eventful. Is Third World All it takes to capture peoples attention? If these same images were of average city or town folk, would they garner more than three blinks and a shrug?
I entered my image after seeing those others...especially the guys in the hats. I thought a technically decent image of a strange looking guy, with an odd hat showing some expression might pass but expressive doesn't count for much I guess? He's showing more personality than those other people but his surroundings are common. I'm NOT saying it's a brilliant photo by any means but neither are those others that were published.
In short, I'll just chalk it up to Third-World-A-licious-Ness or how simple little things automayically push the viewers buttons... nothing more.
I was thinking of posting up at the 1x Forum but realized I don't care enough to stir things up over there but in regard to my Third-World-A-Licious theory, I'll share here.
I've begun to notice (actually, for years now) that third world images don't have to be good to have impact. They just have to be, which is more of a comment on the simplistic nature of many viewers than anything else. Images can be whatever but they are but third world seems to wow without much effort or meaning to them. Take an average shot of an expressionless...emotionless guy BUT put him in a funky third world hat and you have an instant winner...
None of them are great technically not that that matters but more important they are pretty boring. The subjects are expressionless and aren't delivering much of anything in terms of interest or action with the exception that they are all Third World, they are pretty void and non-eventful. Is Third World All it takes to capture peoples attention? If these same images were of average city or town folk, would they garner more than three blinks and a shrug?
I entered my image after seeing those others...especially the guys in the hats. I thought a technically decent image of a strange looking guy, with an odd hat showing some expression might pass but expressive doesn't count for much I guess? He's showing more but his surroundings are common. I'm NOT saying it's a brilliant photo by any means but neither are those others that were published.
In short, I'll just chalk it up to Third-World-A-licious-Ness or how simple little things automayically push the viewers buttons... nothing more.
Any thoughts?
Maybe it's a case of bandwagon jumping. I've noticed that a certain type of image will get published, then in screening and in the critique section you'll see images of the same genre for the next week or so.
Also not sure if there is a thrid world bias going on. There does seem to be an liking for old and decrepit, be it thrid world, old world or new world.
Rejected after almost a week on screening :( The status bar seems to be at 50%
Of those who voted against your image, six indicated that there is a problem with motif, four noted impact as a weakness and two selected composition as a reason for not publishing the image. Good subject though.
Yep. I think you're right. Third world faces are more worthy. If it's a younger woman or girl, add a scarf obscuring most of the face (not for cultural reasons, purely for effect) and it's a certain winner, not just at 1x but anywhere. Well, nearly anywhere.
If it's a younger woman or girl, add a scarf obscuring most of the face (not for cultural reasons, purely for effect) and it's a certain winner, not just at 1x but anywhere. Well, nearly anywhere.
Oy Vey!
I've always found that scarf stuff to be criminal or blatantly disingenuous, at the very least. People still gobble it up and I can't understand why. It's kind of scary how easy it is to sell patently fake goods (Amercan Idol, Britney Spears, Boy Bands...Steve McCurry Knockoffs) but it also ties into why the world is in such a mess.
I also agree that the 3rd World knockoff stuff is popular just about everywhere and not just at 1x. Discussing it usually disintegrates to people coping to personal tastes, which can be fair but I honestly think most people operate on a pedestrian level. It's the only explaination I can find for Reality TV, Amercan Idol, Donald Trump, Sponge Rush Fat Pants(Rush Limbaugh)...and Steve McCurry Knockoffs. lol
[ It's the only explaination I can find for Reality TV, Amercan Idol, Donald Trump, Sponge Rush Fat Pants(Rush Limbaugh)...and Steve McCurry Knockoffs. lol
All for now...
Man, I thought you were going for Spongebob and I just knew you and I were going to go 'round and 'round on that one. :P
I was thinking of posting up at the 1x Forum but realized I don't care enough to stir things up over there but in regard to my Third-World-A-Licious theory, I'll share here.
I've begun to notice (actually, for years now) that third world images don't have to be good to have impact. They just have to be, which is more of a comment on the simplistic nature of many viewers than anything else. Images can be whatever but they are but third world seems to wow without much effort or meaning to them. Take an average shot of an expressionless...emotionless guy BUT put him in a funky third world hat and you have an instant winner...
None of them are great technically not that that matters but more important they are pretty boring. The subjects are expressionless and aren't delivering much of anything in terms of interest or action with the exception that they are all Third World, they are pretty void and non-eventful. Is Third World All it takes to capture peoples attention? If these same images were of average city or town folk, would they garner more than three blinks and a shrug?
I entered my image after seeing those others...especially the guys in the hats. I thought a technically decent image of a strange looking guy, with an odd hat showing some expression might pass but expressive doesn't count for much I guess? He's showing more but his surroundings are common. I'm NOT saying it's a brilliant photo by any means but neither are those others that were published.
In short, I'll just chalk it up to Third-World-A-licious-Ness or how simple little things automayically push the viewers buttons... nothing more.
Any thoughts?
The difference is, that in your photo, the subject is smiling and happy.
there is some truth in what you said.
For example this photo
while growing up in india i had seen many women like this. To me its ordinary subject.
Yeah. I'm not as overwhelmed by that shot as the rest of the world. It's a great shot and she's an interesting looking character but I think people project far deeper meaning to that...and other images than they actually merit.
For years I've seen and been wowed by the second cigar smoking woman on that page until I realized she just scooped tourist dollars for a shot. My pal Sam told me she won't even put the cigar in her mouth unless you toss her some money first. There's no more romance or brilliance in that capture...just another tourist trap, type of thing yet it appears so culturally rich. Oh well...
eta: The war weary look on these guys faces carry more weight than most of the uber hokey scarf stuff we see, piled in one but again, people gobble that stuff up. That's what sets Steve McCurry in a class of his own. He finds the real thing and nails it where some people find models and recreate it. I could care less but what does concern me is that people can't see the difference or they simply don't care.
