Hey all I was just wondering if you guys were giving low votes because of a simplistic nature of a photo? Which is more important, meeting the challenge or the nature of the photo?
Hey all I was just wondering if you guys were giving low votes because of a simplistic nature of a photo? Which is more important, meeting the challenge or the nature of the photo?
I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I'm more interested in the nature of the photo if it meets the challenge within a shadow of a doubt. I'm going to duck and run now before I get pummeled by the challenge analysts :)
Just make photos you like and the rest will come with time.
I don't know what challenge you are refering to, but if you mean backlighting. I didn't see one single picture yet that didn't meet the challenge...
So if I scored you low, that means it's just not so appealing to ME as other photo's...
I don't know what challenge you are refering to, but if you mean backlighting. I didn't see one single picture yet that didn't meet the challenge...
So if I scored you low, that means it's just not so appealing to ME as other photo's...
I was not implying that any photo didn't meet the challenge. I was only asking because I seem to get lower scores with 'simple' shots.
Frankly, if I were to analyze my voting, I'd likely find that simple shots get much better votes from me. My brain can only handle so much in a given image... :)
I agree with the others... for me, simple shots tend to be scored higher (too busy = too hard to understand).
But every now and then I see a shot that makes me go "wow, how'd they do that?!?" and ... assuming the picture is any good and it meets the challenge, that 'wow factor' might jump the entry up a notch or two.
