My entry, The Drapery Falls, made #14, FAR FAR more than I ever expected.
I know, you're probably thinking "who cares", but I'm just excited: not only did I break 6.0, but got quite a good ranking (I thought "maybe" I'd make top 50).
Thank you once again for your kind comments, and congratulations to all the others who entered this contest. There were some DAMN fine entries!
I learned a lot....namely, that in the case of such things as "textures" it must be the predominate item in the scene and the incorporation of a textured item within a still life scene doesn't seem to go over well.
Considering this, I went for an entry in "wooden" that was clearly wooden with strong and absolute focus on the wooden...as opposed to trying to include some aspect of "wooden" in another scene.
To me, my texture entry fit the challenge but many felt it did not. Alas, I think part of that is due to re-sizing and if they could see the image as a 3200x pixel image they'd feel the texture I had captured.
woohoo, top 140. well, i thought i'd do better, but after two really bad challenges, i'm happy to pull through with an above "average vote receive" score. Thank you people!
My entry, The Drapery Falls, made #14, FAR FAR more than I ever expected.
I know, you're probably thinking "who cares", but I'm just excited: not only did I break 6.0, but got quite a good ranking (I thought "maybe" I'd make top 50).
Thank you once again for your kind comments, and congratulations to all the others who entered this contest. There were some DAMN fine entries!
This really was a little side note. But I had 300 votes before the end of the challenge. Then 28 of the people didn't do 20% of their votes so they were thrown out. Of course that just happened to be the ones who voted high for me. Just wanted to let people know if you going to start voting please atleast get 20%.
Thanks to all who voted on my entry (well, those of you that voted high anyways ;).. jk) - I'm truly surprised and ecstatic to have won placed 3rd in this gigantic challenge. Thanks for all of the wonderful comments - they're truly appreciated.
OK - I need to start with saying that I love Johannes' work and this question in no way reflects on him. And it is not that I sore that I scored lower. I truely want to learn here.
We both submitted similar entries. When I look at them I see technical flaws in both but nothing major. Yet they scored 115 places different (5th to 120th) with a gap of almost a full point (5.6 to 6.5). Maybe someone can help out and comment on why my photo lacked the kick needed to at least get nearer the top. Again, I ask only to learn and not to discredit someone elses work. Hell, I think they are both great shots. LOL.
Thanks to all who voted my iceberg picture into the 95% bracket. I have put up two more shots of icebergs from my recent trip to Alaska. The first is the bluest one I saw and the second one is still falling off the glacier.
I didn't vote, but my opinion on these:
1. Higher-placed shot has a more grabbing coloration. Warmer tones suited the image well.
2. In terms of framing, I also prefer the higher-placed shot. Yes, both are angled shots, but the extra bit of sky helps place the subject. Lower-placed shot also showed a bit of grass, which in my mind is a distraction.
3. Titles count, and I prefer that of the higher-placed shot.
4. Borders. I prefer the bordered shot.
OK - I need to start with saying that I love Johannes' work and this question in no way reflects on him. And it is not that I sore that I scored lower. I truely want to learn here.
We both submitted similar entries. When I look at them I see technical flaws in both but nothing major. Yet they scored 115 places different (5th to 120th) with a gap of almost a full point (5.6 to 6.5). Maybe someone can help out and comment on why my photo lacked the kick needed to at least get nearer the top. Again, I ask only to learn and not to discredit someone elses work. Hell, I think they are both great shots. LOL.
Johannes'
Mine
Johanne's shot is strongly textural in its lighting, and more dynamic in its composition. He has the "raking light" wrapping around the stem of the boat and causinng the peeling paint on the right side of the image to a much more palpable texture. It's a very powerful image both in its lighting and its composition. Look at the arc of the sky, and how the stemhead of the boat punctuates it with such a sweetly-placed diagonal.
By contrast your image is much more static in composition, especially inasmuch as the sky is sort of merging into the tones of the boat, and your lighting is not accentuating the texture the way it does in Johannes' shot. Note also how the blue rubbing-strake in your shot is generating an awkwardly-situated "true horizontal" that is at odds with the otherwise diagonal nature of your lines.
To be honest, I thought the visible oversharpening of Johannes' shot (see the haloing aroudn the stemhead, especially) was seriously damaging his chances, and commented to that effect during the challenge, but clearly the voters as a group were more lenient than I. Certainly, aside from PP problems (if indeed they are perceived as such), Johannes' ribbon-winner is a powerfully lit and composed image.
We both submitted similar entries. When I look at them I see technical flaws in both but nothing major. Yet they scored 115 places different (5th to 120th) with a gap of almost a full point (5.6 to 6.5). Maybe someone can help out and comment on why my photo lacked the kick needed to at least get nearer the top. Again, I ask only to learn and not to discredit someone elses work.
A fine question. I will say that Johanne's entry has more color, and that may be what put it over the top. Or it may be that people thought the cropping on his presented more of a "total view" of the subject? I can't say - it's just my conjecture. I gave them both the same score.
I didn't vote, but my opinion on these:
1. Higher-placed shot has a more grabbing coloration. Warmer tones suited the image well.
2. In terms of framing, I also prefer the higher-placed shot. Yes, both are angled shots, but the extra bit of sky helps place the subject. Lower-placed shot also showed a bit of grass, which in my mind is a distraction.
3. Titles count, and I prefer that of the higher-placed shot.
4. Borders. I prefer the bordered shot.
Just my opinions, since you asked :)
Thanks for the reply Robert. You have good points and I see how what you point out could make a difference. never ending learning, learning ....
As long as we're in the business of asking "why", I'd be interested in opinions as to why my entry placed so low (84th, with a 5.8ish score) when I honestly expected a score easily above 6.0, based on my past experiences in here.
I Keep looking at this entry and finding it very pleasing in every respect; luminous, controlled tonalities, truly speaks to "texture", looks closely at an unusual subject, and compositionally rich (at least IMO). What am I missing? Is it just that people think mushrooms are yucky?
Johanne's shot is strongly textural in its lighting, and more dynamic in its composition. He has the "raking light" wrapping around the stem of the boat and causinng the peeling paint on the right side of the image to a much more palpable texture. It's a very powerful image both in its lighting and its composition. Look at the arc of the sky, and how the stemhead of the boat punctuates it with such a sweetly-placed diagonal.
By contrast your image is much more static in composition, especially inasmuch as the sky is sort of merging into the tones of the boat, and your lighting is not accentuating the texture the way it does in Johannes' shot. Note also how the blue rubbing-strake in your shot is generating an awkwardly-situated "true horizontal" that is at odds with the otherwise diagonal nature of your lines.
To be honest, I thought the visible oversharpening of Johannes' shot (see the haloing aroudn the stemhead, especially) was seriously damaging his chances, and commented to that effect during the challenge, but clearly the voters as a group were more lenient than I. Certainly, aside from PP problems (if indeed they are perceived as such), Johannes' ribbon-winner is a powerfully lit and composed image.
Robt.
Wow - Great description of some major points a Robert. I can really see that the composition and light made a much bigger difference than I had originally realized. I'm still trying to train my eye to see these things. You guys are a great help. Thanks.
A fine question. I will say that Johanne's entry has more color, and that may be what put it over the top. Or it may be that people thought the cropping on his presented more of a "total view" of the subject? I can't say - it's just my conjecture. I gave them both the same score.
As long as we're in the business of asking "why", I'd be interested in opinions as to why my entry placed so low (84th, with a 5.8ish score) when I honestly expected a score easily above 6.0, based on my past experiences in here.
I Keep looking at this entry and finding it very pleasing in every respect; luminous, controlled tonalities, truly speaks to "texture", looks closely at an unusual subject, and compositionally rich (at least IMO). What am I missing? Is it just that people think mushrooms are yucky?
Robt.
Well, first I gave it a 7 so I may not be able to help much. I thouhgt it clearly showed texture and had great depth, excellent exposure and tonal range as you state, crop and framing were good. I think it suffered a touch becasue the subject was just not that interesting, did not have anything to grab you.
As long as we're in the business of asking "why", I'd be interested in opinions as to why my entry placed so low (84th, with a 5.8ish score) when I honestly expected a score easily above 6.0, based on my past experiences in here.
Robt.
Robt: I went back to this image several times and ended up giving it a 6. To be honest, at first I didn't know what it was. IMHO, it is kind of difficult to the viewer upon first glance to determine that it's even a mushroom. I think that the lighting was a tad bright (given the already light tones of the mushroom), causing you to lose some detail, and the fleshy tones (while they do have a lot of texture) also remind me of internal organs (no offense). And while many people like mushrooms, this one looks a little mutilated - and even if that's how this particular type of fungi normally appears - it's not what most people think of). There was something about it that just didn't look that appetizing to me (and I like mushrooms).
That would be my guess as to why it didn't score higher. Again, just trying to offer one possible explanation...
As long as we're in the business of asking "why", I'd be interested in opinions as to why my entry placed so low (84th, with a 5.8ish score) when I honestly expected a score easily above 6.0, based on my past experiences in here.Robt.
Hmmm.... how to critique someone that you look to as a role model? Difficult. My cut, however, was that the mushroom (I realized that's what it was) looked quite mutilated, and more disturbingly, I couldn't quite make out whether or not that part in the lower left corner was a mutilated thumb. I realized it wasn't, after looking a bit, but first impressions sort of hang on. I ended up giving it a 6.
