I just noticed something interesting; my 21st place "Textures" image displays a vote distribution with only 4 votes of 4-or-less. The score's not outstandingly high, but hardly anybody has any bad vibes from this image, evidently. In this respect it's quite like my recent blue in "Water", which had a single 4 vote and no 1's, 2's, or 3's... The bar graphs are remarkably similar except that the textures image has a LOT more 5's than the water image, and the latter of couirse has more high votes.
But these are the only two shots I've ever submitted where the low range of the voting chart is essentially unpopulated; check it out. Have I mastered the art of offending nobody and pleasing everybody, and is this a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?
Holy crap, bear! Your analysis leads me to believe that you should think about spending 1999 hours making photorealistic images in photoshop. ;-P
Huh? What "analysis"? This was like a "flash of lighbulb" realization that just ocurred to me a few minutes ago. Baby, you ain't seen "analysis" yet, gimme time :-)
I don't think you could take a '1' or '2' shot even if you tried! :-)
Hahahahaha! Thanks for the kind words, but you've GOT to be kidding? According to the voters, I've taken a TON of them :-) For just one example, check out my "Moods" entry... I REALLY thought this one most definitely conveyed a "mood", but look at the scores!
I think you have stumbled on to the perfect image - one that has enough depth, texture and features for those with calibrated monitors, and which still has appeal to those with woefully dark configurations.
I just noticed something interesting; my 21st place "Textures" image displays a vote distribution with only 4 votes of 4-or-less. The score's not outstandingly high, but hardly anybody has any bad vibes from this image, evidently. In this respect it's quite like my recent blue in "Water", which had a single 4 vote and no 1's, 2's, or 3's... The bar graphs are remarkably similar except that the textures image has a LOT more 5's than the water image, and the latter of couirse has more high votes.
But these are the only two shots I've ever submitted where the low range of the voting chart is essentially unpopulated; check it out. Have I mastered the art of offending nobody and pleasing everybody, and is this a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?
Robt.
Those two images are typical DPC images bright,colorful and sharp.Thats the eye candy voters want now if that is a good or bad thing is up to you to decide. :)
Those two images are typical DPC images bright,colorful and sharp.Thats the eye candy voters want now if that is a good or bad thing is up to you to decide. :)
Right, that's what I'm "worried" about... I got a reputation to uphold, ya know? jejeje™
I think 'unobjectionable' is about the last thing I'd want my images to be. Though it is probably the best way to get high scoring DPChallenge images.
An unobjectionable image wouldn't have obvious flaws that would let someone mark it down.
An unobjectionable image wouldn't break any obvious compositional rules.
An unobjectionable image wouldn't insult, disgust or annoy anyone.
But the flip side would be:
An unobjectionable image wouldn't move anyone, lift their spirits, connect, communicate.
An unobjectionable image would follow all rules to the letter.
An unobjectionable image wouldn't have any life, or soul or expression?
[this is just the tail of a rant I was working up to last night watching 'judging' in a local photography club contest. It was also helping me realise why I'm increasingly uninterested in photo contests, when the judges have a list of 'rules' to mark things up and down based on.
At some point, the question 'is the picture any good' gets lost in a list of checkpoints and +- for good/bad images. Art and photography shouldn't have much to do with that, yet there they were last night, ranking and rating images on % of blown highlights or angle off perfect horizontals or how far points were from rule of third power points - much like many of the dpc voting scales I've seen over the years]
I agree with keegbow. You've found the look that the dpc voters like.
Personally, I think they are too color-saturated and would prefer the originals. But that's me.
Good luck to you. We should start seeing lots of ribbons on your home page in the future.
Here's one that I submitted with naturally rich colors. Seventeen people still felt it was below 5.
the eye candy argument is crap. A good image is good regardless. The first image has a lot of texture and is nice to look at. The water picture is what it is. Eye candy... how about Librodo's blue:
or
or
They are not eye candy, bright cheerful, whatever. They actually evoke sadness and thought. So I say a good image scores well. Period. End it at that. I think Bear's main point here is the lack of exceptionally low votes. I truly believe it is because it is a well executed image(s) that cover the topic of the challenge.
All three of those examples are overprocessed in my opinion.
Yes, I'm in the minority, but that's what I see. The darks are too dark and details are lost.
All three of those examples are overprocessed in my opinion.
Yes, I'm in the minority, but that's what I see. The darks are too dark and details are lost.
That's what I call actually making something look like it has black in the picture. Black is dark, it's sort of the nature of the beast there.
All I can say is it is wonderful to see you grow. Maybe in relation to a DPC Image but nonetheless it is a growing pattern you seem to be on and I think the photographs are getting better, not that you were ever bad Robt. I do find both very easy on the eye. But this one has that presence or feeling I call ART. I just love it.
Just to play DA a bit here. Why didn't your image get more than 3 10s? I think that is a bit to "worry" about as much as it is an incredible thing to have only 4 four or less votes. I've never come close to that few 4- votes.
I have noticed quite a few images have less votes under 4 lately. I think that either some voters have seen the light from the numerous threads about voting, which I doubt, or there's a new improved Troll filter put into operation.
