My first shot for this had a chair and a table with candle and way more postprocessing to ahcieve shadows and texture. It ended up looking way too processed and almost like a bad painting. I went back and kept it minimal, tweaked the lighting setup (my wife held the $9 lamp) and reshot. I had to do very little processing on this one and I am very pleased with the end result.
I wish I could claim that, but really, it wasn't much work.
Resize
A little Neat Image
Open in Photo Impact and apply "fill flash" lighting
Open in PSP to clone out some light at the back of his neck
Adjusted contrast and brightness
USM
and hope for the best.
And while I understand the lower votes (3, 4) - I should have cropped to "rule of thirds" and tried to burn out some of the highlights. I don't get the REALLY low votes (1, 2).
I agree the image is ver nice. However it seem you rely on your post processing skills a little to heavily in my opinion. The image should have been shoot using the "right" lighting technique to start out with. That would have improved you photography skills.
I agree the image is ver nice. However it seem you rely on your post processing skills a little to heavily in my opinion. The image should have been shoot using the "right" lighting technique to start out with. That would have improved you photography skills.
And if I had the money for the "right" lighting, I wouldn't have to worry about post-processing skills. You're right. You footing the bill for lights and reflectors, etc ? No, didn't think so. Ah well, had to try.
So, for now, I make do with what I have. A couple of 60 watt desk lamps and a large east-facing window.
Kashi,
Just for your info, I know a lot of people get reflectors for very cheap. You can use those things that people put in car windshields. They can be picked up for very little money.
You can also make your own with a piece of cardboard and aluminum foil.
And while I understand the lower votes (3, 4) - I should have cropped to "rule of thirds" and tried to burn out some of the highlights. I don't get the REALLY low votes (1, 2).
Live and learn I guess.
The REALLY low votes (1,2) and the REALLY high votes (9,10) are fringe votes that mean very little which you can ignore. The group you really want understand and connect with are the 159 people that scored your image 5 and 6. That is well over 50% of the total voters. Connect with them and your scores will get higher.
Kashi,
Just for your info, I know a lot of people get reflectors for very cheap. You can use those things that people put in car windshields. They can be picked up for very little money.
You can also make your own with a piece of cardboard and aluminum foil.
Nice shot!
Hey now - I've always got aluminium foil here . . . sounds easy enough.
And while I understand the lower votes (3, 4) - I should have cropped to "rule of thirds" and tried to burn out some of the highlights. I don't get the REALLY low votes (1, 2).
Live and learn I guess.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The REALLY low votes (1,2) and the REALLY high votes (9,10) are fringe votes that mean very little which you can ignore. The group you really want understand and connect with are the 159 people that scored your image 5 and 6. That is well over 50% of the total voters. Connect with them and your scores will get higher.
Any suggestion on how to connect with them a little more ?
I agree the image is ver nice. However it seem you rely on your post processing skills a little to heavily in my opinion. The image should have been shoot using the "right" lighting technique to start out with. That would have improved you photography skills.
And if I had the money for the "right" lighting, I wouldn't have to worry about post-processing skills. You're right. You footing the bill for lights and reflectors, etc ? No, didn't think so. Ah well, had to try.
So, for now, I make do with what I have. A couple of 60 watt desk lamps and a large east-facing window.
Thats no excuse . Helmut Newton worked with one 60 watt bulb at times. It's only my opinion, but, I realize this is a digital photography site, but people sometimes forget the photography part and just think post processing. I'm not critizing the shot i'm just saying that, considering it's digital and instant feeback of how the shot looks, all you had to do was move the light a few inches and stick a piece of foam core or aluminum foil to the opposite side of the light to fill the shadows. Thjis would have made you photography more dominant then you post processing skills. The question is do you want to be a Photographer or a retoucher?
Thats no excuse . Helmut Newton worked with one 60 watt bulb at times. It's only my opinion, but, I releize this is a digital photography site, but people sometimes forget the photography part and just think post processing. I'm not critizing the shot i'm just saying that, considering it's didital and instant feeback of how the shot looks, all you had to do was move the light a few inches and stick a piece of foam core or aluminum foil to the opposite side of the light to fill the shadows. Thjis would have made you photography more dominant then you post processing skills. The question is do you want to be a Photographer or a retoucher?
I'm here to LEARN. I am NOT a pro photographer, I don't know the trick that people use. But, I'm more than open to learning - when information can be presented politely.
And while I understand the lower votes (3, 4) - I should have cropped to "rule of thirds" and tried to burn out some of the highlights. I don't get the REALLY low votes (1, 2).
Live and learn I guess.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The REALLY low votes (1,2) and the REALLY high votes (9,10) are fringe votes that mean very little which you can ignore. The group you really want understand and connect with are the 159 people that scored your image 5 and 6. That is well over 50% of the total voters. Connect with them and your scores will get higher.
Any suggestion on how to connect with them a little more ?
Ahhhh... and therein lies the rub, doesn't it? :)
You have to ask yourself a question. Am I taking pictures to get higher scores or am I taking pictures to capture images I like in the way I want to capture them? Those goals are not necessarily the same but can be related.
DPC is a generic group of primarily amateur photographers that is slowly becoming more sophisticated in the ways of image processing. It is a valuable skill to be able to take pictures you know can appeal to a very specific group of people and I feel that is something worthy to try to do, assuming that is something you are interested in. To get higher scores at DPC you need to submit images that appeals to that particular group. It is possible that conflicts with your real photography goals.
Her photography is stunning, yet she has only ever got 1 third place ribbon at DPC. Why? Because she does not photograph to appeal to a generic group of primarily amateur photographers that is slowly becoming more sophisticated in the ways of image processing. She takes traditional photographs, the type that gets her a magazine cover and praise from professional photographers of which she is a part.
If you chose to take pictures for DPC, and I think that a good goal, here are some suggestions:
1-Insure your image unambiguously meets the challenge for an international audience
2-Give your submission "added value". That is, add some extra element to the composition, and it does not matter what it is, that sets your image apart from the others. It could be something unique in the composition, or could be an unexpected element or even somethng as simple as unique color but it must be something more than what is asked for in the challenge topic.
3-Make sure your submission is technically excellant even though the group is surprisingly forgiving about technical flaws.
4-Include a technique that is currently popular like extreme dodge and burn, exaggerated colors or things like that.
5-Make an adjustment in image processing that, though it may stretch the actual reality of the raw image, has an instant impact on DPC viewers.
6-Never directly copy another technique. It is the kiss of death for high scores.
7-Follow the forums to see what people currently dislike and don't use them in your compositions. Right now that might be such things as overuse of noise reduction to generate smoothing effects. The group is fadish so do NOT include unpopular things in CURRENT submissions. Fads can and do change.
Her photography is stunning, yet she has only ever got 1 third place ribbon at DPC. Why? Because she does not photograph to appeal to a generic group of primarily amateur photographers that is slowly becoming more sophisticated in the ways of image processing. She takes traditional photographs, the type that gets her a magazine cover and praise from professional photographers of which she is a part.
I respectfully disagree. She "averages" a 6.2+ and has over a dozen photos that just missed getting a ribbon and WOULD HAVE if she had gotten any breaks along the way. Heck, her ribbon entry doesn't even show up on her portfolio's front page. Proof that her photos DO appeal to the "amateur photographers" here. She's just been unlucky.
