I had plenty of commemnts on my pictureand they asked if I had used a non-stationaey light source, yes I did I used the Glowing filters plug-in in PS to give the finished look. I probably was a bit heavy handed with the filter :)
I was looking to give this picture a digital art look, I didn`t realise that digital was frown upon :)
This is not a complaint as I`m happy with the picture and the final placing 23/120
Just wanted to let people know that it started out as a painting with light picture.
I agree, I prefer the original as well. To be honest, I'm rather surprised that you scored as well as you did, given the frequent complaints about digital art in the forums. I guess there are plenty of people who do like it. Congrats on the finish.
I know I mentioned this to you already, but I much prefer the original shot. I think it still scored well because it is a strong shot, inspite of the effects you applied - rather than because of them (IMHO, YMMV, etc)
I didn't vote or look at any of the images in that challenge, had I have done then the 4th place would have gotten a 3 from me.
I keep harping on about this - and realise I am in the minority, but to me the editing should enhance the image. Now with the 1st place photograph, had that been all Photoshop it would still get a high mark from me because it has enhanced the image to a high degree. However, with the 4th place shot, with the red line, I dislike it quite a lot. Without the red line I would rank it very high.
So I think it's more about how you use the free reign on editing, rather than how much editing one does and see the scores reflect upon that.
But - being that it placed 4th, I am surely one of the few that think that way.
Nevertheless, it adds interesting fuel to the 'lets view users comments whilst voting' debate.
I voted the submitted image lower because it was obviously a PS filter. I would have voted the original higher, definately a better result IMHO.
I think the finish score was as high as it was, after reading the comments, is that quite a few people did not know the effect was done in PS.
you know, i understand not approving editting in PS, but voting a picture down just because it has photoshop efects on it is trully bizarre and i dont know which "ethics" book this kinda ethics is explained in...so much for "photographic integrity".... what is "photographic integrity" anyways? can someone please explain? did god send a revelation about preserving "photographic integrity" and i missed it or something...
noone should claim someone else's artwork as his: thats integrity
noone should just color a blank canvas in photoshop and pose it as photography: thats integrity
everyone should fallow the site's editting rules since they were agreed by majority: thats integrity
and using any desired filters is allowed in advanced editting...
hammering someone else's artwork by voting ridiculusly because they used allowed filters in photohop: THAT'S NOT INTEGRITY!!!.
if i am being stupid to understand this kind of behaviour, please ,someone explain it to me!!...
