Many folks have a difficult time thinking for themselves. They are constantly hearing that, in portraits, the eyes have to be in focus no matter what. Everything else can be a blur, but if the eyes aren't in focus, the image is substandard.
Some voters tend to form these preconceptions that force them to think that way, and to not think "out-of-the-box."
In your photo, once they notice that the eyes are not in focus, they shut down and never see the bubbled bokeh in the eyes. It's a shame.
Yeah - the skin color isn't too great in my shot either … I really was interested in seeing other peoples' images that maybe needed further explanation or we somehow misunderstood.
I kinda wanted it to be funny ... ha .... um ... hah!
How about my "Beelzebubble" from the Four Elements challenge? heh
It's what bubble hell is like.. Bubbles are water filled with air.. fire all around.. and spikey plants coming from the Earth! Ahhh! What a bubble nightmare!
Wait! Here's another. Everyone talked about the out of focus goose up front. I intended it to be that way. If you were on a cloud taking photos of geese, the one that pops up to kill for being too close to its youngin you wouldn't be in focus!
I've always felt that my "Christmas Temptations" from the "For Sale" challenge didn't deserve the treatment it got in the challenge. I like that picture a lot myself.
many didn't get this and even said as much. for future reference don't use Zoom blur in a motion blur challenge, even if the challenge description mentions it:)
This too was from a while back. The challenge was Darkness. Several of the comments alluded to the fact that they did not realize she was blind. I had thought the title "In my world...." would help people take a closer look.
I would like to think that this image got such a low score because of a misunderstanding. I called the image 'Paint The Sky With Stars', so I was a bit surprised when people thought that my paintbrush was a phone cord and a pencil. :)
It was also mentioned that it looked computer generated. If you take a look at the picture, you can see that it was actually about as low-tech a setup as they come.
Ok, so I learned that I should never put a child in a free study but I think so many people missed the point of the title in relation to the shot and just slamed it and moved on. Is it to hard for people to tell you why they don't like the shot (I know a can of worms) I always do. I don't think it's that bad do you?
Ok, so I learned that I should never put a child in a free study but I think so many people missed the point of the title in relation to the shot and just slamed it and moved on. Is it to hard for people to tell you why they don't like the shot (I know a can of worms) I always do. I don't think it's that bad do you?
Except for the killer blue color cast, it could have use some more contrast/curves and also selective sharpening. I would have voted the same...
Ok, so I learned that I should never put a child in a free study but I think so many people missed the point of the title in relation to the shot and just slamed it and moved on. Is it to hard for people to tell you why they don't like the shot (I know a can of worms) I always do. I don't think it's that bad do you?
Except for the killer blue color cast, it could have use some more contrast/curves and also selective sharpening. I would have voted the same...
From abstract food challenge comes this little beauty. Athough I still like this one personally it did not fare well with the voters and may have been more abstract thought than abstract food like one of the comments suggested.
I had this one in the Low Key challenge, guess it was a little too low key for some :P (1 word: calibrate! )
and this one in Personification, again people found it too dark and didn't see the personification of two spoons into a bum.
I don't think it was that everyone thought they were too dark. I don't think I would know what I was looking at if both were shot under a direct light.
