How can oversharpened and over - hued photo get 71 nines and tens?Or even 59?
If I'm not wrong this is "photography" challenge and I'm puzzled when real good photographs are badly beaten by digital so called arts !
How can oversharpened and over - hued photo get 71 nines and tens?Or even 59?
If I'm not wrong this is "photography" challenge and I'm puzzled when real good photographs are badly beaten by digital so called arts !
Sorry, although there is a forum dedicated to discussing whether the winner deserved to win, my personal opinion is that these discussions are rather pointless. But of course just my opinion.
How can oversharpened and over - hued photo get 71 nines and tens?Or even 59?
If I'm not wrong this is "photography" challenge and I'm puzzled when real good photographs are badly beaten by digital so called arts !
Too much BS here,not so interesting amymore!
I agree....kind of. While I wouldn't classify that as "digital arts" (the same effect could be done with an orange sunrise/set lense filter) I didn't score that picture well based on the quality. It looked way over sharpened with a major pixels problem in the bridge detail (all the white spots) & was quite surprised to see it pull 3rd.
Anytime you have thin diagonal lines like that in a digital image, you are going to have some amount of 'jag' in them unless the entire image is extremely soft. Your monitor is creating that artifact for the most part. That is the only area of the image in question that displays that characteristic. I bet a print of it looks perfectly clean.
Anytime you have thin diagonal lines like that in a digital image, you are going to have some amount of 'jag' in them unless the entire image is extremely soft. Your monitor is creating that artifact for the most part. That is the only area of the image in question that displays that characteristic. I bet a print of it looks perfectly clean.
Cat whiskers are a pain in the butt too. I dont see the jaggies on my print versions either as you stated.
I did not vote in this challenge, but had I, I propably would have given this a high mark...8 and above. True, it is oversharpened and overly saturated, but for me those are not big deals. The strong points for me which overshadow the aformentioned flaws are the strong color, atomospheric perspective and the shooting angle, which appears to be from up on a hill or tall building, and gives the image a more graphic element in that we are able to see the far of land mass. I do believe the color to be overly saturated, but that's fine with me and adds rather than detracts. Also, there appears to be some vignetting at the bottom corners.
Anytime you have thin diagonal lines like that in a digital image, you are going to have some amount of 'jag' in them unless the entire image is extremely soft. Your monitor is creating that artifact for the most part. That is the only area of the image in question that displays that characteristic. I bet a print of it looks perfectly clean.
I run into it all the time in my photos & when it shows up that much on the screen, it shows in the print. There are solid yellow lines down the sides of the main suppors of that bridge. If a photo doesn't have to be technically well done to win, than I guess I'm definitely in the wrong place.
Cat whiskers do it more when too much direct light hit em ;) Using flash close up starts it since they are shiny white things & sharpening adds to it.
Remember that these "jaggies" are emphasized by the small resolution of the entry photos. The same image, one at 2000 pixels wide, and the other at 640, will often have a marked difference in the jagginess of the diagonals. Likewise, the amount of compression needed to meet the file-size limit will often exaggerate the problem for entries, whereas print files should be less-affected.
I sometimes use an "even multiple" size reduction (e.g. to exactly 40%, not 41.37%) when resizing to (perhaps) minimize loss of detail due to the resampling process. I'll also make an image somewhat smaller than maximum size (e.g. 610 pixels) so that I can apply a better compression factor within the size limit.
Unfortunately (for me) almost all of the winning photos here are technically excellent .....
Anytime you have thin diagonal lines like that in a digital image, you are going to have some amount of 'jag' in them unless the entire image is extremely soft. Your monitor is creating that artifact for the most part. That is the only area of the image in question that displays that characteristic. I bet a print of it looks perfectly clean.
I run into it all the time in my photos & when it shows up that much on the screen, it shows in the print. There are solid yellow lines down the sides of the main suppors of that bridge. If a photo doesn't have to be technically well done to win, than I guess I'm definitely in the wrong place.
Cat whiskers do it more when too much direct light hit em ;) Using flash close up starts it since they are shiny white things & sharpening adds to it.
I did not rate this photo as high as most people did but still thought it was a fairly good photo. My own tastes are for a more realistic looking photo, but I am not at all upset that it got great scores. The photographer had to make a choice as to how saturated to make the photo and what hue they thought would look the best. Clearly from the scores the photo received they did a very good job at making their choice. I will not give anyone a hard time for not liking this photo but I don’t think it is constructive to get mad because so many people did like the photo. The photo does show a fair bit of sharpening not so much from jags in the line but rather from the bright halos around dark objects. But this is something that you have to look for instead of looking at the photo for what it is. There is a danger of becoming the pixel police when looking at a photo instead of looking at the whole and judging it as a complete work. I really think the best response to this photo getting great scores is to say congratulations Brennan, well done.
I run into it all the time in my photos & when it shows up that much on the screen, it shows in the print. There are solid yellow lines down the sides of the main suppors of that bridge. If a photo doesn't have to be technically well done to win, than I guess I'm definitely in the wrong place.
Cat whiskers do it more when too much direct light hit em ;) Using flash close up starts it since they are shiny white things & sharpening adds to it.
"Technically well done" is just as subjective as the subject itself. I tend to throw the technicals out when a photo speaks to me in some way. It's just a bonus of sorts if a strong image also has great technicals displayed at the same time.
If I held 'technicals' in such high regard, I would never get to enjoy photos with grain, perspective distortions, odd and shifted focal planes, vignetting, overexposures, underexposures, and so on and so forth...
[
"Technically well done" is just as subjective as the subject itself. I tend to throw the technicals out when a photo speaks to me in some way. It's just a bonus of sorts if a strong image also has great technicals displayed at the same time.
If I held 'technicals' in such high regard, I would never get to enjoy photos with grain, perspective distortions, odd and shifted focal planes, vignetting, overexposures, underexposures, and so on and so forth...
I'm going on the thought that most of the things you are mentioning are purposeful useage to get a certain effect. I doubt the blown out pixels were dropped in that bridge on purpose ;)
Award winning photographs don't follow a specific checklist in criteria (perfect colors + perfect composition + perfect subject matter + perfect execution = a perfect 10). Any one factor can, and often does, more than make up for small flaws in the photograph. Just look at many of the most impactful photographs you can think of. All of these photos transcend their photographic qualities to become a powerful visual experience. If you get stuck in the details you can easily miss the point of photography which is communication. The Golden Gate photo obviously communicated strongly to the votes here otherwise it wouldn't have been ranked so high.
