Roger Hicks
Veteran
Very true. I was oversimplifying, but then again, with three judges who knew one another, the PIC judging tended to be quite smooth.
And, as you say, "outstanding quality, if there is any, does stand out!"
Cheers,
R.
I generally find that when people focus on the technical, they don't get, don't like, or don't want to talk about the content of the photo.
Highway 61
Revisited
Okay for the second quote ; but re. the first one, I don't think that I didn't control my words, nor was unpolite with Ellen. This is a photo forum so we discuss some photos and make comments based on what has been explained by the OP, that's all.
The point is : how strange it is to hear that the judges haven't accepted this photo because of some WB problems only, because this is fully secondary when you obviously think of what makes this photo not being a great one.
And - we're looking at, and commenting, a casual landscape photography, not what is in somebody's heart and soul. So, we can be sincere and write what we think here I guess.
Might I not be Anglo-Saxon enough ?
:angel:
haempe
Well-known
This is so true (at least for professional photographers) and noteworthy.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It is hard to tell whether it is a holiday snap or not - but considering it was entered in a contest, it most probably is not. If it isn't, it is a contender in the artistic landscape category, where it might legitimately be off-colour. However there ought to be some good (though perhaps not immediately self-evident, at least for viewers with no background in recent art photography) explanation why it was not properly colour balanced/UV filtered. But given that the judges might not be into that kind of photography, it is generally wise to accompany art with a fair amount of text, at least if it has a strong layer of meta content that might need explanation.
Jamie123
Veteran
That's mostly true, although there is also the rare case where you see a picture that you think would be great content-wise if it wasn't for some technical aspect. A friend of mine recently sent me a few pictures he took and one of them would've been great IMO if it hadn't been ruined by the composition.
In any case, I'm actually surprised these judges gave any reason at all for not accepting the photo. I thought usually there's just a generic answer like 'Unfortunately your image did not make the selection' or something along those lines.
I agree, of course.
dct
perpetual amateur
I see your point. The gear and the kind of processing shouldn't have impact on the final result judgement. But this is true both for the artist as well the judges. Here it seems the verdict containts digital commonplaces (WB, postprocessing) which are completely wrong, because the submitted shots weren't digital.
This is the part of the the complaining I support.
astro8
Well-known
Joe, your images are the sharpest I've seen....along with Jim Marshalls...may sound weird, but that's the way I see it.
Ellen, just keep doing what you are doing and stuff eveyone else.
pieter
Established
I think that the judging of art hardly ever goes from objective thought towards subjective thought. So unless something is obviously wrong that can be objectively judged, the subjective judgement will never follow from objective reasoning.
So it's hardly ever the case that somebody judges art by first making up his mind about the composition, then follows up with a rational look at the color balance, then moves closer to the photograph to judge if something is in focus that should be in focus, and then finally adds up all his previous objective findings to come to a subjective appreciation of the photograph. (hardly ever: "oh, good use of the rule of thirds composition wise! Good use of color: expertly done; how the red dress on the left is balanced by the green bird on the left. And now that i pixel peep, i can see that the object is correctly focussed! = YES! I love this photograph!")
So when given objective reasoning about the judging of art, it should be seen as some afterthought. More like: "oh yes. I almost forgot. Let me write something up that objectively explains why I subjectively didn't like the photograph." In some ways the judgement has been passed way before this reasoning is written down. And very few people have the self knowledge, the technical expertise and take the effort to really dig up their subjective reasoning and put it into objective writing.
Add to this that the "no" pile usually does not get much attention after it has been placed on the "no" pile. Almost everybody prefers to spend time and effort on giving their objective reasoning for liking an object of art to doing the same for not-liking an object of art.
So if it is well thought out criticism (that might even be useful to furthering your artistic skills) you seek, don't expect it from a competition judge. Unless you really want to make the translation yourself.
You could (by yourself or with help from somebody else) try to find out what's behind this weird unthoughtful objective reasoning that the judge has given you.
For example: he remarks something about white balance. Just forget that you're not using digital raw and that it's a weird comment. Somewhere in his feeling about the photograph probably the colors aren't speaking to him. They don't grab him.
Maybe a bright yellow flower in the front would change it for him? maybe the same scene with all the trees fully green (instead of some brown ones in between), maybe the gorgeous blue sky would look even more interesting if a bright red plane would pass through it? Maybe if the lake would look more blue from another angle it would contrast nicer with the sweet green waterlilies?
Anyway who knows.
My suggestion would be to never look to a competition judge for a good rational comment about your work, especially when it's not the winning photograph. Or, if you prefer, take the effort yourself that the judge lacked and try to find the real subjective reason behind the objective one given. (while remembering that often enough this is impossible because the two are just too far removed.)
So it's hardly ever the case that somebody judges art by first making up his mind about the composition, then follows up with a rational look at the color balance, then moves closer to the photograph to judge if something is in focus that should be in focus, and then finally adds up all his previous objective findings to come to a subjective appreciation of the photograph. (hardly ever: "oh, good use of the rule of thirds composition wise! Good use of color: expertly done; how the red dress on the left is balanced by the green bird on the left. And now that i pixel peep, i can see that the object is correctly focussed! = YES! I love this photograph!")
So when given objective reasoning about the judging of art, it should be seen as some afterthought. More like: "oh yes. I almost forgot. Let me write something up that objectively explains why I subjectively didn't like the photograph." In some ways the judgement has been passed way before this reasoning is written down. And very few people have the self knowledge, the technical expertise and take the effort to really dig up their subjective reasoning and put it into objective writing.
Add to this that the "no" pile usually does not get much attention after it has been placed on the "no" pile. Almost everybody prefers to spend time and effort on giving their objective reasoning for liking an object of art to doing the same for not-liking an object of art.
So if it is well thought out criticism (that might even be useful to furthering your artistic skills) you seek, don't expect it from a competition judge. Unless you really want to make the translation yourself.
You could (by yourself or with help from somebody else) try to find out what's behind this weird unthoughtful objective reasoning that the judge has given you.
For example: he remarks something about white balance. Just forget that you're not using digital raw and that it's a weird comment. Somewhere in his feeling about the photograph probably the colors aren't speaking to him. They don't grab him.
Maybe a bright yellow flower in the front would change it for him? maybe the same scene with all the trees fully green (instead of some brown ones in between), maybe the gorgeous blue sky would look even more interesting if a bright red plane would pass through it? Maybe if the lake would look more blue from another angle it would contrast nicer with the sweet green waterlilies?
Anyway who knows.
My suggestion would be to never look to a competition judge for a good rational comment about your work, especially when it's not the winning photograph. Or, if you prefer, take the effort yourself that the judge lacked and try to find the real subjective reason behind the objective one given. (while remembering that often enough this is impossible because the two are just too far removed.)
redisburning
Well-known
here's the problem with judges:
if you were to hand me a picture you took with a 200mm lens I would 99 times out of 100 hand it back and say I don't like the perspective
if you were to hand me a picture you took that was in line with today's popular understanding of street photography I would 99 times out of 100 hand it back and say I think it's too busy
if you were to hand me a picture you took where you made it look cross-processed with fake grain and super heavy vignetting I would 99 times out of 100 hand it back and laugh at you to your face
does that mean your photo is bad? hardly. does that mean that that 1 rare picture I love despite my predisposition would speak to other people? hardly.
it has been demonstrated to me that most people think in a way that is fundamentally different than I way I do and that our tastes will never overlap. so I try my best, and fail occasionally, to ignore their opinions on taste as much as possible.
if you were to hand me a picture you took with a 200mm lens I would 99 times out of 100 hand it back and say I don't like the perspective
if you were to hand me a picture you took that was in line with today's popular understanding of street photography I would 99 times out of 100 hand it back and say I think it's too busy
if you were to hand me a picture you took where you made it look cross-processed with fake grain and super heavy vignetting I would 99 times out of 100 hand it back and laugh at you to your face
does that mean your photo is bad? hardly. does that mean that that 1 rare picture I love despite my predisposition would speak to other people? hardly.
it has been demonstrated to me that most people think in a way that is fundamentally different than I way I do and that our tastes will never overlap. so I try my best, and fail occasionally, to ignore their opinions on taste as much as possible.
back alley
IMAGES
really? sharpest as in over processed?
i use the unsharpen mask on all my images but in a standard and very low ratio. there is barely a difference between the unprocessed and the 'unsharpened' image.
jim marshall? the music photographer?
astro8
Well-known
No...sharp, as in bang on focus, solid and no shakes. That was the first thing that struck me when I first viewed your shots.
Yes, Jim Marshall the music photographer. I get the same feeling when I view his shots.
It may sound strange...but a lot of the photos I see, my own included, I get the feeling they came from some nervous character...like Don Knotts was doing the shooting.
Anyway....that's the look I'm striving for, although it's more of a feeling I get from a shot than a look.
back alley
IMAGES
that's a relief...i don't care for a lot of processing and i was starting to think i was going a bit off...
thanks for the feedback...funny, i wouldn't have come to the same conclusion as you but maybe that goes to being one's own worst critic.
taskoni
Well-known
Okay for the second quote ; but re. the first one, I don't think that I didn't control my words, nor was unpolite with Ellen. This is a photo forum so we discuss some photos and make comments based on what has been explained by the OP, that's all.
The point is : how strange it is to hear that the judges haven't accepted this photo because of some WB problems only, because this is fully secondary when you obviously think of what makes this photo not being a great one.
And - we're looking at, and commenting, a casual landscape photography, not what is in somebody's heart and soul. So, we can be sincere and write what we think here I guess.
Might I not be Anglo-Saxon enough ?
Because I was the first one to say the photo isn't good enough I might have to apologize to Ellen first, but it's not going to make this shot good anyway. I just find it strange that this photo made it to the judging level. In the landscape photography, where everything MUST be perfect - presumingly the landscape photographer takes all the time needed to set up the camera, wait for the proper light, choose carefully the framing etc. shots like this one are usually not acceptable. Even if the WB is great!
So, I agree with Highway 61 on his thoughts on the subject as I would like to get honest comments on my pictures I am posting too.
And because was previously flagged in the thread that she didn't looked for comments on the photo, IMO the judges were absolutely right to reject that landscape.
Regards,
Boris
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Boris,
In many of the things I've judged, this would certainly have made it to what you call 'the comments level' but it would have fallen short on a very personal test, "Do wish I had taken this picture?"
No, because I have. Not exactly the same, but many like it. Technically excellent; can't tell about white balance on my internet computer, no problem with Velvia saturation. But nothing that really grabs me: a good record. But what am I looking at? A good record of an attractive scene that I've seen in real life a thousand times (and normally failed to capture well myself). It's mnot really an interpretation. It's nothing new. On those grounds I might reject it. But not on the grounds given by the OP, which are pure ignorance and stupidity on the part of the judges.
In a weak competition, it might have won. In a strong competition, no. But with weak judges like that, it's always going to be a meaningless competition.
Cheers,
R.
taskoni
Well-known
Dear Roger.
You have summarized all thread comments in one wonderful way!
Regards,
Boris
Turtle
Veteran
Roger makes the point. Had it been a cracking shot (the one posted by Ellen) it is doubtful that WB would have had anything to do with anything. It could well be that the judges did not rate the image very highly and recorded whatever was easiest and most concise to record as their reason for rejection. Subjective comments given to a thousand photographers might generate even more negative responses from entrants than inappropriate technical ones.
As well as being a straight record shot, I think the image is a bit cold too. That in part is a product of shooting in unflattering light, so if you link the two bits of logic together, there is perhaps an answer.
The message for Ellen is perhaps to take it on the chin, pick yourself up and keep striving to improve. Getting rejected is far more common than accepts, no matter how good your work may be. How right or wrong they are does not matter much if your goal is to succeed. You just have to keep loving what you are doing, keep learning and keep plugging away.
As well as being a straight record shot, I think the image is a bit cold too. That in part is a product of shooting in unflattering light, so if you link the two bits of logic together, there is perhaps an answer.
The message for Ellen is perhaps to take it on the chin, pick yourself up and keep striving to improve. Getting rejected is far more common than accepts, no matter how good your work may be. How right or wrong they are does not matter much if your goal is to succeed. You just have to keep loving what you are doing, keep learning and keep plugging away.
patois
Established
I feel for you. Comments like that can be extremely infuriating and worst of all won't help you at all.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I wish & wish some more, cross my fingers that every judge of photographs adopts the philosophy/technique used by Toastmasters.
Public speaking is an art just like making photographs. I believe not too many strive to make a lousy photograph. Same for a person making a speech.
Here is my recommendation based on how we do evaluations with Toastmasters:
1. Start out stating at least two positives you see with the photograph. If you can't find any, look again, find them.
2. Then, instead of pointing out faults, find one or two areas you see that could be used for the photographer to work on for the next time s(he) makes more images and submits them for evaluation. This process should be to help the photographer, creating a positive atmosphere to make better and better photographs.
3. Finally, end on a high note. You can restate what you said in #1 then follow up with something like, "I look forward to looking at your next photograph(s)."
Humans, especially artists, are sensitive. It is easy to crush someones desire and get turned off by your review and not submit any photos in the future. Is that what you want? Don't we want to help someone along the way and have them submit again and again? Smiles are better than frowns!
If you are the judge, it's in your hands.
Public speaking is an art just like making photographs. I believe not too many strive to make a lousy photograph. Same for a person making a speech.
Here is my recommendation based on how we do evaluations with Toastmasters:
1. Start out stating at least two positives you see with the photograph. If you can't find any, look again, find them.
2. Then, instead of pointing out faults, find one or two areas you see that could be used for the photographer to work on for the next time s(he) makes more images and submits them for evaluation. This process should be to help the photographer, creating a positive atmosphere to make better and better photographs.
3. Finally, end on a high note. You can restate what you said in #1 then follow up with something like, "I look forward to looking at your next photograph(s)."
Humans, especially artists, are sensitive. It is easy to crush someones desire and get turned off by your review and not submit any photos in the future. Is that what you want? Don't we want to help someone along the way and have them submit again and again? Smiles are better than frowns!
If you are the judge, it's in your hands.