petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Inger - I don't think the bee is too much out of focus. The image is just soft and in need of a bit of sharpening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Harry, I see a slight green tinge as well on my IBM 18 inch TFT monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermargrete Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Hello Pete: to me too much of the bee is out of focus, only the middle part where the wing is attached + the legs are in focus. This is one of 3 distracting elements I can see - the other two are the burned-out highlights and big spots in the background. Only my opinion:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Harry, that's a good point about the originality ratings and is something I always think about. Often I will rate low on originality but that doesn't mean I don't like the photo, and so I rate higher on the aesthetics. Then of course there's the opposite - some photos are highly original but are not aesthetically pleasing. Then of course some photos are perhaps technically poor images, but they still look fantastic and I would rate them highly too from the aesthetic viewpoint. Problems are really that some people rate photos without even looking at them, some rate after inspecting the most minute of technical details, and some rate properly by considering originality and aesthetic appeal. And as you say - how original can it be? And even if it can't be original it can still be pleasing to look at. 85% of the portraits, landscapes, and whatever are completely un-original so should be rate average or lower there, but many are still beautiful to look at so should be rated higher on aesthetic. for some reason, people seem to be rating as it originality and aesthetics scores have to be within one point of each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Hi Inger - I agree wholeheartedly with you on the original image. But how do you feel about the cropped and sharpened version I linked to in my earlier post? Would you rate that any differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermargrete Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 The attachment is better and if it is possible to clone away the leftover highlights and reflections it would look even better. The burned-out highlights don`t work with images like these, I think - and should be avoided. This means one has to master the manual use of f/stops and shutterspeeds - that should be easy to learn:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 hahaha f/stops and shutter speeds - that'll confuse some :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermargrete Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 But before you know it you`ll turn that wheel around faster than you ever thought you would:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Inspired by this discussion, I just shot, processed and uploaded a "similar." I've included the technical specs. Have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 <i> Then with my own judgement and experience, and with a clear mind not clouded by bias or pride, I decided that this picture is Average or a little bit above average but certainly not below average. How is this picture below average I ask ?</i><P> You seem a bit unclear about the meanings of objective and subjective. If you're evaluating based on <b>your</b> judgment and experience, you are not being objective. As for your question, several people have already provided critiques of the image's shortcomings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 "If you're evaluating based on your judgment and experience, you are not being objective" Then what criteria am I supposed to use ? Someone elses judgment and someone elses experience ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermargrete Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 When you express your opinion (and that is what the rating system is about) you are being subjective and not objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Mike, "I" think that aesthetic appeal has to be subjective. I don't see how it's possible to be objective about aesthetic appeal as what holds aesthetic appeal for me might not hold any aesthetic appeal for you, and vice versa. Originality is a different kettle of fish to an extent - even if you hate the look of a picture you can easily tell if it's in some way original and itmay not be too hard to be objective about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Inger, I'm sure you heard of the term "Just the facts madam" meaning that I gave Mike all of the facts before I made my judgement. This is what an objectvive judge is supposed to do, not cherry-pick a couple of negatives, then write the entire picture off because of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mharris Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 Thanks everyone for the feedback and suggestions. I think one of the positive things this thread did was open a good dialog on rating, keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Harry, that's exactly what photo editors do. If there are technical problems, it gets rejected. Pete, as I mentioned on my upload, just as poor technique produces bad aesthetics, so does good technique greatly effect aesthetics in a positive way. If the viewer isn't aware of how the subject's photographic interpretation is enhanced by good camera work, then they're reduced to liking or not liking the subject. They can buy the print or not. But if you're rating photographs on PN for the benefit of the site and photographer, you should understand all the photographic variables of the image in question. Most raters don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mharris Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 Pete I agree with your crop of the image looking a lot better. I should have thought about that. As far as your example and sharpening it looks a little too sharp to me. I try to do very little post processing on all my images. One reason, I'm not very good at it and the other I try to get a good shot right out of the box. I'm going to mess with this image in CS2 and some of the others and see what I can learn, thanks. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 "I must have made someone mad... ...it's certainly not a 3." Which is it? Michael purposefully seeks ratings even though he already knows what ratings an image deserves so he may practice his mentalist skills of sensing stranger's emotional state over the internet or is given to making unsubstantiated assumptions about his more Earthly skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mharris Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 Don't know John, that's why I asked you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mharris Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 In any event I took some of the suggestions, not the "earthly skills" one, that was just too stupid to listen to and edited the picture: http://www.photo.net/photo/6228600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Aha Michael - your image is now an example of digital manipulation that has been carried out in order to deceive. This is not what you saw and is no longer a true representation of the subject you photographed. The sunlight is not hitting the subject from an angle below the horizon. The relationship between bee and the Earth's gravitational field is no longer correct. It is a lie :)) However, I would say it is a lot more aesthetically pleasing than the unedited version! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mharris Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 LOL Pete I agree, although it does look better it's not what I shot. Maybe I do have power over nature. I really try and not edit my images very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 one issue that holds true in any art from, whether photography, painting, sculpture... is that there is no accepted, universal truth or standard as to what constitutes a "good" or "bad" art. there is no 2 + 2 = 4. it is maddening and it is wonderful. objective...subjective? in one sense they're meaningless...or at the least indistinguishable words. objective? by what standard? who's to say that being in focus counts for anything? blown out highlights... so what, for it may be pleasing to someone. we can argue that regardless of how others view our work, that if it pleases us...that's all that matters - but honestly,how many of us can sever our emotions so completely from our work and remain true to this philosophy. for me... in the end i'm not generally swayed by the opinions of others to the degree that i make changes i don't feel comfortable with, nor do i cater to others in style or subject matter so that i'll garner their favor and high ratings. but if the view of my peers held no value for me..., for any of us...why would bother to be here having this discussion and displaying our photographs for all to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 You are making more assumptions Michael. I gave no suggestions. I'll go ahead and rate your image now. You can see if I am mad or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermargrete Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "..blown out highlights... so what, for it may be pleasing to someone." I thought that blown out highlights was something one should not do in photography, it means that the exposure is not correct. This was more the case before than it seems to be now, I think. It is suitable for some situations, if it enhances the photo - but often it doesn`t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now