Fort Pulaski Stairs

This recently won 3rd place in the beginner category of a photo

contest at the GA National Fair. All comments are appreciated.

I am puzzled by the overwhelmingly negative ratings that this photo has received. And 21 ratings and no comments! While the "Originality" of this picture is not particularly high, it is aesthetically pleasing. It looks angular and dynamic, mainly due to the slanted light and the circular stairs.

 

I would have preferred: (1) the highlights on the steps to be not blown out. Can't judge from the scan whether you could have underexposed a touch. Or perhaps burn in those areas a bit. (2) more sharpness. I want to see the texture of the concrete and the bricks (3) more angular treatment. 30 minutes earlier or later might have given you a more satisfying picture.

 

-Niranjan.

 

I have a difficult time with the concept of "Originality". What constitutes an original image? I seem to get low ratings for originality, but no explanations as to why.

There are two problems with the "originality" rating: (1) no one knows what it really means, and (2) raters are not aware of what's out there, including photography/painting/art history, to correctly evaluate the originality of a picture.

 

Meredith, in this particular case, the idea is not novel. There are plenty of photographs that pretty much try to portray exactly what you have done. It's not something that makes the viewer sit up and think "Whoa, why didn't I think of that!" or "Boy, I have never seen this kind of a photo before". So, clearly it's not a 6 or a 7 (in the 1-7 originality scale). Beyond that, the grade that you get more likely reflects the toughness of the grader and not the photograph, and its a judgement call. Don't take it seriously.