Originally posted by Anton Magus "The depth of field is too narrow because parts of the subject are blurred and the background has totally lost all definition destroying the continuity between the subject and its environment".
Depends on the image ... since I don't know on what image that comment it was made, let me point to a relevant one - that you made on my image - now I am really not trying to make this in a "fighting match", or put you on the spot or anything like that - you are one of few who seems interested and reply to this thread
- and I appreciate that.
"
The composition is also a problem. The camera viewpoint was too low down and the leaf is cut off on both left and right. At first glance it is even difficult to recognize as a leaf. The grass is just unwanted clutter in the image. I see no attempt to follow any of the rules of composition, nor to break themcreatively. Composition = 1/6 Flawed.
".
Your comment is flawed ... and some might consider the tone a little "supperior". The image is very well balanced, even though the leaf was cut-off. You see a lot of great portraits where the head is cut-off slightly ... will that makes it a bad image? No. The low angle was obviously on purpose - as a matter of fact I prefer shooting from a lower angle. Gives more interesting effects. The "clutter" was obviously on purpose as well.
"
It is also difficult to regard your entry as creative. There is no particular interest in the subject, no symmetry or interesting asymmetry, no interplay of light and shade, no interesting perspective... Creativity/Originality = 1/4 Unoriginal."
This is flawed as well ... I find it to be nothing but a bunch of words thrown together. It just shows that you don't like the image per say - which I respect in a way - not everyone's type of cookie.
But creative? Come on ... if you would observe "the attempt at the banding" and that the fact I am taking the viewer from left to right leading him in and out of the page while observing some of the detail and letting him fill in the blanks, you would understand that there was some thought behind the image.
Is a suggestive image ... you don't need a super sharp image to understand who is your subject and in what state it is and together with the title it sends a message... image is not perfect and it could of been better ... but not even one of the recommendations was on the spot.
Now is far from perfect and I know that ... but is not as bad as you describe it either.
And just just for the sake of argument, here is the image so people have an understanding of the discussion.
Your comments basically describe what you would of liked to see or what you would of done rather than concentrate on the image presented and understand what someone was trying to do.
As a judge you SHOULD know art ... or else what are you basing your judgement on? Personal preference? No, that will be flawed as well.
The funny thing is that I DO have an image of this leaf from a higher angle with it in focus completely (just as most of the judges wanted to see it) ... I just found it boring and uninteresting.
Last edited by mrNewt; 05-12-2013 at 01:37 PM.