[MossyRocks]

So this was my entry for the November photo contest and while it didn't become a finalist, I didn't expect it to, I did notice something a bit strange. While it didn't get many nominations, only 2, it did get a large number of views, well over 200. When I looked at other photos it seemed that most of them got 1 nomination for every 20-30 views. As the ratio for this photo was so dramatically different I am curious about people's thoughts on it. Especially those who did view it in the contest and didn't nominate it and why as the couple of comments I did get didn't provide any insight into how to do better.

I am really curious what people's reaction to the picture is and what could be improved


This was taken with my Spotmatic F using the 50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumar lens. The metering was done off of the reflection not the birch trees. The film used was Kodak Ektar and was scanned using a Pacific Image Prime Film XE scanner. For post processing I darkened the red and yellow a bit and auto stretched the contrast in Gimp but didn't do any more.

What you are looking at is trees reflected in an puddle that fills a low spot in the ATV trail. The top part of the picture as shown with the sky is actually the reflection and is what was closest to the camera with the birch trees being farthest away. I chose the upside down view because of how striking the image was when I got my prints back as all of the other reflection pictures I took were taken with the camera rotated 180 degrees as they were hand held while this one was off the tripod.

So did I just screw the pooch on the image all together, was the framing bad, was it just a bit too out there (I wanted something a bit different to enter but this may have been a bit much), is is just too busy, or is it something else?

I do realize that I probably could have fiddled around some more with scanning and done a normal exposure scan and a substantially underexposed scan and combined them to deal with the over bright non reflected area and still might do that once I figure out a good way of accomplishing that without things going sideways.

---

Last edited by MossyRocks; 12-26-2017 at 01:42 PM.

[nicolpa47]

Ok, I'll jump in, but I've never previously commented on anyone else's photos, and I didn't view the photo in relation to the photo contest. There are others on here who will be much more qualified than I to comment. These are just my personal views.

As it stands above, I simply found the bottom third of the photo too confusing(busy), and I would have cropped that version back to the area that you say is the reflected part. But, I would not have entered it that way.

I have downloaded the image and restored the original orientation. It immediately makes more sense as you appreciate the floating leaves for what they are(which you don't in the above version) and you can see immediately that the main part is a reflection. Without knowing what was off-screen, it is difficult to guess what other framing or cropping choices were available, but I think I would have preferred to include a little more of the direct scene as well as the reflected.

I like the rendering of the reflected area, as the reflected blue sky provides a counterpoint, but I think I would have tried to darken the non-reflected area a little in order to bring out the autumn colours, particularly in the "V" of the tree trunks. Just my personal, and probably conservative, view. Hope this helps.

Colin

[MossyRocks]

Thanks
That is the kind of thing I am looking for. I did feel that the brightness in the lower third was a bit much but then my abilities of digitally manipulating film scans aren't that great yet as I am still learning.

[Kerrowdown]

provide any insight into how to do better

Ok, taking away any technical any issues re methodology, equipment, film type, exposure, scanning etc etc. For me the image is just way too busy/confusing and I can't find the focal point i.e. the bit I'm supposed to looking at or where you want to draw my eye.

What you are looking at is trees reflected in an puddle that fills a low spot in the ATV trail

The fact you need to explain now here, what the image is all about, is my case in point.

But there again, I'm just a simple Highlander... so please feel free to totally ignore my inane drivel.

[MossyRocks]

For me the image is just way too busy/confusing and I can't find the focal point

I will accept that. That is an area that I have struggled with. I like the photo because of the colors and strange effect of it being upside down but I should have probably picked a less busy image, or cropped out the really busy parts. So any thoughts on rotating it right side up and then cropping off the over bright would be top and some of the would be new right?

I would probably also brighten up the image some as well as it would seem really dark then.

[Kerrowdown]

So any thoughts on rotating it right side up and then cropping off the over bright would be top and some of the would be new right?

I think if it were mine, I'd be looking for a different image to work on and consign this one to the not today pile.

[Liney]

I must admit I looked at the title and tried to work out where the "upside down" part came into it. Starting from the top of the image you have a dark blue sky, then the higher branches and the ground cover, and after looking carefully that's where the "right way up" bit stops. below that is the reflection, but in terms of the brightness of the image it seems to keep getting lighter and lighter. It was not easy to find the line where it stops being one and starts being the other.

[pentaxfall]

I am seeing this for the first time. I have a similar picture shot with the slide. In that picture the part above the ground is over exposed. It may be because film has lower DR compared to camera like K1. If I were to show that picture to someone they need sometime to see the line between pond and ground. Over exposure makes it hard to see the line between ground and pond. My photo too has same issue.

[Kombivan]

Ok, I'll jump in, but I've never previously commented on anyone else's photos, and I didn't view the photo in relation to the photo contest. There are others on here who will be much more qualified than I to comment. These are just my personal views.

As it stands above, I simply found the bottom third of the photo too confusing(busy), and I would have cropped that version back to the area that you say is the reflected part. But, I would not have entered it that way.

I have downloaded the image and restored the original orientation. It immediately makes more sense as you appreciate the floating leaves for what they are(which you don't in the above version) and you can see immediately that the main part is a reflection. Without knowing what was off-screen, it is difficult to guess what other framing or cropping choices were available, but I think I would have preferred to include a little more of the direct scene as well as the reflected.

I like the rendering of the reflected area, as the reflected blue sky provides a counterpoint, but I think I would have tried to darken the non-reflected area a little in order to bring out the autumn colours, particularly in the "V" of the tree trunks. Just my personal, and probably conservative, view. Hope this helps.

Colin

Totally agree your image upside down confused the brain totally, the trees didn't line up properly sky looked liket the top was darkened could not determine the shore line at all was too busy a photo to tilt upside down whilst you took the photo remember the viewer did not take the photo even though we knew it was upside down. For an upside down shot it needs to be either simple or make sense to be perfectly honest it looked to me like a badly done edit sorry but I have a flaw where sometimes I can be brutally honest without meaning any harm. The correct way up it looks perfect and you would have stood a shot at winning somthing the reason it got so many views is no one can resist a puzzle.

I've had another look at it and now I can see the shore line it's sunkin where it is The photo now looks better now I see a head profile in the shoreline and the background of your shot now looks like a world hanging upside down underneath so basicly you needed your viewers to walk away for a while and then come back and have another few looks at it.

You could even get away with naming the photo, the edge of the world.

so basicly the photo confuses the viewers brain until they can relax and have a second look. So stress robbed you of a prize.

[ccc_]

at first glance...too busy
second glance...it makes more sense
third glance...what would I do

before it was over I took a lot of glances....you didn't go with symmetry and as a consequence the level of confusion was too high
I took your image and tried a lot of different tweaks
the one thing that changed the image...in color or b&w...was to darken the top third until the bottom popped and made sense

my guess is the busyness of the total image shut off interest

i'm glad you wanted to know why it didn't appeal to the judges
because it made me look at and think about how to convey what I suspect you saw

sometimes you have to force a stranger's attention to what you want them to see
that's why vignettes work so well, for instance

[Kombivan]

I am seeing this for the first time. I have a similar picture shot with the slide. In that picture the part above the ground is over exposed. It may be because film has lower DR compared to camera like K1. If I were to show that picture to someone they need sometime to see the line between pond and ground. Over exposure makes it hard to see the line between ground and pond. My photo too has same issue.

Try using a half graduated ND filter to even the exposure remember the refelection will take twice the time to expose as compared with the above reflection informationas its recording a reflection so if you use a 1/2 nd grey filter for the information above the reflected water you should get a better exposure.

[DeadJohn]

...While it didn't get many nominations, only 2, it did get a large number of views, well over 200. When I looked at other photos it seemed that most of them got 1 nomination for every 20-30 views. As the ratio for this photo was so dramatically different I am curious about people's thoughts on it...

Here's one theory why you got many views with comparatively few nominations. At small thumbnail sizes, the bright colors look appealing and encourage people to click for a larger size. The full size photo, though, is arguably too busy and soft focus.

It might be cropped too tightly. A wider view could help orient the viewer and recognize what's a reflection and what's not. Showing some sky at both the top and the bottom of the frame would also make the reflection situation easier to understand.

[ccc_]

...Here's one theory why you got many views with comparatively few nominations. At small thumbnail sizes, the bright colors look appealing and encourage people to click for a larger size. The full size photo, though, is arguably too busy and soft focus...

funny that
I showed my wife (and harshest critic) the original

pretty colors
what about the reflection?
oh...well it still has pretty colors

[pentaxfall]

Try using a half graduated ND filter to even the exposure remember the refelection will take twice the time to expose as compared with the above reflection informationas its recording a reflection so if you use a 1/2 nd grey filter for the information above the reflected water you should get a better exposure.

I used to carry Cokin square filters around. I do not think I used it on that occasion.

[nicolpa47]

As I posted the first comment on here, I decided to take a look at a number of reflected shots of my own. Many exhibit the same trait of the directly viewed area being lighter than the reflected and darker areas. This can be compensated for in GIMP and other software. As to the composition, my photos - which are not contest winners - all show a greater coverage of the subject, and most have a clear demarcation line between the direct and reflected areas - be it a river or canal bank, etc.

Sometimes, you don't need that demarcation line because the reflected image makes a photo on its own, and the reflected and direct areas coalesce to make a whole which can be turned upside down. My wife took what I believe is such a photo. This is a link to the photo. https://scontent.flhr4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/12671865_10201545065464214_...d6&oe=5AB65285