Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-16-2010, 10:02 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,433
Teddy Roosevelt NP
Lens: 31mm Camera: K100D Super Photo Location: North Dakota ISO: 200 Shutter Speed: 1/125s 

Aperture F-20

This one was just declined by the PPG and I have to admit that I have always been of two minds about it but kept coming back to it and decided that I liked it well enough to submit it.
Ash, Gary, and anyone else who wants to chime in, give me some help here on what went wrong with this one. Thanks, Susan


Last edited by slowpez; 05-08-2010 at 04:54 AM.
01-16-2010, 01:19 PM   #2
Damn Brit
Guest




Hey Susan, I think it's a very nice picture, the composition is good, I like the way the path winds around the rock. It might have been better to have been a little to the left so that a little of the path was visible as it goes round the back of the rock, this would have also given you some separation between it and the slab behind it. It does look a bit flat and muted and I don't know how much of that is due to it being downloaded here.

As for PPG material, I think the faint writing on the rock might put people off but also these kind of shots need to look like they're out of a travel guide for people to vote on them I think, the sky probably didn't help either. I'm sure the picture is a good representation of how it really looked but that's not necessarily what people look for in a picture.

BTW, I don't put much store by PPG, it's too random and is more of a Vox Pop vote than one of really good pictures.
01-16-2010, 01:24 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Rense's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zetten - The Netherlands
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,014
I agree with Gary on the travel guide appearance. Had a little discussion on the Dutch Pentax forum on landscape photos and the PPG. I think 'PPG' is leaning towards rather saturated (and high contrasty) photos when it comes to landscape photography. I think that is what made your picture not making it....
01-16-2010, 01:28 PM   #4
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,680
Hi Susan.
This image as is doesn't make the mark, much owing to the relatively flat lighting (cloudy conditions) that have led to dull textures, contrast and colours.

With regards to the image content, the composition is indeed good, however the subject matter itself doesn't quite catch the eye. The monument is somewhat obscured by the background cliff-face, and distracted by the cluttered foliage on the left.

I would say this type of image is probably not what PPG are after, but then it's worth a try if you're keen to give it a go after optimising it by enhancing the look of the subject matter in the image...

01-16-2010, 02:22 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Untied States
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,881
Here is a quick job at making the colors look more appealing. The result would be vastly superior if it were out of the original RAW file and not a scaled down JPEG.

01-16-2010, 07:53 PM   #6
jadams360
Guest




I think the problem is that it is flat. It lacks depth and I dont know if it is grainy or if it is from the file compression but it almost looks more like a drawing than a photo. I ran some pp on it as "wallyb" did and it made a huge difference.

I think that the composition is great, though. It leads the eye and makes you wonder where that trail leads. Very americana!

Ps. Is it okay to alter somones photo if you are trying to show an example of what you would do or change? I didn't want to post my alterations because I didn't want to offend the photographer.
01-16-2010, 08:10 PM   #7
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by jadams360 Quote

Ps. Is it okay to alter somones photo if you are trying to show an example of what you would do or change? I didn't want to post my alterations because I didn't want to offend the photographer.

Yes, that's ok. Etiquette dictates that you should introduce it with "I took the liberty" or "Hope you don't mind" or something like that. You should also be prepared to remove it if asked.
01-17-2010, 03:07 AM   #8
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
I like the composition. I think the original is way too flat in colours, however wally's version screamed "artificial" at me, perhaps because the rock seems too orange for a cloudy day (then again I don't have a colour calibrated monitor).

To me something in the middle between the two more towards wally's version might work the best.

However, whoever is judging PPG might be put off by the writing on the rock anyway... people generally like to see their landscapes without graffiti.

01-17-2010, 08:49 AM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,433
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
Hey Susan, I think it's a very nice picture, the composition is good, I like the way the path winds around the rock. It might have been better to have been a little to the left so that a little of the path was visible as it goes round the back of the rock, this would have also given you some separation between it and the slab behind it. It does look a bit flat and muted and I don't know how much of that is due to it being downloaded here.

As for PPG material, I think the faint writing on the rock might put people off but also these kind of shots need to look like they're out of a travel guide for people to vote on them I think, the sky probably didn't help either. I'm sure the picture is a good representation of how it really looked but that's not necessarily what people look for in a picture.

BTW, I don't put much store by PPG, it's too random and is more of a Vox Pop vote than one of really good pictures.
Thanks Gary. I think you may have hit the nail on the head with it being flat and muted. Looks a little better in the original version but not that much. I also like your idea of having more of the path show behind the rock.
And honestly, I can't believe that I never noticed the writing on that rock. My eyes are worse than I thought.
Thanks for taking the time to C&C. Susan
01-17-2010, 08:52 AM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,433
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rense Quote
I agree with Gary on the travel guide appearance. Had a little discussion on the Dutch Pentax forum on landscape photos and the PPG. I think 'PPG' is leaning towards rather saturated (and high contrasty) photos when it comes to landscape photography. I think that is what made your picture not making it....
Thanks for the comments Rense. The fact that it didn't make it really doesn't bother me as I have several that did which should say something about their standards. Guess that this one represented a good day on our trip and I saw more in it than was there. Extra eyes help evaluate photos for me.
01-17-2010, 08:57 AM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,433
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Hi Susan.
This image as is doesn't make the mark, much owing to the relatively flat lighting (cloudy conditions) that have led to dull textures, contrast and colours.

With regards to the image content, the composition is indeed good, however the subject matter itself doesn't quite catch the eye. The monument is somewhat obscured by the background cliff-face, and distracted by the cluttered foliage on the left.

I would say this type of image is probably not what PPG are after, but then it's worth a try if you're keen to give it a go after optimising it by enhancing the look of the subject matter in the image...
Thanks for taking the time to help me out with this photo Ash. Your comments are always right on. It has already been turned down by the PPG and I won't resubmit. I usually don't touch the photos I do submit except for removing the sensor dust and sharpening a little. Their rules are little vague about how much you can do and it's fun for me to give it to them as is.
Again, thanks for the C&C, Susan
01-17-2010, 09:00 AM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,433
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wallyb Quote
Here is a quick job at making the colors look more appealing. The result would be vastly superior if it were out of the original RAW file and not a scaled down JPEG.
wallyb, thanks for taking the time to work on this for me. It looks a little over the top to me but I get the idea. What exactly did you do - bump up the contrast, play with levels? I'm not very good with PP and my results are usually pretty dismal. I've downloaded a lot of instructional stuff and someday I may even read it
Thanks again, Susan
01-17-2010, 09:04 AM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
slowpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,433
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jadams360 Quote
I think the problem is that it is flat. It lacks depth and I dont know if it is grainy or if it is from the file compression but it almost looks more like a drawing than a photo. I ran some pp on it as "wallyb" did and it made a huge difference.

I think that the composition is great, though. It leads the eye and makes you wonder where that trail leads. Very americana!

Ps. Is it okay to alter somones photo if you are trying to show an example of what you would do or change? I didn't want to post my alterations because I didn't want to offend the photographer.
Thanks jadams (your name is very American too). I post photos here to get some real criticism and to me, that also means allowing someone to take the liberty of fixing what can be fixed. Anyone who takes the time and trouble to help out a fellow photographer deserves a star on his largest lens. Susan
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
critique, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Architecture Roosevelt memorial SpecialK Post Your Photos! 5 10-17-2010 08:48 AM
Teddy Pendergrass died graphicgr8s General Talk 3 01-15-2010 07:51 PM
People My Teddy Bear benjikan Post Your Photos! 5 11-18-2009 01:18 PM
Travel Roosevelt Arch wtlwdwgn Post Your Photos! 0 11-14-2009 06:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top