Photo Rating

[Ian]

Re: Photo Rating

Was'nt me George
But i've got a 1 and 2 in my wildlife album , so i know how you feel .
BTW the tiger which has a 1 rating was the result of an interesting experiment involving manual settings .
I don't think it's that bad , but someone obvisously does

B..

Well, there is always a possibility that the ratings were honest mistakes.

The best thing to do is ignore any mischief if the rating was not honest - in which case it may have been designed to annoy and the best remedy for that is to ignore it.

Let's say, for argument's sake, someone made these poor ratings dishonestly, this discussion is like a big reward for his/her actions. So maybe it's time time to close the discussion?

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Photo Rating

Hi Patrick,

To accept criticism is OK and I do accept criticism. Though this photo was posted under the thread "Under the Candle Light". Nobody there didn't comment negative for that photo. A rating of 3 is not criticism, is biased opposition when comments are not written at least in the thread that the photo was posted.

That photo was posted as a photo being treated to look like it was taken under the light of a candle. I have even attached comments to that photo and should be judged as the comments explained.

Now, if someone sees that photo, sees the thread that I explained how it was created, sees my attached comments to the photo and judges the photo as a normal flower shot, then obviously is in the wrong terrain.

I posted though only the "under the candle light" version and that is how this photo should have been judged and rated by whoever rated the photo with 3.
If I wanted comments/ratings on the normal flower shot, I would have put up the one below.

Concerning your comments of the artistically treated flower:
Under the light of candle (even artificially) there is no such flower (and generally any object) that will not create any shadow.
As far as saturation is concerned, Stephen was talking about the hibiscus flower, not that one. The "Under the Candle Light" one though, is not saturated. The original photo of the flower is really punchy because the flower was punchy by itself. I only altered the color cast since under low lighting things look more reddish.

The original shot was a macro shot, taken at daytime, the shadowed part is visible and there was no need for flash since it was very bright and I didn't wish to blow out the nice saturated colors.

This is the normal shot that really doesn't lack anything.





Regards


George

[Archangel]

Re: Photo Rating


Patrick,

A black shadow may hold (and it does) no interest to the viewer.
Though under Candle light (around 0.25W) lighting is not enough to light up an entire object and in all its apexes, vertices, or folds if it is for flowers e.t.c.
Under studio light of course lighting is enough to lit up the entire object.
My intention was to create a photo to look like under candle lighting and not studio or high Watt lighting.

In this case and because candle cannot be placed exactly in the middle under or on top of an object (and even if it could, still the lighting is not enough to lit the entire object), shadows are unavoidable created but also give the feeling of low lighting and mystery that might hold.
Under well lit studio light I created other type of shots too that were well lit, but this time my intention was different.

As far as your shot is concerned, I see that is done under sufficient lighting and personally I like it a lot, regardless of the judge at club merit.

I never mentioned or left any hints of you being nasty. In the contrary.
Of course I understand that you are trying to help and that is what discussion threads are for

Regards

George

[Patrick]

Re: Photo Rating

Patrick,

A black shadow may hold (and it does) no interest to the viewer.
Though under Candle light (around 0.25W) lighting is not enough to light up an entire object and in all its apexes, vertices, or folds if it is for flowers e.t.c.
Under studio light of course lighting is enough to lit up the entire object.
My intention was to create a photo to look like under candle lighting and not studio or high Watt lighting.

In this case and because candle cannot be placed exactly in the middle under or on top of an object (and even if it could, still the lighting is not enough to lit the entire object), shadows are unavoidable created but also give the feeling of low lighting and mystery that might hold.
Under well lit studio light I created other type of shots too that were well lit, but this time my intention was different.

As far as your shot is concerned, I see that is done under sufficient lighting and personally I like it a lot, regardless of the judge at club merit.

I never mentioned or left any hints of you being nasty. In the contrary.
Of course I understand that you are trying to help and that is what discussion threads are for

Regards

George

Thank you for your kind comments on my picture, yes it was made under controlled condition in a light tent with a black backdrop.

Back to your picture, yes I gather you were trying to create a candle lit shot, problem one candle light would be softer and yes it would throw shadows but in a much more gentle way. Problem two Candle light would also be warmer. I encourage you again, get another bloom and photograph it with candle light, noise could be a problem but its well worth trying.

Patrick

[Archangel]

Re: Photo Rating

Thank you for your kind comments on my picture, yes it was made under controlled condition in a light tent with a black backdrop.

Back to your picture, yes I gather you were trying to create a candle lit shot, problem one candle light would be softer and yes it would throw shadows but in a much more gentle way. Problem two Candle light would also be warmer. I encourage you again, get another bloom and photograph it with candle light, noise could be a problem but its well worth trying.

Patrick

Patrick,

There is a major difference between candle light and studio light.
Studio light you can direct it exactly where you want it and is much more stronger to well lit up objects.

Candle light though is weak light and it cannot be directed towards an object. The only choice you have with candle light is to put the object close to it. In this case the part of the object facing the candle will be slightly lit, while the back part of the object will always be dark, actually black dark like a black shadow. And especially when only one candle is used in a dark room is equal to almost no light at all.

Further to my comments on the power of a candle light and of how much it can lit an object here is a photo from another thread from a different user. Even if the object next to the candle is a glass that allows light diffusion the back side is almost black.
Imagine how thing are when the object is not transparent.

http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=1387

Anyway, this shot was not done under candle light, it was a dayshot transformed to look like under the candle light and actually it still was lit more than it should. But I can assure you that under candle light things are not so encouraging as I have experimented many times.

Regards

George

[Tinka]

Re: Photo Rating

Hi Patrick,


The original shot was a macro shot, taken at daytime, the shadowed part is visible and there was no need for flash since it was very bright and I didn't wish to blow out the nice saturated colors.

This is the normal shot that really doesn't lack anything.





Regards


George

A beautiful photograph, Love it.