St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

BigEasy's WPC Entry has been selected for the Photo Critique Forum* to find out what could have done to make it better.

Be nice, but be honest as this may help everyone with their craft. Thank you everyone!

From WPC 1516 - Glow In The Dark RESULTS http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/photo_contest_ratings.jsp?pcnum=166

* If you are new to the Photo Critique Forum please read the Section Rules http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-279264-1.html
.

"Glowing" These Glow Sticks and BlackLight rended Still-Life on Reflective Surface.

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

For the most part, I really like it. There's a nice line with the green coming in from lower right and arriving at that cool jacks piece. Seems nicely balanced with the position of the other colors. Pleasing curves.

The only thing I don't like is the stars on the reflective surface. Makes the composition a little too busy for me.

BigEasy Loc: Palm Beach

Thanks for the critique.....I see your point

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Steve, I'm a little confused... why are you submitting for someone else? Regardless, I like the image. It's a bit noisy for my taste, but I love the DOF, the colors and the interesting element in the upper left (a Jack, is it?). The focus seems to be in the center of the image, but I'd prefer it more toward the lower left. I also could do without the white frame, but these are all nit picky things. Nice image.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

On every Weekly Photo Challenge since the beginning -

Now for the legal stuff:
- Your entry may be used in the WPC - CRITIQUE Forum

tkmcknight

Compared to the other images that received higher vote counts I notice 2 things. These may reflect more on voters taste than photo quality, especially given the overall low counts for this particular challenge.

The two things I notice in the more popular images are a deeper black level in the background, as well as sharper focus / edge definition.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I'm confused... aren't these aspects of the quality? To me this is more about the quality than voter's tastes. I really like the image, but is suffers from some quality issues, in my opinion.

tkmcknight

qualities yes, but subjective on this. The choice to allow the background to go to pure black is often avoided because it obscures detail. I agree that pure blacks are not the same problem as blown highlights, and in that regard are more of a choice. Regarding the focus, soft focus is a legitimate technique. It just seemed that the pictures that were more popular all had very sharp rather than soft focus. it is quite possible that the subject matter, neon strands, might be expected to have hard to sharp focus rather than soft as in bohked lights at Christmas time.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Okay. Your argument is based on the fact that much of the art of photography is subjective. Who can argue this? I won't. However, when I critique an image for it's technical merits, then I must use some sort of guideline or standard. Unless the photographer tells us that he/she intentionally opted to keep the entire image OOF, I have to assume that at least some part of it should be in focus. This is why we have the "Photo Critique Section Rules " that Steve included in his submission.

In fact, one of the guidelines states: "Is the focus crisp and is the exposure appropriate?" If you post an image in this section, and you want us to use a different set of guidelines, then it should be stated in the submission. The same goes for exposure of the "deeper blacks".

I respect your observations, but I disagree that the image doesn't suffer in part from some quality issues that have already been mentioned. Again, I like the image, and when I critique it based on the creative approach, I think it's very strong. Perhaps the image owner can let us know if at least the focusing issue was intentional? Before I get confirmation from the owner, I still say it falls short technically.

timspix Loc: Lexington, SC

The entire image is not OOF ... but what is in focus are the stars on the table surface. I think that the choice of what to have in focus may be a weakness of this image. If I was to have attempted this image I think that I would have chosen the "jack" to be in sharp focus rather than the table top. The amount of noise indicates a high ISO was used. I think that I would have reduced the aperture since that would allow two things to happen. 1) darken the blue/blacks and also increase the DOF to allow the edges of the glow strands to seem sharper. My sense is that black light images are inherently difficult to get into "crisp" focus due to low overall light available, as well as the bleed effects at the bright/dark boundaries.

BigEasy Loc: Palm Beach

Hi.....The image was shot with a macro setting....#1 Fog filter.....Selective Focus...Thank you for your Review...!

timspix Loc: Lexington, SC

I'm not sure about the use of the filter. I know that the light making the image is in the longer wavelengths, ie visible light, rather than the shorter UV wavelengths ... but still I'm not sure about using a filter designed to absorb the very light that you are using as a source.

I've not done extensive research ... but this fellow has a short write-up and he advises the REMOVAL of any UV filters. maybe you could re-shoot this with / without the filter and compare results.

http://rising.blackstar.com/get-trippy-with-black-light-photography.html

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Thank you for clarifying. I think Tim is correct. It's probably what you chose to focus on---which is entirely a creative thing? However, if macro was your intent, I think many usually expect to see one area at least in very sharp focus. The noise makes it difficult to see this. According to the EXIF data, your ISO was set to 320. Not terribly bad for a good quality camera, but with a PowerShot SD790 perhaps it was a stretch?

timspix Loc: Lexington, SC

BigEasy ... if the EXIF data that I'm seeing is correct - that you shot this with a Canon SD-790 IS, then I am interested in a follow up question - at least from my understanding of the form of SD790 IS - I am interested in who makes / how to attach filters to this camera?

BigEasy Loc: Palm Beach

Sure....Hoya #1 Fog Filter 52mm hand held in front of lens while exposing....