Hip Coyote

My photo club has a designated category for photo entries. This month it was, "Foreground, Middle Ground and Background." This was one of my submitted images. We rate photos as follows:

9 – Photos exhibiting exceptional technical skill and impact
8 – Photos with very high technical skill and impact
7 – Good photos, worthy of award consideration
6 – Average quality photos
5 – Below average photos, needing improvement
4 – Below average photos with serious defects
3 – Photos with multiple serious defects

How would you rate it?

(Download)

MWojton Loc: Yardley, PA

5-6.
BTW, I like your topic post.

User ID

Needs wirk but thse concept seems worth the work, especially if have the raw file so you can open up the interior a bit more.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I think a 6. I too would open the shadows a little more. All so for me it looks a little too "staged"

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I'd give you a 7.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Score of 7. Not much foreground to be in focus, some but not much.

Don

Hip Coyote

I'll reveal the score in a bit. But the photo was not staged. It was in some mountain town in Peru...this guy and his family ran a little store with alpaca scarves, dolls, etc. I pointed me camera at him and this is what I got.

Hip Coyote

You are on the right track...that turned out to be the defining issue on this judge's reasoning on all photos.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

7. I'd straighten doorway, open the interior a bit, remove shiny (fingers?) on far right, and the red line and reflection on left. And tell the ol' boy to zip up his trousers :)

User ID

A quick in-phone edit, no way to select objects or areas within the frame, but does show something of whatz needed within the shadowed interior.

(Download)

Hip Coyote

To all. This photo received a 4...serious defects. I have never received that score...It was odd in that the pro said it was an interesting person, his pants, his face, his zipper being down, his expression. And the fact that there was a doll in the background was also interesting. But the pro felt this was a "documentary" photo, not necessarily art. He also thought the image was staged. I could not disagree more in this case. I felt his comments to be ridiculous. (He had other similar comments that caused a bit of an uproar in the club.) This image was of an older man at a nick-knack shop on the way up to Machu Picchu. They were selling alpaca items, dolls, etc. I happened to catch the guy just standing there and smiling at me. Of course, it was documentary, in that it really happened.

I can also say that I shoot micro 43 so doing a lot with shadows, etc becomes tougher. The scene was pretty as much as you see it on the original shot. I think this is a good shot and one that I have as one of my favs on my website. I am not going to change it because a pro felt it was not good. Is it a 9? No. Is it a 4...not hardly.

User ID

Incorridgeable tinkerer averse to realism.

User ID

Your clubs "Pro-Judge" seems not very different than most Hogsters. Thus his main value to you is entertainment. So enjoy it. Thaz what clowns are for.

We occasionally see posts that begin with "I was talking with a friend who is a Pro". I immediately discount those. I will even discount, as naive, persons who use the term "pro" in photography ("pro gear" etc etc). This is not a golf forum.

When youre sure your work is good you should take pride in your low scores. What pleases such judges tends to be work that Id never give a second glance to, work Id rather "unsee". Such judges are the enemies of art and your low score is your purple heart.