What's wrong with the quality of this photo?

[Henrik]

The reason semitic languages go from right to left is that they were written by hammering in the stone and you can't hammer with your left hand nor can you go from left to right when you're hammering (try it and you'll see). Then when the egyptians started writing on papyrus, they didn't have a problem with either way, so they wrote from right to left and when they got to the end of the line they wrote the next line from left to right and so on, to make a continuum. Then the Greek came and had to decide how to write, so they chose left to right, which the Latin later copied, to this day.

Thank you very much for this interesting lesson

Rudely, I think your picture is boring. I need to see more of the flower and more of the stairs (the bottom).

I found this picture at the Picshare site and asked myself, why they picked it? My guess is because of the sloping road with the red and white stripes to enhance the slope. In this respect, your picture lacks something to make it special.

[arith]

Thank you very much for this interesting lesson

Rudely, I think your picture is boring. I need to see more of the flower and more of the stairs (the bottom).

I found this picture at the Picshare site and asked myself, why they picked it? My guess is because of the sloping road with the red and white stripes to enhance the slope. In this respect, your picture lacks something to make it special.

It is a bad example; the windows are black and who wants to see road markings, or half a window for that matter.

back later

[GreenTea]

I agree that my photo lacks impact, the flowers are too small and the glass panes are too common. The angle is bad (I had a wall at my back) and there's too little of the rail. But that photo you linked to looks even less pretty to me...

[GreenTea]

I just checked the picshare website, and it's the same person who shot both photos you guys linked to here, and he got extremely few points...

[Henrik]

I agree that my photo lacks impact, the flowers are too small and the glass panes are too common. The angle is bad (I had a wall at my back) and there's too little of the rail. But that photo you linked to looks even less pretty to me...

I like the glass pane, the frame, the wall and the rail in your photo, and the flower adds even more romance - if you just could see a bit more of it.

I agree that the photo I linked to is not very pretty. But they did choose it. Then - sadly - the guy doesn't get many points. But he got in.

[GreenTea]

I think the reason may be that his photo is more clear-cut, crisp, sharp. Could it be?

For some reason, my photos are never as sharp as other photographers'...

[Dave Humphries]

For some reason, my photos are never as sharp as other photographers'...

Hi Greentea,

I can't remember what your workflow is like (RAW or jpg) and what software you use for PP?

Regards,

[GreenTea]

just jpg, and almost no PP, only cropping with Picasa and maybe some fill light adjustment...

[Dave Humphries]

Hi GreenTea,

just jpg, and almost no PP, only cropping with Picasa and maybe some fill light adjustment...

I'm afraid to say that'll be the reason; the jpg a camera makes in (literally) a split second cannot hope to compete with the individual processing that can be applied with experience in a RAW PP workflow that is optimised for the picture content. That said, even jpg can usually be improved.

"clear cut, crisp and sharp" are things that come with a careful sharpening regime, and sad to say, that isn't what comes out of a digital camera.

Making a good image is little different to making a good meal; with the same ingedients and facilities, a trained chef taking their time in preparation is going to make a much better meal than I will just throwing the same ingredients into the pot and cooking for the minimum time.

While some chef's may suggest that the best ingredients are paramount, a really good chef can make almost anything taste nice. Similarly, a good photographer can make the most of whatever kit they have within limits, as long as we're not forcing them to simply garnish a microwave ready-meal (the jpg) rather than cook from RAW, especially if offering their wares alongside other chefs, I mean photographers (I think ).

At least, that's how I see it, but I am but one person,

[Henrik]

I'm no expert. But I know one, Ken Rockwell, who in a little provocative way says:

"I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files. (...) Using raw files obviously takes a lot more time and patience, like refrying beans, since you could have had all that processing done right in the camera for free. You only want to go through this trouble if for some reason you're unsure of what settings to use. The raw data, since it includes everything, also takes up a whole lot more space and takes more time to move around. It's sort of like either having a complete car that runs (JPG), or a science project in a million pieces that still needs assembly before you can drive it (raw). You can't really change exposure after a raw file is shot, although the software that opens this data gives one the option to rescale the data and give the impression of changing exposure. You can get this same synthetic lightening from JPGs, too, although only raw allows some ability to correct overexposure."

Source: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I love Picasa. And I'm sure there's a lot of other valuable software for PostProcessing. You might want to consider the less profiled DxO Optics Pro 6, that can be bought (for Windows) at a reduced price until December 31. My friend, mr. Rockwell, gives an introduction to the program here. (No, I'm not affiliated with either Ken Rockwell nor DxO Optics!)

But again, isn't all that "skin"? Is taking pictures not primarely the art of being aware of when and how to shoot? Isn't that what the people at Picshare really try to judge in the pictures?

[Colin Southern]

I'm no expert. But I know one, Ken Rockwell, who in a little provocative way says:

"I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files.

One good quote deserves another -- this one is from expert Ken Rockwell's about page ...

Don't take any of this as true; I like to make things up as much as any other kid.

I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun

If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction. This site it is the product of my own imagination, not fact.

This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself.

etc etc etc 'nuff said

[Henrik]

@Colin: I guess your opinion is, that I was completely insane trying to promote one expert against well established CiC knowledge?

[Colin Southern]

@Colin: I guess your opinion is, that I was completely insane trying to promote one expert against well established CiC knowledge?

No - I like Ken - but (by his own admission) he's not always to be taken too seriously.

[Radu Dinu Cordeanu]

Hi,
Yes,I like Mr.Rockwell too but I divide,what he says, at 3.14...!
Radu Dinu

[Wirefox]

I am sure Ken Rockwell tried to sell me a clapped out Datsun Sunny one time. At least the car salesman had the same patter as our Mr R.

I personally think he is incorrigibly dedicated to taking the Mick out of a plethora of photographers who have there heads firmly jammed where the sun don't shine. POTN is full of gear heads who hang on his every syllable. It makes for great entertainment. He must have got them to waste millions of their hard earned dollars when he trashes the very bit of kit he was exhorting the only the week before (check out items for sale and the inflated gear lists). Some of the things he has then doing is akin to the stage hypnotist who gets a guy to dress in his wife's underwear in front of the howling crowd. Easy pickins for ole Ken methinks.

[Colin Southern]

I think that Ken tells it how HE sees it (probably as we all do) - but at the same time, he makes a living out of people clicking the links on his site - and I suspect that you don't make that much money from any site that sits on the fence or takes the middle road. So it's his style to create a bit of controversy - to stimulate some debate - and get people thinking for themselves, not unlike I've been known to do myself!

The JPEG piece is probably a good example - if he's shooting normal and every day scenes - and he's nailing his exposures - then JPEG is absolutely fine. But - if he's shooting a backlit landscape scene that requited 12 stops of dynamic range then a JPEG that ends up with a practical max of about 6 stops just isn't going to cut it. Does this make RAW better than JPEG? No - they're different tools for different jobs, with a big overlap between them. Does it make Ken right or wrong? No. Does saying it make Ken money? Probably

So personally I like Ken - I like his style - he's the kind of guy that I'd love to have over for dinner because I suspect that he's a nice guy and we'd have some interesting discussions ... but that doesn't mean that I agree with everything he says

[GreenTea]

Picshare wrote me back saying it had been a mistake and they're uploading my photo. I'm happy! Thank you all very much for your support and comments! I wouldn't have had the guts to write them without your support.

[Donald]

Picshare wrote me back saying it had been a mistake and they're uploading my photo. I'm happy! Thank you all very much for your support and comments! I wouldn't have had the guts to write them without your support.

Excellent news. Well done and congratulations.

[Johan]

I am a new member from South Africa and this is my first post.
I suspect that your image is regarded by the "editor" as lacking in detail in one or more or all of the following respects
1 The staircase leads nowhere as there is no door or landing shown in front of the door
2. The staircase tails off in mid air as it were instead of showing the lower landing, path or road.
3 Because of a lack of door and upper and lower landings the window loses its effect.
The image does not tell a story.

[GreenTea]

The photo got very good reviews in Picshare, even if not too many points (yet, at least). I sent 4 more photos, of which all but one were rejected, so I'll be posting them here for you guys to tell me what's wron with them, please...