" 2. If the entry limit is reached too quickly I may expand it, but I'm not sure about this because I want to encourage voter participation and I'm a little afraid that larger challenges discourage voting on all entries because it takes more time. Please feel free to comment on this issue if you have the time. Thank you. "
why then allow 3 entries per person? with 1 entry per person, 75 should be plenty...
It's a nice composition, good contrast and deep colors, minimal but with nice details and texture - there are some possible improvements though.The inside of the cup is red/pink - not the same neutral/white as the ear of the cup and the plate. all of these could be the same, slightly brighter white.If the title didn't say green I would not have noticed the cup is green. Contrasting the green cup with the red background would be great, so see if you can make the cup brighter and show off a nice green color.The focus on the cup is good, but there is a strange transition on the background, bottom right of the cup: it goes from in-focus to out-of-focus very abruptly. Is this how it was shot - or did you possibly do some pp that would have caused this hard transition?
I like it mostly, it's an original take on still life.Agree to what's been said.More focus on the car, without it being tack sharp, would help.I find it's red-going-pink color a bit off.Another thing is the figurine - its not very pretty - especially the paint is not very good - luckily it's pose is very expressive, which makes the image. Not the photographers fault of course, but its one of those rules when doing macro's and close ups: you try to get all the detail you can in the image, but sometimes forget if the detail that's there is good enough in itself. So cleaning the subject, embellishing it come into play.
pitou250: If a human has a field of view of ~155 degrees horizontally by 105 degrees vertically - and the angular resolution of the eye is approximately 1 arcminute (1/60th of a degree), covering the entire view of a human with maximum distinguishable resolution would require 155x60 = 9300 pixels horizontally by 6300 pixels - or ~58MP.(sorry if my figures are off - I don't claim accuracy)Screens do take up less than the entire fov in normal viewing situations though - let's say half for a very big screen, that's 4650x3150pixels or 14,5 MP.Except for immersive content and displays, I can't see the use of 8k for straight 'human consumption' and by the time it arrives in my living room, my eyesight will not be up to it anyway.
yes - I left that out since there's limited space in a comment.Lowering the resolution to the periphery would make sense, especially since the further out you go, the more surface has to be covered.I hope one day to see a more immersive cinematic image, perhaps an image filling 3/4 of the fov view, with vignetting to the borders - and black outside. And I'm confident it won't need 8k resolution. 5k would be plenty - but framerate, dynamic range and stereoscopy would need to be improved.
agree with all the comments:clock slightly higher, cologne slightly more to the left and straightened.Colors, detail, focus, bokeh - its all good.The black rectangle in front of the bottle is a bit distracting.
nice image - but can be improved with a little tweaking of the composition.
I see you lifted the shadows - the bottom part of the spaghetti is a bit more visible - which is good.The panel of wood is slightly odd as a wall - though visually speaking its a very unified unobtrusive background (a part from the knots in the wood.)The spaghetti is pretty close to the border on top, and the radial shadows now extend beyond the border of the image.Overall, a contender for the top spot I think
AndrePooh: All your base are belong to us.
If a human has a field of view of ~155 degrees horizontally by 105 degrees vertically - and the angular resolution of the eye is approximately 1 arcminute (1/60th of a degree), covering the entire view of a human with maximum distinguishable resolution would require 155x60 = 9300 pixels horizontally by 6300 pixels - or ~58MP.(sorry if my figures are off - I don't claim accuracy)Screens do take up less than the entire fov in normal viewing situations though - let's say half for a very big screen, that's 4650x3150pixels or 14,5 MP.Except for immersive content and displays, I can't see the use of 8k for straight 'human consumption' and by the time it arrives in my living room, my eyesight will not be up to it anyway.
wb2trf: But to get a decent OVF the mirror will have to move 120 times per second. That'll be hard. :-)
just depends on what you want to achieve, doesn't it?
ask a gamer and it isn't enough.for slow motion it is FAR from enough.for cinema, The Hobbit is supposedly filmed at 48fps (and 5k and 3D) and is likely to be a big leap in movie viewing experience.For watching commercials it's a waste.When checking specs for my next stills camera - it's irrelevant.
> Why would anyone even film in 120fps, exept slow motion recording?
because you get less motion blur and stroboscope and a more life-like experience. 120fps is not enough as to be indistinguishable from reality yet, but it is a big leap in the right direction.
Fearless_Photog: Some day cellphones will be shooting 8K at 120fps.
now they wont, because by then the cellphone will be obsolete.we'll have telecommunication built into our jawbone or so.
Its the third chat challenge I'm in - and to me it's clearly about the process: giving and receiving feedback, trying to improve and getting the confirmation (or not) - but mostly: another set of eyes to look at your work and point out what you don't notice yourself.The challenge part is almost irrelevant - if we could do this with only the 'workshop' part - I'd be all for it.Thanks, hosts!
A subtle but undeniable improvement on the first shot.Lifting the shadows was very helpful and the colors are more pleasing.I think it can be stronger even, almost like a cutout illustration, confronting pure blue, yellow and green - but this works well just like it is too.
RuthC: You have nailed the shot with this revised version. Colours are really dynamic, and that gruesome figure in the foreground adds a lot to the storyline. Great picture... even if I don't understand or appreciate Sci-fi.
Next time I'll try a classical subject, promised. I really wanted to, but then these guys jumped out and said "take me, take me!"
Wow, big changes. You know allready what I'm going to answer: its hard to choose between this version and the previous one.The lower angle gives more depth, a more dramatic perspective, but the previous one gave a more unobstructed, undeformed view.The colors are warmer and muted - less variation and less life like, ( old one was a bit too cold) but more atmospheric or moody.The detail is outstanding, verging on too much detail: the black specks in the apple make it less appetizing. There is a big empty space on top - too much perhaps, but I like that it's less symmetrical. Its not so much brighter, but the shadows are more lifted which is pleasing. I like it that we can now appreciate the wooden surface - but we see the end of the table as a hard line in the back and it makes us more conscious of the end of the image in the front.Choices, choices... I choose both - they are both good images, but the image that would combine the qualities of both would be perfection ;-)
I would love to see more in focus, the first 2,3 whistles or so - and the first one tack sharp with all details standing out.As it is, focus is on the picture on the side of the whistle, and the bottom of the string perhaps - with so little in focus, its hard to keep interest long enough to study the image. Even a single whistle with all details standing out would grab your attention.Composition is nice, colors too - but they get a bit grey to the left.
Its a portrait shot of a sculpture - (nice shot, good detail, DOF works well, colors too) - but not a still life.The arrangement of objects (or subjects) makes the still life - and here you have only one subject, "the sculpture"- so no arrangement really.The arrangement of individual pieces was the sculptor's doing, not the photographer, and while it's possible both are one and the same, that would not turn it into a still life: the sculpture is about the arrangement of scraps, the photograph is about the sculpture.Showing this sculpture standing on a floor, could be enough to turn it into a still life. Ideally with at least a second object next to it - and it is precisely this choice of objects, put together, arranged, in a setting or context (floor, background) that makes it a still life.
vgabor: - The more space on the left is intentional because of the shadows. There was nothing interesting right to the tomatoes. If this is overall pleasing or not is an other question of course.
- I made a shot with a softer light too and I liked this shot better. This one emphasized the highlights of the spaghetti better and I simply liked it.
Thank you once more for the very constructive comments!
good point, about having the space to the left because of the shadows. You could have moved the tomatoes and basil slightly to the left to balance - but this is just a small detail - it's a strong composition nonetheless.
Now there's a still life! (am I aping you Patty?)
Classic content and composition - its wonderful how one can make an image that would have taken a master painter a lot of time and hard work to achieve. The leaves really help make this look classic. Thanks for the technical description - good to know about the desaturating, it improves the painterly look, without becoming flat. Very natural.Exposure is quite low - I think there is room for some gain (brightening the brights without affecting the darks).There's plenty of detail - I would have added some sharpening, but it might take away from the naturalness of the image.There is more empty space below than above. Now, rather than cropping a strip of the bottom to make it symmetrical, I would add a soft zone of lightness on the table (but not extending to the edge of the screen) - just to add some interest. Not as much as to make the table stand out - but just so we get a hint of its wood color and texture.Great shot!
Personally, I preferred the previous version, with larger frame, and a background which did hold interest for me.Good job on the colors - they are intense and pleasing, without becoming unnatural.