Summer time is here which means it's time to see your best outdoor images! For our June contest, we want to see your best images taken outside, and the winner will be rewarded handsomely.
With school now out and everyone itching to get those summer trips planned, we thought it would be great to open up this month's critique the community to any image taken outdoors. This theme is up to your interpretation but in a perfect world your image would be outside, or look to be outside, and should definitely incorporate nature or a busy city scene in some way. Although the featured image is an eye catching image of a dog, your subject could be anything from a friend, your family, a professional model, or just a beautiful landscape. Each community member can submit up to 3 images for this contest.
Rules
- All images must be submitted from now until June 30th at 2am Eastern Time.
- Every image submitted must include a short story on how you took the photo, what were the challenges, how you used natural or artificial lighting, what gear you used, and any other interesting insight on the image itself. Photos that do not include some backstory on how it was taken will not be picked to be featured in the Critique the Community episode.
- Each image needs to incorporate something related to the Outdoors. This is a subjective theme but do if an image does not appear to fit the outdoor concept, it will not be picked.
1st Place Prize: Godox AD600 Pro II
We are happy to have Godox sponsoring this month's contest. With the recent release of the brand new AD600 Pro II, this powerful 600ws strobe is the perfect companion for adding beautiful light to any photograph. This new update to one of the industry's most loved studio strobes offers a greater power range from 1/1 down to 1/512 power, an improved bi color LED modeling lamp, and even faster flash durations for freezing fast moving elements in your photos. (Prize Value $899)
Recently Lee Morris of Fstoppers reviewed the top studio strobes for photographers and the AD600 Pro II ranked as one of his favorite strobes on the market today.
2nd Place Prize: ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2025
The second place winner will receive a lifetime license of ACDSee's flagship photo editing and organizing software Photo Studio Ultimate 2025. This software doesn't just let you edit your raw files but you can also do some really exciting editing and organizing using AI and advanced masks. If you've wanted to break away from the grips of Adobe's subscription model, ACDSee's Photo Studio Ultimate is a great way to get the most out of your photos without the extra monthly fees. (Prize Value $149)
3rd Place Prize: Photography Tutorial from Fstoppers
As always, the third place winner of this critique the community contest will win a full photography tutorial from the Fstoppers Store (Prize value $300)
Good luck to everyone who enters and we look forward to seeing the best outdoor photos from the Fstoppers Community!
Featured Image by the talented Chris Van Riel
Ive been on here for a short while and my thoughts on these contests. The contest comments seem to start at about the middle of the contest, usually from a newcomer with a quality image getting low marks. Then it starts. I apologize in advance for being very analytical about this, but its not a hobby for me. I also noticed that everyone seems to be afraid to join the contest at the beginning. Maybe the photogs with seniority know that the images in the beginning get mostly 1s and 2s. If you wait later to submit, it seems to be more neutral and images start getting more 3s,4s and even 5s. That tells me that at the end of the contest people with no skin in the game start to vote.
They should have a place on here with photography workshops in different places around cities and countries. A good workshop can teach you a ton in just one hour.
For you younger peeps, why do colleges still charge over $100.000 for a photography degree? Is it worth the money? If so, please tell us what they teach these days.
I'm not one of the younger people here, but with the price of college, the access to information, and the low barrier of entry for photography, I don't see why anyone would pay for a photography degree. I've had people ask on FB groups about it and I always recommended getting a business degree and if they were set on getting some form of photography degree, minoring in photography.
in general I have a bit of faith in the crowd, in that, if it's getting low marks, there's a reason for it. Sometimes I don't even know what that is. It is true, that 'raters' may need to review what a '1' truly is supposed to be, and not that they just think it's yucky, but I have given '1s' when it doesn't seem to fit the contest category too. I'm not sure I agree with you so much about, whether it matters when a photo comes into the contest. The most divisive contest was the 'portrait' contest, and there will not be another like it, when or if they do that again next year. I think that is because some are so set in their ways on what makes for a 'good portrait', and everything else for some is a '1'.
This can be true, to a degree, but my experience is that if I post a photo in the general Fstoppers community, and then post that same photo in one of these critique contests that the photo will score between 1-2 points lower in the critique. The photo isn't different so it must be the voters who are different.
The most logical explanation is that there are people who go through and rate everything low out of a false feeling that it will help their photo climb higher and increase their chances at winning.
It doesn't bother me, personally, because I really don't care what the average person rates my photos, but I can see that being extremely deflating for some people when they post what they feel is their best work. Work that is probably worthy of a 3-3.5 based on the scale only to have it score like a 1.7 out of 5.
The definition of a 3 is primarily: "A 3 star image is an all around good image. The photographer has a solid understanding of the basics: composition, color, focus, subject matter, and postproduction."
Could we really make the statement that the vast majority of all photographers who submit images to these critiques don't even demonstrate an understanding of basic photography? Because thats what the voting data suggests.
oh man we've been over this. Of course it is different people. Have you noticed who votes for your profile pics? On fstoppers, you build up a few 'Followers', and those people are nearly guaranteed to give you a thumbs up and not be as objective as the contest-voter. A contest photo could get 35 to 50... where as do any of your profile photos have that many? No just checked (a few votes here and there.) So then if it truly gets lobbed a bunch of 1s and 2s, as stated, there is most likely a valid reason it actually deserves it. Even though on your profile it may be rated higher. Hey ask why? Or CC... I have done this myself. But as I've said before you may not really want an answer. It is arrogance to say, "oh people on here are not objective enough to rate me, and they don't understand basic photography..." If your going to make this tired old argument, then don't post to the free contest.
It's not a tired old argument; it's absolutely valid. Unless you really do think about 80-90% of all images submitted to every critique in the history of Fstoppers don't show a basic understanding of photography.
I make that argument because I don't want people to get discouraged because their photo that should be a 3.5 is a 1.5 here.
I've seen people submit award-winning photos to these critiques before and this community gives them a 1.5-2.5. Its nearly impossible for a photo to score over 4 and lots of photos that would pass the bar to be featured in magazines don't even make it past 2.5.
For example, in the last critique. Fstoppers chose a gorgeous shot of a wood duck as the cover image of the whole contest. For fun, the photographer who took that photo submitted it. The community gave it a 2.9.Which means more people than not felt it doesn't even reach the criteria of "basic understanding of photography" but yet this was an amazing image that Fstoppers felt was worthy to showcase for the whole contest. Its an image that deserves a 3.5 - 4.5 based on the criteria.
I'm not arguing that everyone's photo is a 5. they are not, but the fact that there are extremely well-executed images consistently in the 2-2.5 range just tells people are overly critical or didn't even bother to read the criteria. Or as is most likely the case, as mentioned, there are at least a few people that just rip through and give everything a 1 just to push down the rankings.
Another example, you submitted a photo of a sailboat at sunset to the last critique. It scored a 2.1. That image is NOT a 2.1 based on the criteria. In order for it to get as low as 2.1 there had to be people rating it a 1. Anyone who says an image like that is a snapshot that had little or no thought put into it is just blatantly lying. You deserved at least a 3 for that image. That same image in your profile scores 3.43.
Like I get that its a contest and not really a critique. And I get that the vast majority of voters probably are approaching it with an uneducated eye. I also recognize that some might have entirely valid criticism. But at the same time, the Fstoppers critique voting has consistently shown itself to have the most critically difficult voters of anywhere I've seen in my entire career. So much so that I worry that it will deflate people from wanting to be photographers and I genuinely believe it is because of a faulty assumption that you can elevate your odds of winning by pushing others down.
Oh I've heard the "I've won an award with this photo" in such and such place. "Ok good for you..." But that doesn't automatically grant you '4 and 5' votes here in 2025. Other contests have jurors, and no public vote, and perhaps it was a different time. Hey Photography changes. Go to the last contest or the contest before that, or the contest before that, and click on 'Highest Rated'... What is your overall point? That the people didn't get it right. Or the highest rated should be even higher. This is what I mean by tired. Look if you watch the video for last months contest with 'Lee and Morris', if the creators of the this website, Patrick never gave any photo more than '3', and one he gave a '2', basically because he didn't like the genre. Is that a good example... probably not. But my point being, ... like 'Frozen'. Let it go. Think about it that this contest's Jurors actually picked what they thought was the best photos in the contest, and not one did they give a 5, and many they gave '3s'.
About my Sailboat: I originally submitted once, and didn't really understand the low-votes. The Sailboat photo was actually a good example of me needing to be taught. So I asked to be critiqued, and some said exactly what they thought was wrong with it. I tried giving it some love and definition, but I understand, it still didn't pop. I resubmitted it, and yes it did a little better especially at first, but not much better, and finished almost down to 2 as you pointed out. If I'm being honest the photo does suffer from issues that you'd expect from trying to shoot at the end of my lenses ability with a teleconverter, and someone suggested I totally replace the background, and I felt that would be too much. In the end I actually left the photo in the contest only because it went with the other photo of the same sailboat that was a double-exposure. That was rather high-rated for most of the contest, and finished under 3. You see, you don't really understand, an average vote of '3' for a contest is actually very good. Now you cited how my '840mm Sailboat' shot is doing in my profile. OK... But I can tell you every person who voted there. And as soon as I post a photo in my profile, I get 3 people who always vote me a '4'. To give you an example I often get a '4' vote from 'Herbert A Franke'. Granted I started following him too. But get this through your head, profile pictures are not as objectively rated. People don't often go to your profile and give you a 1 and 2 for your photos. There is no onus to do so. But when I rate any of your photos a 4 or 5... then that photo gets boosted. It will popup on the activity log, others may then click on it.
I will emphasize once again. The definition of a 3 is that it demonstrates a basic understanding of photography such as composition, exposure and focus. Yes there is stuff to criticize about the shot but it, by definition, has to be worthy of AT LEAST a 3 because you are obviously displaying basic photography skills.
People are rating images as a “careless snapshot” that are clearly and distinctly displaying that it executed a creative vision and leveraged beyond a minimum level of photographic skill.
You are correct, if you asked me for a critique on your image, I also would mention all of the above but I wouldn’t tell you its a snapshot that anyone with an iphone could make without any photographic knowledge.
I have seen images of this calibre on postcards or in magazines before. It is easily good enough to pass as a 3. A 3 isn’t spectacular, its mediocre, good enough. I would expect that if people were being honest in their ratings that most people should rate it a 3, a few would rate it a 2, and a few might go as high as a 4 but in the end its rating would sit at the high 2s or low 3s. But, in reality, you will consistently end up in the low 2s or high 1s which means people are slamming a 1 on the image. Which isn’t an honest review because it is obviously not a 1, objectively.
That said I don’t expect having this discussion will change people’s voting. I just think it has value at reducing the emotional hit for those who pour their heart and soul into an image only for them to post it here and be rated a 1.5. It helps reduce that insane demotivating feeling. And for me, someone who has worked as an educator in the photographic space, I have observed the destructive power of unnecessary and overly harsh criticism. Good, strong, and accurate criticism motivates and inspires growth. Overly harsh criticism makes people want to quit.
There is nothing wrong with rating something a '2' when you feel that they have "missed the mark", there is something not correct in the photo, not sharp enough, not good enough... etc. I can agree with you about when or whether 1s should be given, and why? But I have done it, when the photo is totally not on point, or totally misses the subject of the contest, or is truly a 'snapshot'. I went through this contest so far, and you were really daring me to give you '2s' but I could not..lol
I can agree with that, My gripe isn't about people who figure an image is nearly a 3 but not quite so give it a 2. Thats reasonable and more a flaw of a system with effectively only 4 options. (Because 5 is intentionally defined as effectively impossible, though 4 is nearly impossible too because of the below)
My gripe is the hypercritical types or the intentional saboteurs who are hammering in 1s on images that can plausibly be described as a 3, objectively speaking. We know those people exist in every one of these critiques because a ton of images which do meet the definition of a 3 end up in the 1s or low 2s which just wouldn't happen unless a significant portion of votes are voting 1.
I do totally recognize that there are some people who are voting on the preferred genre, not the actual image quality. For example, I could be touched by the photographic gods during a shoot and create the most amazing, most incredible special effects portrait shoot that mortal man has ever created but there are still old school film shooters who will slam a 1 on it just because they have decided anything not shot on vintage film is not real photography.
I get we can't control randoms on the internet. But I can at least do my part to help people understand that just because their photo got rated really low doesn't mean they suck. And then, at least for my part, when rating myself, I always think back to the definition of the scales and try to rate each image based on the prescribed scale honestly and not my own personal preference of a given genre but rather how well the photo is executed within the context of its genre. There are images I've scored a 4 that I actually dislike because I recognize that they are masterfully executed within their own genre.
For me, its all about doing anything I can to help others foster and build their creative passion. Good criticism is a great tool, but vapidly incorrect criticism that communicates an individual is significantly worse than they are is a deflator. I can't change the votes, but I can engage in this discussion so that participants have a better understanding of how their scores can be influenced unfairly.
PS: Feel free to vote my shots a 2, or 1, I really don't care about my own scores. I just toss images up for fun. I don't even really look at my own scores. :)
100 percent true from what I see as well. I decided to only vote if I think its a 3 or above. Also why do only a handful of members write in these comments.
congratulations Kevin for being included in last months contest video selections.
Thank you Robert. You're the culprit that got me into this.
I don’t write in these comments because I largely find it pointless. I’ve been on fstoppers for a good many years now and these comments are usually just a repeat of the same comments I’ve seen 100s of times on almost all of these ctcs. Yes, there are a lot of photos that probably deserve a higher rating than they get in these contests. And yes there seems to be a handful of douche bags just rating everything a 1. Same old song dance. I think Lee and Patrick know that and do a good job choosing images anyway.
You are totally spot on!!! Ive also noticed some photographers purposely voting very low on other photographers images, to make theirs higher. I dont know how fstoppers can deal with this.
I feel the groups judgement is really accurate and it's great to have competitions that don't cost money. I refuse to enter competitions that cost money. I just do not believe in it as it is a moneymaking racket in the photography space that I think is so out of control so this is great that we can enter competitions freely great stuff F stoppers.
That is great you brought that up. Every other post on my facebook feed it to enter another photography contest. It always states (best photographer of the year and so on. I do have to admit that in 2008 when the economy took a dump, most of the stuffy galleries in Chicago went under, and I was gleeful. Then they came out with a scam for anyone who wanted to sell their art could pay for a space. They didnt care who was selling. Looked horrible and they all went under. I was again gleeful. I wish these goofy contests would stop as well. Not FStoppers, but the quick make it rich ones everywhere now.
I don't think there's an issue for paying to enter a contest, mainly because people are committing time to hosting and judging the contest. Now that being said, I vet contests and usually only enter the ones either offered yearly, or if winners get gallery features....not that I've won any lol.
I can agree here, but yes vetting caution is really in order. Especially if you see an ad on FB for a contest, where many an internet traveler goes to find both the best and poorest crafted schemes.
If im offered a free submission I will enter the good international competitions, but wont pay for them anymore. The reason is digital cameras. Since digital came out their are millions more photographers. If you look at the winning entries all the way down to the honorable mentions, its a crapshoot. Their are at least 200 entries that could win 1st 2nd or 3rd place. 100s of phenomenal images that there is no way judges could say this is better than that one.
100% agree and this is my first submission to any contest, thankful it doesnt cost money. Im hoping I get some comments with feedback to help me learn. The rating helps me understand what others think, but a comment or two would be even more helpful. Im still new and learning, and want to get better. Excited to see how I stack up now and in the future.
Reply for Kevin OConnell
a day ago
Hello. I am a Senior undergraduate in the photo/film dept. of Vcu. As far as classes go, our curriculum has included history of photography, history of Cinema also. Studio lighting, on location lighting, a documentary filmmaking course, a sound in cinema course, dark room, alternate processes, digital imaging, large format, a course called Concepts which is the precursor to senior thesis.
So finally to your question, is it worth it? I would be foolish to think I could answer it before determining it's entire effect on my capacity to earn from it. but I have definitely expanded not only my Lr classic Catalog, but also peripheral skills and understanding, historical knowledge, interest, research and competency with such niche photo topics as lenticular printing , and most recently shooting infrared night time long exposure images. At this time, I am content with the decision.
Sounds like you have an amazing program Thomas. Thank god some places still have a darkroom. Infrared at night is very interesting to say the least. I may read up on that or maybe you could refer me to a book? Thank you for your great input.
I think that it is super important that everyone knows their own worth, this also goes for photographers. Any photo should be judged by it's own merits, but that is hard to do without the proper understanding of intention and context. Photos are judged by the preconceptions and expectations of the viewers, which generally set a very high standard. New ideas, subtlety, and rebellion against rules (to name some differing intentions) can introduce aspects to a photo that can be hard to grasp on the fly for a demanding viewer. Just being shy can be a huge disadvantage for a photographer, since photos of/with people generally are more engaging.
If only technical prowess was being judged, the task of judging would be simpler. The problem is that photography is an art form with a very low threshold of entry.
So: no matter what feedback you get (which of course can be very valuable!), remember to know your own worth. Photography is a journey, you will gradually get better at it by your own account. Don't let other peoples "honest opinions" and low ratings end your journey. Every single photo is a memory from YOUR life, which is precious in itself. Also: the fact that photos exist at all is a technical marvel - enjoy them.
Very good points and encouragement. I'd say: my photos are " hither and yawn" Some are very good ( to me ) and other I wonder: why am I holding on to it. My photos are of birds, bugs, and everything else. Hahha
The first thing I'd advise any photographer is that if the scoring upsets you, don't waste your time entering competitions. I saw it for years at our local camera club competitions where beginner and advanced photographers alike would complain bitterly about the fairness of the judge's scores. Nobody except the one winner was ever happy. You'd have thought we were competing for an Olympic gold medal.
My goal from the first time I picked up a camera has always been to make solid images... a "3" in terms of the contest definitions. Something which other accomplished photographers would recognize as well composed, properly exposed, good color, perfectly sharpened, and ultimately nicely printed. I've always been big on printing. I've expanded my goal to create more distinctive images, but for the most part, a great or world-class photograph is highly subjective and not something to concern myself with. If my images speak to you, fine; if not, that's more of a reflection of your tastes in photography than my ability to make a great image.
According to the guidelines, a "4" image is fantastic. So who's to be the judge of that? The emotional impact from a photo is largely subjective, often dependent on the choice of subject. A "4" image requires planning. So does everything else above a snapshot. And with today's software, fantastic images can be made in Photoshop pretty easily. And the part about a "4" image having a recognizable style attributed to that photographer... well, how would the viewer recognize the style of the photographer by looking at one image posted in a contest?
Since style points for the photographer is brought into play, I feel like it's far more important to have someone critique my overall body of work than it is to get a score for one picture. One picture doesn't mean much for whether my photography is any good or not, or where I might focus my attention in order to improve. And after having created thousands of images in the last couple decades, I should probably by now be my own best judge of my work.
I have to disagree with two points you made, the first being about today's software being able to turn any photograph into a fantastic image. Maybe last month's contest, but there's a point where the photo stops being a photo and starts becoming something else. Maybe more akin to digital art? I mean you can only polish a turd so much. That out of focus blade of grass that you see in beginner forums, where people inexplicably praise it as the greatest piece of landscape photography and compare it to an Ansel Adams piece, can only be enhanced so much.
The second being a 4 rated imagine requiring planning. A 5 rated image doesn't require planning, it just requires being in the right place at the right time and having the skillset to capture an iconic moment in time. It is almost instinctual to get a 5 rated image at times. Just look back at some of the most iconic images, the photographer was just in the right place at the right time and didn't plan for any of it. The "Napalm Girl?" That wasn't planned. The soldier kiss after WWII, not planned. The Trump fist pump after getting shot in the ear photo, not planned (regardless of how you wear your tinfoil hat). Sure, a lot of 4/5 images are meticulously planned, but definitely not always.
Thank you for the response. The description of a 4 star image that I was writing about was Fstoppers criteria, not mine: "4 star images usually require planning and attention to extreme detail. It's almost impossible to shoot a 4 star image by getting lucky." - according to Fstoppers.
The Fstoppers rating system appears to place greater value on the elements which one can control vs the element of chance. All in all, the distinction between a 3 and 4 seems kind of blurry to me.
I agree that memorable photos throughout history are often a result of the chance of being in the right place at the right time. But photographers place themselves in a position for luck or chance to favor them. The Napalm Girl picture, whoever the photographer was, wasn't captured on a front porch swing in Kansas sipping ice tea, while reading a how-to book on photography. The photographer's life was apparently in great danger. So I would say there's more to making a great picture than pure chance.
I might even argue that the photojournalist who spends days or months traveling and planning for their next assignment, shooting hundreds of inconsequential images before getting that one newsworthy image, has invested more time and effort in his work than the studio portrait photographer who meticulously arranges lights and employs hair and makeup stylists, spending all day making one photograph.
For some of us older photogs that entered competitions for years have learned by trial and error what is the right contest to enter. A lot of the time you have to research the judges. Are they wedding, landscape, creative, B&W and so on. You should also check last years winning entries. That always determines the contests I enter these days, if I am interested in a certain contest. I don't consider these real contests, sorry if that offends anyone. I do however like to look at what fellow photogs are photographing here.
I'm new here and I'm not a pro but I see great images and they have low *'s after the competition.
I don't understand why people vote so negative.
Can you force to comment when it's a low star rate????
We need to know why and the reason the vote it's so low, I think it makes more sense. Good day everyone
As discussed above, it is pretty obvious that some people just blow through the whole comp and slam a 1 on everything thinking that by driving the votes of others down that they will have a better chance at winning.
There is also a subset of photographers who are hyper fixated on certain specific genres and will vote anything a 1 that doesn't fit their narrow view. (For example some people will treat any photoshop as "not photography" or others will see anything thats not film as "wrong" or others are convinced that "bokeh" is lazy photography and any bokeh heavy image is automatically bad). I try to vote based on the scale and the context of the photo and not my personal taste. Your submissions are a great example of that. Vintage looking black and white images aren't my jam but I recognize that these are artfully well executed images within the context of that context so still rate them well. I don't expect many people do the same.
Furthermore, I just don't think many people actually read the legend and realize that the definition of a 3 is that it demonstrates a basic understanding of photography, such as exposure, focus, composition, etc.
One more reason for them to post a comment.
I think you will find that if a comment was forced, almost no one would vote. Like I agree, it would be great to get more info from the voters but realistically, that won't happen.
We've been over this one too, maybe you were not there for that discussion. Does the general Fstopper really want Critiques from every 1 and 2 voter? Hey sometimes it is offered, regardless whether or not if it was asked, but often, many times it is not wanted. Hey eventually the ones chosen in the contest by Lee and Patrick, sometimes get ripped "six ways from sunday" as they say, especially when the two of them don't agree on the ones chosen. What I mean is that many photographers are arrogant about their own photos, and do not want to hear any reviews. Many feel that their photos have no need of improvement. What I mean is that "You may not realize what your really asking for?", and ultimately... what is the arguments goal anyway. That the fstoppers rating system needs to change? That we all need to read the rules again?.... Isn't it working fine as it is? The creators of the contest do the video, and they use the same system. As stated in one of my comments above, yes Patrick probably set a bad example, by voting Hanny's photo a 2 just based on the genre, by hey them's the breaks. Again I ask: Does the public actually get it wrong? No. If you don't want to enter the free contest than don't.
I don't feel that we should make technical excuses for "vintage" photos. Of course, film had a different look than digital, often involving grain and less dynamic range, but Ansel Adams' "Clearing Winter Storm" from 1944 would, or should be, considered a masterful photograph regardless of the era and technology with which it was created. It's certainly a treat for my eyes.
I don't buy into the idea that a landscape photo with extensive blown out highlights or blocked shadows should be viewed and rated more favorably, just because it's vintage. Unless those characteristics, which we ordinarily consider flaws in exposure, are interpreted as "artful," a photo exposed during the middle of the day under harsh light is generally considered to be a poor, amateurish, picture. Ansel went to great lengths to educate photographers about the zone system, for precisely the reason of printing within an acceptable dynamic range which preserves detail. You seem to imply, with your comment to Bobby, that vintage photography deserves a free pass from those expectations of exposure, contrast, detail, etc., because they're vintage. I respectfully disagree.
No, my point wasn't that a crappy vintage shot deserves a high rating. My point was that you could put any black and white image that has a gritty film look to it in front of me and I probably won't like it, regardless of how well executed it is. Personally, for example, I think most of Ansel Adam's work is boring and looks awful. However, that doesn't mean it should be voted low; it just means that particular genre isn't something that appeals to me personally. You have to take the genre into context when making your vote and critique based on its genre. I can appreciate Adam's contribution and the great skill it took to achieve what he did even if I don't find the result aesthetically appealing.
Another example, you can't hold a sports action photo to the same standard as an intimate portrait. Both have completely different criteria in terms of what makes them respectively great (or not great). My main point is that I have a sneaking suspicion that lots of people do that, though. They will look at an image and judge it by the criteria of their favourite genre, not the relevant genre that the image is in.
I'd also add that, the right choice is rarely the choice that makes the most technically perfect image. Often the creative vision runs in opposition to that.
If you go look at the winners of the WPY, which is the most prestigious wildlife contest in the world, you will find that the winners often are not the shots that are perfectly exposed, follow the rule of thirds, and doggedly adhere to the textbook definition of a great wildlife photo. Rather, the winners usually are the ones that push the creative envelope and capture their subjects in unusual and creative ways. Often ways that are considered "technically wrong" but the outcome creates something unique. That is probably the hardest contest you could possibly enter in the photographic space. They get 60,000 entries. Thus they must judge to the absolute strictest standards, but they know that a great photo is more than just checking a list of technical boxes. Ironically, many of their winners, if posted in an Fstoppers critique would probably score under a 3.
Hey, the moment you enter a "popularity contest".. and believe you me, it is what it is... some genres are more popular than others. There are many genres i personally just will not rate. "Should a photo be judged based on whether the person doesn't like the subject or the genre?" Honestly no. But hey, what can you do about it? Nothing. You can continue to quote the rulebook and site reasons that things are not fair. In reality people are free to vote how they feel. At the same time i submitted a flower photo, and again i felt it is really solid. But i think it may be the type that is causing people to vote negatively. I asked for Criticism on it, but it could also be that the genre itself is not respected enough for a contest. Do i need to learn this? Yes. My point in bringing that up is: "Low votes are teaching points". It does no good to go " oh it should be a 2 or 3 instead of 1. That might be according to the rulebook, but in practical measure, the community has spoken otherwise, and just take it as a teachable moment. Conversely, if you happen to get a photo that consistently hits around 3... than you could be in the running.
The "teaching point" is not that the genre is wrong as an excuse for a low rated image, but that the photo is wrong. Or I should say, boring in the minds of the majority of viewers. Every picture undoubtedly we've ever taken is to some degree exciting, or we probably would not have taken it. But that excitement doesn't usually translate into enthusiasm for the viewer. But instead of abandoning flowers, make them different or more interesting.
For what it's worth, I have a lot of flower pictures on my website. Some interior designers and commercial art buyers tell me flower art is so 20th century and that they'd never place it in a client's home or business. The next person will tell me the opposite... that they love flower art and look for it all the time. BUT... they want something unique or different. I've heard that from clients a hundred times. The same old perspectives are a dime a dozen on places like iStock Photo. The reason anyone can sell art for more than peanuts is that it's either unusually distinctive, or they're really fast talkers. So... I freeze my flowers in ice, I drench them with water, I give them a vintage look, I place them in front of stained-glass, I get in super tight with a macro lens, I give them motion with a long exposure, I make them abstract... you get the idea. It's not the subject; it's finding a more interesting manner of rendering it.
Yes very true, people are likely finding my flower boring for sure. I understand. It will be removed, as soon as I think of another photo to post in its place. It probably does take more effort to make a flower more exciting than another genre. I don't have a lot of interest in doing a lot of 'soft-diffused' flowers, and they are boring to me... I may post more of the ones I like to my Profile, but not to the contest. To be honest I don't like many of your flower photos you have linked, but understand why they might be popular. Most are not my style at all. I like the Purple-Iris. I have a purple Iris, not yet processed on my SD-Card.
I wish you would leave your pictures posted to the competition for more than a couple days. I'm maybe expecting too much, but I write with the hope that people see a few comments on a picture, and it motivates them to add to the discussion. Can't happen if we're starting over all the time.
Flowers in ice might make for an interesting novelty, but I'm not really seeing it. It might help if I could see the photos full-screen when I click on them (then the tiny-bubbles might pop at me more), but fstoppers has that issue to. The only way to do that is to right-click and download. It's really setup better to be viewed on a phone, not a browser. When I build my website full off my images, other than 'google-photos', you will be able to click full-screen and scroll threw.
It is sad . I'm no pro but I probably will stop posting images here. They not world class but they not bad as well
They did a video where the snuck in Ansel Adams photos and they did not fair all that great…
I think it often comes down to personal biases (note I only started taking photos last year so I’m a bit of a noob, so please correct me if I’m being dumb!)
Everyone has different tastes. I come from more of an art background and generally prefer photos that communicate the emotion rather than just the physical reality.
Others might prefer perfectly exposed photos that look true to life (I for one think they are boring and ironically lifeless).
But that is a matter of personal preference.
Also, I do wonder if they made it a 10 point scale whether it would more appropriately communicate the quality of an image.
Lastly, I find the videos are generally pretty accurate on which photos in the contest are the best. I’m usually quite impressed with the quality of people’s images and find it inspiring to push me to “get good”
Vitor. Did you expect everyone to give 4s? So far i see the sky line shot is over 3+ average. I did give that one a 4. (Nice shot) That is high average for a contest rating. The butterfly shot i could not give a 4, but its average rating is still relatively high, for a fstoppers contest. How's that for public comments?
If you vote on my photos Thanks my friend.
I'm not a pro just enjoying taking photos.
I'm not crying for my photos, I see in general great photos here and at the end they have very low rates,
People go to others platforms and like everything in order to get the return.
I know everyone have differents styles but that doesn't mean you have to vote low and trash all photos.
Have a great day my friend
Would you say that a banana duct-taped to the wall was an excellent work of art? At least excellent by general standards, as you point out. Does the fact that it sold for $6 million make it an excellent piece of art? If you're not familiar with the case I'm referring to, here's the link.
https://www.cnn.com/style/duct-taped-banana-maurizio-cattelan-auction-hn...
My point is that just because you sold an image or had it published means nothing more than you sold a photo or had it published. Excellence has nothing to do with it. Besides, excellence is subjective and money can change hands for many different reasons. Since you asked for comments explaining a low "needs work" vote on your photos, I'll be happy to do so.
Ed, I see your very active in contest comments, but I don't think I saw any of your contest entries. Have you entered in the contests.
I almost always enter at least one image into the contests. I tend to eventually delete photos from older contests and posts... not sure why. I just do.
Here is case in point about why below 3-point comments should not be required, as Bobby above has clearly asked for, but then at the same time can't accept them. See here: https://priceloom.info/entry/703383%3C/a%3E and https://priceloom.info/entry/703385%3C/a%3E Then he continues to make personal attacks on different photos of mine. One I just had to remove in an earlier contest. See here: https://priceloom.info/photo/691251#comment-782505%3C/a%3E Is my comment on his above photo ridiculous? Call it what you well. One thing I mentioned was the noise in his photo. Ok. As Ed mentioned, he asked for comments above here, as I'm replying to that very comment. I've said many times, that many don't want to hear comments on their photo. As this case clearly demonstrates. If you can't take the heat, than stay out of the kitchen.
I don't care all that much about the contest itself, I already own most of the ACDSee tools, and I don't use artificial lighting. I can't even remember what the 3rd place prize is. I'm looking for honest feedback on how I'm doing in the eyes of other photographers, so there is no reason for. me to give anything but my honest opinion.
So far, my votes have been all over the place. I admit, I am a "tough grader". To get a higher vote from me, a photo needs technical excellence less than it needs content. I want something more than a sharp, pretty, picture. I want that photo to reach out and grab me in some way.
Pretty pictures get 2 stars from me. Photos that are "near misses" when it comes to content get 3 stars. 4 and 5 stars are reserved for how strongly the photo reaches me. There are likely times when some or even many people will disagree with me. But that's how things work, I guess.