What floats your boat?
what would draw you into an image to click comment or ua
I always try to observe the eyes behind the camera and what the photographer actually saw and is trying to show the viewer, then i analyse it photographically, and in this way i give my UA to those images which in my view is relatively better...
I place my comments to those images which i find worthy of getting my UA...
I vote almost on every images to encourage others...
I place my comments to those images which i find worthy of getting my UA...
I vote almost on every images to encourage others...
The picture has to have been executed well, capture and processing.
A good example of its type. Anything outstanding gets shortlisted for a UA. I try to comment on a UA image as to why I've given a UA.
Comments. On those uploads where people don't want votes, sometimes that's a simple statement just to show appreciation.
Comments also include a constructive critique for example to consider a different crop.
What doesn't make me vote are badly executed images (though that may result in a critique comment) such as those that are heavy crops, clearly out of focus images (that seem to attract lots of votes and awards !!??).
Logos and wording may not prevent a vote if the image is really good but will invalidate any award.
A good example of its type. Anything outstanding gets shortlisted for a UA. I try to comment on a UA image as to why I've given a UA.
Comments. On those uploads where people don't want votes, sometimes that's a simple statement just to show appreciation.
Comments also include a constructive critique for example to consider a different crop.
What doesn't make me vote are badly executed images (though that may result in a critique comment) such as those that are heavy crops, clearly out of focus images (that seem to attract lots of votes and awards !!??).
Logos and wording may not prevent a vote if the image is really good but will invalidate any award.
Someone who is confident enough to look through their own eyes, look for their own angle on the world, rather than try to replicate other people's images that they have enjoyed. (The most depressing and off-putting aspect of the gallery for me is when you see near-identical shots close to each other... )
Pictures that are involving, that make my brain work; personal vision, individual character, combined with technical skill.
I comment when there is something to say. Years ago, before 'votes' appeared, the instruction was something like Click here if you like this picture. So I still regard a vote as a comment - 'I like this picture'.
UAs - the 'I really wish I had taken this' principle applies.
Pictures that are involving, that make my brain work; personal vision, individual character, combined with technical skill.
I comment when there is something to say. Years ago, before 'votes' appeared, the instruction was something like Click here if you like this picture. So I still regard a vote as a comment - 'I like this picture'.
UAs - the 'I really wish I had taken this' principle applies.
A picture has to show me a passion for taking it, something that holds my attention and attention to detail ( I don't particularly mean sharpness ).
Artistic, different.
It has to be well taken and captured, showing a clear understanding of the equipment it was taken with and technical ability to actually SEE an image.
What doesn't get my attention is carelessness, out of focus (generally), noisy..probably resulting from hefty cropping or over processing.
User Awards....I wish that were mine.
Artistic, different.
It has to be well taken and captured, showing a clear understanding of the equipment it was taken with and technical ability to actually SEE an image.
What doesn't get my attention is carelessness, out of focus (generally), noisy..probably resulting from hefty cropping or over processing.
User Awards....I wish that were mine.
What appeals most to me is clever use of light and shadow - someone who has seen the possibilities and made an image that is different. Or someone who has seen the possibilities in a normally mundane object or situation or juxtaposition and used their imagination to see that 'here is something I can do things with'.
Vision, understanding, thinking outside the proverbial box.
The image has to speak to me, tell me something or alternatively get me asking questions of it.
I can't stand BOS images, but what are worse are those where the background has been totally removed and replaced by a single, normally oof, colour - the whole context of the image has been removed.
Sloppy work, wonky horizons, badly focused, lack of compositional understanding are all things which turn me off.
UA? As others have said, one I wish I had taken myself, or would be happy to have hanging in my home.
Vision, understanding, thinking outside the proverbial box.
The image has to speak to me, tell me something or alternatively get me asking questions of it.
I can't stand BOS images, but what are worse are those where the background has been totally removed and replaced by a single, normally oof, colour - the whole context of the image has been removed.
Sloppy work, wonky horizons, badly focused, lack of compositional understanding are all things which turn me off.
UA? As others have said, one I wish I had taken myself, or would be happy to have hanging in my home.
Quote:A picture has to show me a passion for taking it
Amen to that!
thanks for replies
Coming late to this...
Some pictures just push my buttons - either (as Moira says) images that I really wish I'd shot, or images that I know I couldn't (mainly wildlife and sport, plus air shows). Images that make me think 'after taking and making that image, the photographer has said all that needs saying about that subject. They need never photograph that subject again to have a complete portfolio.'
I tend to view basic technical competence as necessary, though just occasionally it isn't. I feel that you need to know about the rules and be able to work with them befrore you break them - I have little time for the self-proclaimed 'visual artist' who sees no need for correct exposure, sharpness, straight horizons or composition, especially if they dismiss them as 'borgeois contructs' and htus 'foreign to my practice.'
And there will be the odd exception, where fortune has favoured the brave and the stupid.
Part of me wants to tell people about problems (and especially so if a lousy image has gained lots of votes and awards, despite a sea sloping by five degrees, or terminally blown highlights). Experience shows that this is not necessarily a good plan.
So, mostly, I confine that to the Critique Gallery (where one posts to get honest and straightforward feedback), and to good friends (who will also feel comfortable with hte idea of telling me when the emperor in my portfolio is as bereft of clothes as soem of my models).
There's soemthign interesting about seeing and technicalities here. I can see that they may be completely unconnected - but to the introspective photographer, seeing will require that one develops technique so as to be able to express one's ideas. And someone who masters technique will, probably, want to use it for soemthing, and produce pictures that are interesting as well as aridly perfect.
So the two become tangled and intertwined - and like intertwined vines, are the stronger for that.
Some pictures just push my buttons - either (as Moira says) images that I really wish I'd shot, or images that I know I couldn't (mainly wildlife and sport, plus air shows). Images that make me think 'after taking and making that image, the photographer has said all that needs saying about that subject. They need never photograph that subject again to have a complete portfolio.'
I tend to view basic technical competence as necessary, though just occasionally it isn't. I feel that you need to know about the rules and be able to work with them befrore you break them - I have little time for the self-proclaimed 'visual artist' who sees no need for correct exposure, sharpness, straight horizons or composition, especially if they dismiss them as 'borgeois contructs' and htus 'foreign to my practice.'
And there will be the odd exception, where fortune has favoured the brave and the stupid.
Part of me wants to tell people about problems (and especially so if a lousy image has gained lots of votes and awards, despite a sea sloping by five degrees, or terminally blown highlights). Experience shows that this is not necessarily a good plan.
So, mostly, I confine that to the Critique Gallery (where one posts to get honest and straightforward feedback), and to good friends (who will also feel comfortable with hte idea of telling me when the emperor in my portfolio is as bereft of clothes as soem of my models).
There's soemthign interesting about seeing and technicalities here. I can see that they may be completely unconnected - but to the introspective photographer, seeing will require that one develops technique so as to be able to express one's ideas. And someone who masters technique will, probably, want to use it for soemthing, and produce pictures that are interesting as well as aridly perfect.
So the two become tangled and intertwined - and like intertwined vines, are the stronger for that.
'entwined vines...' As an afterthought, I see no virtue in a technically perfect but desperately boring, derivative image. Equally a brilliantly original idea that falls down because of poor technique seems a wasted opportunity.
