Photo competitions: what makes you click?! ;)

[FootTrack]

After following the photo competitions on here for the last few months, I have been very impressed with some of the shots people have been taking. The standard has been consistently high and it has made voting for my favourite photo, at times, quite difficult.

When it comes to choosing a "winner", there are a few things I like to see in a photo. It must have good composition and exposure, appropriate contrast and must be lit effectively. I don't like photos that have been "doctored" on the computer - I prefer photos that are natural and that look very similar to what I would see with my own eyes in the real world. I also like photos to be a little bit different - seeing an old subject from a different perspective can be refreshing. I like it when I can feel what is going on in a picture as well - some photos feel so alive you almost feel like you are there at that moment. Lastly, a good title can sometimes add to a photo too. (This is not meant to sound arrogant - I am definitely not a photography expert and do not put myself forth as one; these are just some of the things my favourite photos have had going for them).

So I was wondering: what makes you click and how do you chose a winning photo in the photography competitions?

[DanShell]

I pretty much simply choose the photo that is the most appealing to me. It may or may not have the best composition or lighting or post processing but its always the most appealing to ME.

I do have a thing for the photo to have to match the actual subject it was entered for and I will at time shy away from a pic that was taken by a professional photographer (ei, watermark on pic!) although they all are at times worthy of coming from a professional photographers camera

[Kainas]

Generally I look for:
Quality (all the low quality, under-exposed, over-processed shots become eliminated - kind of like I would when I delete photos on my computer)
Composition (By far the most important aspect). This is what separates a photo album shots from one that should be framed.
Appeal (Would I hang this on my wall? - the emphasis being on me. Sometimes I see a really good photo, but it bores me because I have seen it a thousand times. I generally like stuff that sets my imagination running.)

[FootTrack]

I do have a thing for the photo to have to match the actual subject it was entered for

Yea I'm like you, I like photos to be in the correct category too DanShell. It's not really a level playing field otherwise...

It may or may not have the best composition or lighting or post processing but its always the most appealing to ME.

Not a bad way of looking at it. I guess at the end of the day, that's the most important thing eh

[Kainas]

I do have a thing for the photo to have to match the actual subject it was entered for and I will at time shy away from a pic that was taken by a professional photographer (ei, watermark on pic!) although they all are at times worthy of coming from a professional photographers camera

I do the same on both counts.

[FootTrack]

I do have a thing for the photo to have to match the actual subject it was entered for and I will at time shy away from a pic that was taken by a professional photographer (ei, watermark on pic!) although they all are at times worthy of coming from a professional photographers camera

I do the same on both counts.

Yea I haven't really been stuck on too many professional ones so I haven't really had this dilemma so much. The few professional ones that I've seen have been too tricked up and too dramatic for my liking. Each to their own of course...Like you I'd prefer to see a budding amateur get recognition though in preference if their work is commendable.

Generally I look for:
Quality (all the low quality, under-exposed, over-processed shots become eliminated - kind of like I would when I delete photos on my computer)
Composition (By far the most important aspect). This is what separates a photo album shots from one that should be framed.
Appeal (Would I hang this on my wall? - the emphasis being on me. Sometimes I see a really good photo, but it bores me because I have seen it a thousand times. I generally like stuff that sets my imagination running.)

This is a very similar thought process to what goes on in my head Kainsas.

Forgot to mention - I also log in beforehand so I don't see what everyone else has chosen and become biased lol

[gayet]

from a pic that was taken by a professional photographer (ei, watermark on pic!)

The watermark is not only used by professionals. I use one sometimes and I am a long way from professional.
And professionals are more likely to disguise their efforts by ensuring there is no watermark to identify them.

[stepbystep]

from a pic that was taken by a professional photographer (ei, watermark on pic!)

The watermark is not only used by professionals. I use one sometimes and I am a long way from professional.

I watermark my images for the simple reason that they get pinched. A blogger that uses this site stole some of my pics inserted them in their blog and never asked or credited me. A watermark simply makes people stop and think before they pilfer. This has happened quite a lot. I call myself a hobbyist photographer but I have been paid a few times, exhibit occasionally and have sold a few prints. Hardly professional! I literally know scores of photographers that watermark for the same reason.

I like interesting composition(this is really subjective) and a nice balance in exposure. I also like interesting and remote locations. If you enter a shot of the Dove Lake boat shed it's unlikely to get my vote, this is a bushwalking photo comp, if you can drive to the location it doesn't pass muster imho.

[MickyB]

from a pic that was taken by a professional photographer (ei, watermark on pic!)

The watermark is not only used by professionals. I use one sometimes and I am a long way from professional.

I watermark my images for the simple reason that they get pinched. A blogger that uses this site stole some of my pics inserted them in their blog and never asked or credited me. A watermark simply makes people stop and think before they pilfer. This has happened quite a lot. I call myself a hobbyist photographer but I have been paid a few times, exhibit occasionally and have sold a few prints. Hardly professional! I literally know scores of photographers that watermark for the same reason.

I like interesting composition(this is really subjective) and a nice balance in exposure. I also like interesting and remote locations. If you enter a shot of the Dove Lake boat shed it's unlikely to get my vote, this is a bushwalking photo comp, if you can drive to the location it doesn't pass muster imho.

I totally understand why you would watermark your photos stepbystep but the photos you enter into the competitions are not watermarked are they?

[stepbystep]

I totally understand why you would watermark your photos stepbystep but the photos you enter into the competitions are not watermarked are they?

Nope, that'd make the voting system a bit dodgy if they were ID'd. I'm not obsessive over it but image theft is getting pretty bad. I've got no drama with people downloading pics they like, but to use them and pass them off as their own is not on.

[walkon]

I choose the pic that floats my boat. The tech aspects do come into it and it has look straight out of the camera as far as I can tell. If it has been cropped that's okay, whilst HDR pictures might look dynamic and great but won't get my tick for this comp. I agree with SBS in that you have to have walked there. Lastly a nice snappy title helps but it's really the pic that sells itself.
To all the photo entrants a big thankyou for your efforts, they are all greatly appreciated.

[MickyB]

I totally understand why you would watermark your photos stepbystep but the photos you enter into the competitions are not watermarked are they?

Nope, that'd make the voting system a bit dodgy if they were ID'd. I'm not obsessive over it but image theft is getting pretty bad. I've got no drama with people downloading pics they like, but to use them and pass them off as their own is not on.

I didn't think I had seen watermarks on your photos in the competitions. Actually, I can't remember seeing watermarks on any photos in the comps.

If you want to stop people downloading your pictures then just do what I do - take crappy photos.

[GPSGuided]

If you want to stop people downloading your pictures then just do what I do - take crappy photos.

LOL!

For me, I give my vote to photos with uniqueness, intelligence along with a good technical standard. Rightly or wrongly, warm sun glows and B&W do weigh well in my mind though.

[Kainas]

I have no problems with post-processing, as long as it enhances the picture in a natural way. Basically if it can be done in lightroom then it is okay by me, as long as it doesn't become cartoonish.

[stepbystep]

I have no problems with post-processing, as long as it enhances the picture in a natural way. Basically if it can be done in lightroom then it is okay by me, as long as it doesn't become cartoonish.

Correct. The simple fact is, many shots can't look natural without some manipulation. I basically underexpose the shot a touch in the field then knock back highlights and boost shadows, straighten the horizon, push the clarity/contrast and vibrance if necessary, and perhaps crop. HDR is an acquired taste, I'm not a fan, but have seen it used in a way I do like. Focus stacking is something I'm interested in exploring more, done well it makes the shot far more realistic than normal shooting.

[icefest]

I personally don't mind a large amount of post-processing, as long as it fits the scene. A large part of choosing a nice picture for me is the balance of colors in the image.

With the dynamic range of my new camera and raw image data, I have not yet needed to take any HDR shots in any of the situations where crappy jpeg made me.

[walkon]

I have no problems with post-processing, as long as it enhances the picture in a natural way. Basically if it can be done in lightroom then it is okay by me, as long as it doesn't become cartoonish.

Correct. The simple fact is, many shots can't look natural without some manipulation. I basically underexpose the shot a touch in the field then knock back highlights and boost shadows, straighten the horizon, push the clarity/contrast and vibrance if necessary, and perhaps crop. HDR is an acquired taste, I'm not a fan, but have seen it used in a way I do like. Focus stacking is something I'm interested in exploring more, done well it makes the shot far more realistic than normal shooting.

I just take this comp as it says 'photo comp'. I'm a bit pedantic I suppose as I think that when you modify a photo to much it becomes a picture. At the camera Club i had this discussion after a picture of a yacht on port Philip won the comp, as it did in alot of other shows across the country, the picture was HDR and a mix of seven photos. It was a beautiful picture though how can you now still call it a photograph.

Anyway for me it's the best photo, as I see it, that wins my tick

[Kainas]

I suppose for me I would ask what would be the point of looking at a picture that hasn't had any pp done to it. What makes it better than one that has had pp done to it, other than being able to say that it hasn't had any.

[cams]

I'll vote for the one that just grabs me. Not too analytical.

With respect to the PP and not liking "doctored" images. It is all a bit of a useless discussion in the digital domain unless the photo you are looking at is a RAW file that has been converted to JPEG with no processing. Otherwise it is simply a discussion of who and where the processing is being done. On the camera automatically (as is done for virtually any JPEG only output), on camera manually like Pentax can do (is this then counted as "straight off the camera"?), automatic RAW processing on the PC by your software of choice, or fully manual RAW processing in your software of choice.

As far as I'm concerned, the goal of most PP I do is to enhance the appeal of an image to the point just before it actually looks enhanced. I'm not against focus or exposure stacking if it helps achieve this.

[DanShell]

I brought up the watermark topic because I have seen amateur photo comps where obvious professionals are entering.........no prizes of course but I still feel it doesn't give the average joe a chance at times.
And when I say watermarks I mean "insert company name professional photography" for instance but I do take on board that plenty of amateurs may also watermark their photographs so that was a good point.

[icefest]

Personally, the reason I have little issue with PP is that this:

Didn't look at all like this when I was there.
This is a much better representation of what it was like:

[DanShell]

Personally, the reason I have little issue with PP is that this:

Didn't look at all like this when I was there.
This is a much better representation of what it was like:

Thats a nice example of PP that isn't over done and in fact for most it would be near on impossible to know it was altered unlike some

[walkon]

What's sad with pp is that it takes away from the skill in knowing how to control and use the camera effectively. From what I've seen most pp work done wouldn't be needed if the user knew how to operate the camera. Talk of shutter speed, aperture, iso is lost on some people yet they can tell you how to fix it on the computer. If they just spent a bit more time learning how to actually use the camera they would be a far better photographer and save themselves time on the computer.
I guess my preference in music and photography are similar, I prefer it live and not over produced

[Kainas]

I agree, but lack of skill shouldn't detract from the experience of taking a picture. I am learning to use the features of my camera. It is fascinating, but it is quite a steep learning curve. There is a lot to be learnt in order to take a truly good photo (OOC), in the mean time I am exceedingly grateful that lightroom allows me to make minor adjustments.

And here is the big truth. No matter how many adjustments I make in lightroom, my photos won't be photo competitin worthy until I do learn more. Every photo comp there is a vast gap between those that know how to use a camera and those that don't. How many photos in the competitions do you look at knowing that great skill would have produce a superb photo, instead we look at a washed out picture.

[Pteropus]

What's sad with pp is that it takes away from the skill in knowing how to control and use the camera effectively. From what I've seen most pp work done wouldn't be needed if the user knew how to operate the camera. Talk of shutter speed, aperture, iso is lost on some people yet they can tell you how to fix it on the computer. If they just spent a bit more time learning how to actually use the camera they would be a far better photographer and save themselves time on the computer.

I disagree. In fact, I’d say that most photographers with a little more knowledge of cameras than the average punter would post process, and perhaps be more adventurous to try different post processing techniques. As cams points out, if you shoot with RAW, you will generally have to post process to some degree. Photographers have always done some sort of post processing. For example, apparently the legendary landscape photographer Ansel Adams would revisit his images in the dark room over and over again to produce different effects or look for the same image. After all, the camera is rarely ever going to do the scene the justice of what it really was like to the eye.

This is a much better representation of what it was like:

Very nice!

[cajun]

I guess my preference in music and photography are similar, I prefer it live and not over produced

Snap.

[nickthetasmaniac]

For me it's probably equal parts subject, composition and technique. I've seen many an amazing scene ruined by a photographer with terrible technique, and likewise, many excellently composed and captured boring photos of boring subjects

What's sad with pp is that it takes away from the skill in knowing how to control and use the camera effectively. From what I've seen most pp work done wouldn't be needed if the user knew how to operate the camera. Talk of shutter speed, aperture, iso is lost on some people yet they can tell you how to fix it on the computer. If they just spent a bit more time learning how to actually use the camera they would be a far better photographer and save themselves time on the computer.

I think this is missing the point. You CAN'T take a photo with a digital camera that hasn't been post-processed. An image will either be generically processed by the camera itself (jpeg), in which case the photographer has control over input but not output (beyond adjusting in-camera jpeg parameters), or it will be processed by the photographer (RAW), in which case a good editor (and all good photographers are good editors...) has full control over all parameters and can adjust them to perfectly suit the individual image.

Good post-processing isn't about 'fixing' bad images, it's about refining good images.

Do you think the great film-era photographers like Adams and Dombrovskis didn't spend hours 'post-processing' their images in the darkroom?

[tom_brennan]

Interesting discussion.

I usually start by short-listing the ones that catch my eye as I'm scrolling through. This tends to be due to a superficial combination of lighting and composition.

Then of those, I'll eliminate any that have technical issues. The most common fault (from my perspective) seems to be blown highlights. Also, overly aggressive post processing. I'm comfortable with PP, but just don't push it too far. That usually leaves 2 or 3 (though sometimes just 1, in which case it's easy). At that point I'll go back and see which of the ones that’s left catches my fancy. Not always easy, as they're usually all good photos. Sometimes it's just a toss of a coin.

If I've seen the same photo a few times before, I'll probably overlook it unless it's the clear standout.

I'm also picky about Landscapes in the Non-Landscape comp – there seem to be a few each month, and I rule them out straight away. I'm also a bit over starscapes, unless there's a landscape element to them.

I usually try and avoid voting in the comps I am entered in as I don't think I can make an unbiased choice.

[north-north-west]

I usually start by short-listing the ones that catch my eye as I'm scrolling through. This tends to be due to a superficial combination of lighting and composition.

Then of those, I'll eliminate any that have technical issues. The most common fault (from my perspective) seems to be blown highlights. Also, overly aggressive post processing. I'm comfortable with PP, but just don't push it too far. That usually leaves 2 or 3 (though sometimes just 1, in which case it's easy). At that point I'll go back and see which of the ones that’s left catches my fancy. Not always easy, as they're usually all good photos. Sometimes it's just a toss of a coin.
...
I'm also picky about Landscapes in the Non-Landscape comp – there seem to be a few each month, and I rule them out straight away.

That's basically how I do it. I won't enter images with obvious major technical flaws, so I refuse to vote for them, even if they are in all other respects standouts.

If there's a choice after the cull, it comes down to the grabbing power of the shot - I do like images that give me a 'being right there' sensation, that catch the feeling of a place and not just the view.

[Nuts]

I'll vote for anything that shows promise, not playing for sheep stations. I've voted for friends just to get them a show against the collective. Nice pics are a dime a doz.