HQ Female Candids / Discussions

I think it is a great idea. I had thought of doing it, but lately haven't had the time. A lot of people shoot candids but their quality sux. Not trying too sound like an ass, but it is true. I shoot way more candids than I post. I rarely post one of questionable quality unless it is very unique. I look at a lot of candids on the net, but most of time I pass right over the fuzzy or blurry ones. I think it will upset a few people that they can't post here, but I think it could be a great group. One other thing, quality can be subjective. What I think is quality, you may think is horrible. Not sure exactly how that should be handled. Only way I could think to handle it would be is to put them in a pool before being posted to the group and you judge what you consider quality. Your pics are awesome, so you have a great eye. That may upset some people, but it would make for a group with some high quality pics.

d200: Thanks for the feedback. I'm implementing the idea of the pool, it makes more sense to have to approve the pictures rather than deleting the ones posted in the group.

High quality certainly is subjective to individual tastes. I assume that when speaking of high quality we are talking about photographic quaility, not the subject of the photo? I have a hard time judging my own images. It is easier to judge others than my own. I have a emotional connection from having been there and knowing the difficulty of taking the shot. A persons arura that attracted me often is lost in the image taken for whatever reason, but stays in my mind when viewing it. I have given up trying to figure out which images will be popular and those than arn't.

I will submit what I think is the best for me and if you do not think it is of sufficient high quality feel free deny any of my submissions. I may disagree but I would not be offended in any way. I do hope that the images will not be limited to B&W ;-)

Good luck in making the choices.

Gee Dub

BTW, I'm beginning to feel pretty comfortable here. Many of the posters are well skilled in photography. Not as many camera phone and hit and run garbage distributers. While my candid street images have done well in views, my non-candid images have done well also.

GD: You're right, high quality is very subjective. Take for example this shot:

www.thecandidboard.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=173420&d=1160143381

I like it, and it's one of my favorites, but it's too blurry for me to consider it a high quality photo. It has a good resolution (1200 x 800), but just the fact that it is not sharp enough means it does not make the cut for me.

I'm going to be judging all the pictures, and the ones that fit my "subjective" criteria, would be added. Eventually I'm hoping to be able to translate my criteria into a set of rules, but for the moment I would stick by these rules:
No blurry
Min. 1200 x 800

The link doesn't work properly takes you to the sign in page. I know what Ed is saying though. Personally, I have no trouble distinguishing an HQ shot from a reg. one.

As was stated before it is a subjective as to quaility. but I came across a site that tackles photo judging.

www.monolandscapes.talktalk.net/judging.htm

This article had some very interesting points I had never considered before. Well worth reading.

I am not saying you are doing a bad job. Just pointing out different aspects when selecting HQ shots. If you wanted HD vs HQ I would say resolution would be a point for quaifying. HQ is subjective not absolute values. I think an image can be fuzzy (not sharp) and of a lower resolution (bigger is not always better) and still be a HQ shot.

I have a tough time judging my own work and I don't envy you taking on such a role. Good luck.

Gee Dub