I'm in a local "Photographic club" which, like many others, has monthly competitions. Some people make photographs which they think will do well, because the judges all follow a similar line.
Others know what the judges will say but ignore it because they're not interested in what makes a "good" competition photograph. Those members enter pictures in the manner of a mini exhibition, for general discussion. Usually they're far more interesting, to me, if not as pretty.
Many of the photographs shown in this site would get nowhere in a club competition. It's quite amusing to see a judge floundering with a subject he doesn't recognise, taken a way he doesn't understand, (and probably couldn't achieve) but is obviously, competently done.
So, things which don't bother me, because I'm interested in the actual
watch, but would stimulate a competition judge to a frenzied climax of didactic self-righteousness:
anything which:
is distracting,
not contributing to the image,
should have been "corrected",
is not in the "correct" position for classical composition (the thirds, dynamic angles, yadda yadda)
hasn't been brought out as well as it could have been
oh yeah, exposure, levels sharpening,
though they're often oblivious to most technicalities
then, they always want something to get their artistically sensitive credentials displayed, some more eloquently than others:
is it just a hugely accurate picture of a watch ( they usually ignore that one)
Does it have style?
Is there some flair, sexiness, underlying mystique, message or metaphor??
(I once entered a photograph of a blurred blob and called it "Je ne sais quoi" and it did well...
)
Look again at the "gallery" pictures of the manufacturer's site. They probably use photographic club judges.
Now that I have done a fairly thorough job of discrediting the standards which are oh-so-likely to get applied, and you hopefully feel ready to ignore me, here goes
You'd get hammered, based on the reasons above, for
the white triangle lower left - what's that?
the white at upper left - white draws the eye, don't put it on the edge
the hair across the bezel
the strong blue color
the awkward angle of the wrist
there's an odd blurred edge to the strap at the top
the unfortunate reflection in the bezel
the winder looks grubby
dominating textures as mentioned - hairs, cotton, highlights on hairs
the face isn't sharp - at least it doesn't LOOK sharp - it's a machine so it should
there's ONE white hair, which draws attention to a couple of smaller ones, so the owner is getting older - is that what you wanted to say? If not then don't. Remove it.
Overlapping hands - not the most photogenic - change it
Then - is it sexy enough?
No.
Why? Lighting is rather cold, flat, could be more interesting.
Is it saying anything? No, no message to me.
I'm personally not capable of suggesting how to add style. I believe sex was something people did in the 80's?? Usually it's funny lighting and perspective.
There is at least one interesting technical challenge - the "crystal" or glass, is diffusing the light, and softening the image.
Therefore the appealing details underneath, are kinda hazier than would be nice. I'd expect the date is good and contrasty?
This is breaking our own rules in posting even a partial copy of the original image. I'll be happy to remove it if necessary, just send a pm and I'll edit and delete the file.
Here's the histogram for the face:
It's all grey and grey.
It does respond to post processing, which may be a necessary option. "Smart Sharpen" is better than Unsharp mask, for avoiding telltale white edges, if you use Highlight Fade, therein. In another trangression of our rules, I've permitted myself a trial and left the result of a quick few clicks,
Here. I desaturated the face quite a lot, because it took on a strange pinky hue. one disturbing thing which has become more noticeable, is apparent damage to the face, where some paint is missing and it seems to be bent. I suspect that's an illusion, I don't know.
