Critique the Community
Soft Light
Submit Your Best "Soft Light" Images!
Congratulations to the winners!
A few weeks ago we wrapped up our Critique the Community contest for August, and you, the community, had some unbelievable submissions. This episode is long but hopefully you enjoy the images and our rants as well.
Below are the top 3 images from this critique. Each of the top 3 images have won a free photography tutorial from the Fstoppers Store. Please private message Lee Morris to claim your prize.
Congrats to each of the winners and we look forward to seeing your best images in our September Contest featuring Clever or Outside the Box images!
Rules & Prizes
Today is a new month which means Fstoppers has a new Critique the Community contest! For the month of August, we want to see your best images featuring soft lighting. Anyone can enter up to 3 images with details below!
This month we want to focus on one of the most important aspects of photography, lighting! For the August 2025 edition of Critique the Community we are asking to see your best images featuring soft lighting. Soft lighting is often described as having gentle, diffused shadows with gradual transitions between light and dark areas. Soft lighting is often less vibrant and shows less contrast when compared to direct, hard lighting. Your soft light images can be completely naturally lit or perfectly crafted in the studio using flash, and any genre of photography is acceptable including landscapes, portraiture, weddings, still life, and conceptual photography. Each community member can submit up to 3 images for this contest.
Rules
- All images must be submitted from now until August 30th at 11:30 PM 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 must primarily feature soft lighting in some way. There can be other forms of lighting included but the overall theme and mood of the image must be soft.
The top 3 images win!
This month we are rewarding the top 3 winners with 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 soft light photos from the Fstoppers Community!
BONUS DEAL!
For the month of August we are giving our readers the chance to purchase our fashion tutorial, The Fundamentals of Fashion Photography with Shavonne Wong, for only $49! This tutorial is normally priced at $179 and for this month only you can get it for the cheapest price it has ever been sold.
Shavonne Wong is an incredible photographer based out of Singapore, and this tutorial explores some of her best tips and techniques for making jaw dropping fashion inspired images. In this course, Shavonne teaches you some of the most misunderstood aspects of fashion photography such as how to assemble and work with a team, how to cast the right model, how to correctly style a high-end looking shoot, and what poses look most flattering and fashion forward. If you are more interested in lighting techniques, don't worry, as Shavonne explores some of her favorite lighting setups as well as some of the pitfalls many photographers experience when designing clean, but interesting, fashion lighting.
If you have an interest in fashion photography or simply want to learn from a successful photographer based in another world market, The Fundamentals of Fashion Photography is a great asset for photographers of any skill level.
Featured Image by the talented Irina Jomir
Sat, 08/30/2025 - 23:45
This contest has ended.
255 people have cast a total of 17,074 votes on 483 entries from 234 participants
Contest Submissions
Click on the thumbnails below to comment and rate each image.
Click here to learn about the Fstoppers rating system and what each star value means.
74 Comments
Another really complicated genre, in that I'm not sure many of the photos already submitted really qualify.. as of 8/3/2025. But then again, who am I to judge? Because 'soft light' is too hard for us to figure out.... Maybe we need a class in what it is.
Great photographs, Gaurav. There seemed to be another question about whether fog in the Bay Area was unusual and difficult to catch in a photo. For those people not familiar with the area, fog is quite common in the summer months, especially July and August. Nothing against your photographs, they're very nice, but I suspect Patrick was impressed partially thinking the images were far more unique than they really are. There are several parking spots along the Marin Headlands from the north side of the bridge for great photo opportunities.
Yes, there are several parking spots there. I remember parking my bike in the marine headlands trail starting point, and then walked up hill about a km to a place where there were less people. Usually people go at battery spencer point.
I’d say most of the images I’m seeing submitted are soft light images 🤷🏻♂️
This one is more straight forward than the previous contest. I have plenty of soft light portraits, but I'm going to search through my images to see if I have any non-portrait submissions.
Soft light makes more sense when you recognize the nature of hard light. Basically it pretty much boils down to contrast. Extreme hard light would be characterized by dark black shadows and/or blown-out highlights, with sharp edges between them. Soft light generally reduces the dynamic range in a picture, with somewhat less contrast and blurrier, less distinct, edges bridging dark and light areas.
An example of relative degrees of soft light is the comparison of the two black and white Utah landscape images which I entered into the contest. The picture which I described as a scene out of The Lord of the Rings is extremely soft light to the point of flat light. There are no distinctive shadows or highlights in the picture. On the other hand, the Turret Arch image does contain well defined shadows, but the tonal values separating highlights and shadows are not so great as in a harsh light picture. Similar to the woman in pink, the highlights are diffused from cloud cover that keeps them from becoming too bright. That’s essentially what golden hour and overcast skies accomplish… they soften the light.
I struggle with this... The Arch with the heavy shadows is no doubt a great photo, but is obviously taken in high sun-light, and would seem counterintuitive to the contest. But you have black and whitened it... its a very subjective contest again. Hard to judge rightly.
Look again at the main shadow in the center. It's caused by the rock on the right, which means the sun was low in the sky. If it had been a mid-day (harsh light) picture with the sun high in the sky, there would be no shadow in the center of the picture. Also, the sky has a dark sort of moody look, which softens the impact of what typically results from bright cloudless skies. I believe you are correct though in that there are degrees to which light is soft, hard, or something vaguely in between. There's no firm dividing line which definitively separates hard and soft light.
Ok I misspoke saying "high sun-light", but your definition of your photo says 'golden hour'. Which still means your shooting in sun-light, not diffused by clouds or anything. Which when I google 'soft-light', and mind you I'm still learning the subject, but when I watch youtubes on the subject. They will tell you they are shooting after the sun has just set, or when the clouds are covering the sky, or some other thing is causing the sun to be diffused.
I wrote a much longer comment below but this particular image is still showcasing soft light. It's not THE MOST softlight but it's definitely not harsh light. It's directional, sure, and the sun is hitting the rock face which is casting a shadow but it's still pretty soft all things considered. One giveaway is the edge of the shadow cast by the rock face on the right isn't razor sharp. It has a transition around it. Also the foreground and most all of the photo isn't lit with strong highlights and shadows. I think a lot of people get thrown off when sunlight is at a strong side angle and think it's hard light but really it's actually much softer than light at 10 am or 3pm.
I guess for landscape photos: Even with my uneducated mind, Thomas Skjeggedal's Norway photo seems to be a really good example, and i gave him 4*. This will be another contest where i may skip voting on many of them.
I guess from day one we are always taught to avoid shooting when the sun is strongest. It can make light harsh. I just feel that trying to pinpoint a "soft light" photo versus another "soft light" photo... is not easy. People can submit almost anything, and the definition is broad for one person, and strict for another.
Thanks a lot for your nice comment :) And yes, I gotta admit that I had to do some Googling, in order to make sure I got the right definition of what does, and doesn't count as "soft light" From my understanding tho, even mid day shots can fit the genre, as long as the light is defused in some way, from things like clouds or fog :)
You said, Robert: "I just feel that trying to pinpoint a "soft light" photo versus another "soft light" photo... is not easy. People can submit almost anything, and the definition is broad for one person, and strict for another."
Yes, and that's the best type of contest. You have the opportunity to learn something, or at least be exposed to other people's interpretation of the subject. It creates a conversation that may not have happened otherwise if everything were narrowly defined.
Soft light landscapes and most other types of images besides soft light portraits are very few and far between. The reason is that they will not look as good with no direct light actually falling on the scene yet. Diffused light and sunlight behind a cloud mostly is not soft light, but who knows how the judges will feel about this. I have plenty cityscapes shot during the blue and golden hour, in soft light, but the harshness of the artificial city lights may ruin the concept. Again, this depends on who is judging the images. Studio or staged images will be much easier, because you can use soft light, like a softbox to illuminate your subject.
hmm... just when I thought I had it figured out kevin....lol Just goes to show you, just how confusing this genre is.
I think a lot of people fail to understand is that even though it appears late afternoon sun is still harsh and hitting their subject directly, the lighting effect is actually much much softer than high noon light. This is because the sun is traveling through much more atmosphere when it is low on the horizon compared to shining straight down.
There is actually a scientific effect of this called the Rayleigh scattering effect. If you think of the earth as a ball and you draw a line coming from the center outwards (the radius essentially). The line would represent mid day sun, and you can imagine the light would only go through a small amount of atmosphere (whatever is directly in line with that straight radius line). But if you draw a line that is tangent to the edge of the sphere, you can imagine that the sun would be passing through a lot more atmosphere at this angle especially when you expand the ball to the size of planet earth. It's not a negligible amount of diffusing material (clouds, moisture, particles, etc). .
I don't know that I agree with Kevin's assessment that soft light landscapes are rare. So many people like to take landscape photos at the golden hour and even blue hour which are very soft lighting periods. If you look at Elia Locardi's instagram page (or many other professional landscape photographers), almost every single image has soft light. His images are 90% blue hour with the warm city lights burned it after sunset.
Just because an image has side lighting doesn't mean that lighting is a hard light source. In many cases, the setting sun almost acts like a medium sized softbox but it still has directionality.
Here is a good photo example of what I'm trying to explain haha
https://dcx0p3on5z8dw.cloudfront.net/inline-images/aakash_1113358907.png
Elia Locardi's cityscapes during blue hour wouldn't be much to look at without artificial lighting in the foreground and mid points of the image. I think that landscapes are even harder because you have to have a great composition and hopefully a water source, which can act as a light reflector with long exposures. Not thinking the sun exposed at all can be considered a soft box lighting source, unless there is a cloud or some sort of diffusion element in front of it, maybe. Oh well, that is just my opinion. Let the fun begin.
i couldn't get that link to work btw... However I think it is clear people's definitions of 'soft light' is quite fluid.
sorry man, when it comes to 'golden hour', this can be just confusing the subject of 'soft-lighting'. I think this is almost tantamount to 'anything goes' just to the eye of the judge. Just thinking about what people consider to be golden-hour portraits. like: https://nvtamedia.com/blog-notable-nuggets/what-is-golden-hour-photogra… The lighting can still be quite rough, and the shadows very thick. The issues is, that others may consider your photo doesn't count in the contest, and give you '1s'. Some will be more strict and some will be more lenient. Better to air on the side of caution, and post photos, that are easier to define as 'Soft-Light', if there is such a definition.
I don't care about the scores, but it would be nice if those people who rated my image a two, as needing work, would explain in the comments why they think that way. Realistically, that will hardly ever happen.
Remember, "be careful what you wish for", has always been what I say to people who say they want comments on their '2s and '1s'. And remember those who appeared to ask for comments on their low-ratings, but didn't really want them in the end.
Oh, I hear you on that... we've both been hit with some nasty insults for not appreciating the greatness of someone's picture.
Forget contest scores. Does it score with you emotionally. Also, most people that comment are not qualified to do so.
Your comment feels arrogant. Our conversation comes out of: There has been an age-old argument on these contests on whether one should leave a comment if you think an image is less than a '3'. Some feel that they should say why, or even that the system should require it. Ed, I guess must be one of those. I say: "They don't realize what they are asking for..." Then possible arguments from the creator for each one, as people think "no one is qualified" to give such critiques, as their image is God's gift to mankind, because it came out of their camera. Even if the image happens to be picked by Lee and Patrick it very well could be critiqued six ways to Sunday, and they could be told how the image could have been better, or what they thought the person did do to the image. It could be way out of Lee or Patrick's qualification style, and they will still comment about the image... and give it a rating. In the end, if you enter this contest, it is a popularity contest, and the 'highest rated' section, in past contests, tend to be there for a reason, and tends to affect the outcome. So no I don't forget the scores.
So critiques, probably should be asked for, in your notes on your image. Not required or anything. I would put "I Welcome Critiques and Comments".. I've seen people anticipate 1s and 2s, by actually putting in negative comments in their photo. I wouldn't do that. There's an article here about asking specific questions, but you may not know what to ask. So I always had a problem with that article: https://fstoppers.com/editorial/how-ask-and-receive-good-critiques-and-…
Not arrogant at all. Have confidence in yourself, what you like, what you don't like. Also recognize that many people that put up comments don't have enough knowledge experience or skill to make a comment. If someone doesn't like black and white, for instance, maybe they shouldn't score or critique on black and white images, since they have a personal prejudice against them. A remark about critiques. My purpose in having my work critiqued was always to learn. Too many people think that the only reason for a critique is to criticize, but if they have a built in prejudice a so called objective critique is impossible. So I only ever allowed my work to be critiqued by people that were better than I was - in my estimation - or were doing work that I would aspire to doing. Critiques should only be given with the intent of helping the person develop their technique and/or their personal vision. And no critique is 100% objective truth. That's why I said to forget what anyone who is judging says, unless they have the bona fides to comment. Everyone has the right to free speech. All speech may be free, but not all speech is equally valid.
Another side of that is that critiques can get to be too personal. If it's done to put down, or because the person doesn't like the other person, which has happened to me here, on this publication, or to just be annoying and get attention, then I judge that comment to be invalid.
The sad thing is young folks starting out will spend to much valuable time actually trying to figure out why there 5 was rated a 2. When it was a 5 all along.
You must recognize that some genres are not as popular as others, and may not score as high as others, that's the nature of a contest, that is open for everyone to vote. Even our fearless judges, and even if it was a judging panel would still have the same problem. Remember when Patrick, gave a '2' to the 'Under-Water' photo, just because he didn't like under-water photos. Hey, thems the breaks of the business of entering a competition. So of course some may not like 'B&W' photos, that's true, if that is your meaning. I think I have slowly 'warmed' to B&W photos over time, which is ironic, since that is what they usually lack. It would be an interesting question to look at past-contests to see if a B&W photo has ever been in the highest-rated areas of a contest that was not specifically for B&W photos. I can't specifically remember one, or one that has been picked by Lee and Patrick. Wait, maybe one with people in it.
Edit: Well just last month there was one very highly rated B&W photo by Dave Vichich, and selected in the contest. And the month before two photos were picked B&W and one was quite high rated. So I don't think that B&W alone is a vote detractor. The evidence suggests, you can still get high-average-ratings, and be selected by Lee & Patrick.
2nd Edit: Last month if you click on 'highest rated'. There are 4 b&w photos in the top 15, and two of those were selected. So evidence, could be mounted, for B&W to be a vote-catcher.
and thus my comment. Why should we heed comments that are from people that don't understand what we are doing; so ignore them. And my intention is not to win this contest. Nice if it happens, but not everyone understands what has to be done, and not everyone is qualified to be a judge. My intent is to communicate my ideas, which is wholly different than trying to get ratings. That was the danger of the PPA print judging, and their critique system. People learned what it was that the judges liked so they made images that they knew the judges would score higher. When that happened, if you were at a PPA convention and perused the print racks what happened was that all the work began to look the same. So if you photograph for someone else's likes you end up making the same images they do. There was a song sung by Ricky Nelson called "Garden Party" and one of the lines was "you can't please someone else so you better please yourself". Wisdom in that silly song.
I have no real interest in changing the Fstoppers rating system. I’m only curious as to why someone thinks that a photo needs work; mine or anyone else’s. I appreciate anyone’s point of view. I don’t feel like someone has to prove that they’re better than me, or have some sort of certificate on the wall in order to qualify for stating an opinion. Education and communication cease to exist when someone is afraid to speak up, or made to feel by someone else that they’re not qualified to express an opinion.
What is the difference between a studio flash unit combined with a modifier such as found in a softbox, and the sun in the sky behind clouds? They seem to both be diffusing light in the same way. Does not diffused light = soft light?
Ed, the only true time of day or evening that is always soft light is the Blue Hour. Sunrise and even the Golden Hour can still create harsh light, depending on atmospheric conditions. You can still get harsh shadows during the golden hour. You can go out at 4am, and wait for that sun to come up. then bam, it could be harsh or soft, its a crapshoot. Working in a studio, you can adjust your lighting any time of day or night and not hope for the best.
Enjoy the contest
A lot of discussion here about "soft light", and maybe the theme is a bit confusing. I used "soft light" for more than 30 years in my studio practice since it yielded very complementary lighting for most subjects. Soft light is diffused light that avoids casting harsh shadows on its subject. This is otherwise known as "diffused light." Instead of hard-edged shadows, the division between light and dark becomes gradual and even. You’ll know you’ve achieved this lighting effect when your subject lacks extreme highlights and lowlights. Usually the closer a diffuser is to the subject, the more diffuse, or softer, the light will be. If one were to use a small diffuser on a camera born flash, Larsen used to sell these by the dozen and they were useless, the diffuse effect would be slight, if any at all. Use a diffuser that is 6 feet by 6 feet, moved as close to the subjevt as possible and the effect will be quite different.
In the landscape, which is where my work is centered now, soft light, or diffuse light is actually probably the easiest type of light to work with, or to use. I know a man whose work is stellar and he won't even get his camera out until the sun is below the horizon, or at least behind a cloud or fog bank, or behind a mountain. I use very soft light very often, especially if I am working with details in the landscape since it is much simpler to get an organized light pattern with that type of light. Again, even though the light is softer, and more diffuse it can still be directional.
I have to say that this seems to be the highest level of the fstoppers contests. I've given so far mostly 4s and some 3s.
It's like less than 10% of the photos are not really in the genre of the contest (while usually it's 60%+ :D).
Its great that Patrick Hall explained his interpretation of soft light here in the comment section. It opens a more broad spectrum of work he feels meet the criteria that you can submit. Don't be afraid to post your images in the contest, even if others give you grief about it. These contests should be fun for everyone. Yes even for new to photography enthusiasts.
If you receive a 1 or a 2 on an image you thought was exceptional, don't let that bog you down. Remember that this contest lets anonymous people vote on your image. Meaning, not a photography judge or expert, just a person who may have their reasons, weather just or spite for not liking your image.
Let Em Rip!
Possibly next to the contest ratings, a person can toggle (please critique). Letting others know they would really like a critique in order to better their photography skills, or just unsure what their peers think about the photo.
That's one of the better ideas proposed.
I think that's a great idea, because I just left a few comments earlier on some photos, but now I'm stressing if I should have done that or not. I'd really hate to make anyone feel bad, I just enjoy talking about photos. And I love to hear whatever anyone thinks about mine; good, bad, suggestions, or questions.
That's my feeling exactly. If we can't freely talk about photos without worrying about repercussions, or whether someone has the appropriate credentials to offer a thought... then what's the point of this place? There are plenty of other photo sharing sites if someone just wants to show their pictures. I like Fstoppers because of the comments as much as the articles and pictures.
Yeah, I wouldn't do that to just anyone. Some judge the "commenter" as 'unworthy', I dunno, maybe based on their fstopper rating, or what-not, or professional credentials, or age in life. See Nathan's comments above (right here in this contest comments), about how he feels. Unfortunately, sometimes when comments have even been asked for, you still might be bitten for commenting. But hey, its life in the fstoppers world. And I've certainly learned to improve by it.
I'm of the thoughts that feel free to bite. I've had my ass chewed out so many times it looks like hamburger, but I'm still sitting down on it and will continue to do so.
That said, I also welcome polite discourse, back and forth banter and constructive criticism. But I'm not afraid of some harsh critiques as well. I take everyone's critique with a grain of salt. A lot of the critiques are personal for people to say, but if you listen (read) then sometimes you can actually understand what is being said beyond the words they've used. That's where the real critiques are. Most of us have no idea how to explain what we're seeing, properly. And, like this response, it comes out like a jumbled mess. I don't think anyone is 'unworthy' (and I don't think you do either) as we can all see something that we like or don't like. But being able to articulate that in a way that the artist can both understand and absorb, is the real trick....
I was speaking with a friend, about this contest, and he asked me a question that now is stuck in my head. What about some "photographers" rating one star to every picture in order to make their own picture stand up ?
It is the same old discusion in every single contest on fstoppers. While it is true that some people give low rates intentionally to make their own photos stand up, I give you an advise: don`t pay attention to other people`s rating, judge submission according to your own criteria, and carry on. Rating system is a common discussion topic, but it becomes boring quite quickly.
I generally trust the public ratings. Go to past contests... if something on average rates around 3+... it's usually a pretty good photo. Can't figure out why your photo is being rated 1.5 by 30 people? Ask. I mean change the photo details and include something about including 'critiques'. But that doesn't mean there are 15 of those 30 people on here who are 'intentionally' low-rating you. Another question that often comes up is: Why is my photo so much lower rated than in my profile? That is simple. For 1) It is being rated by more people, with wildly different values. 2) In a contest, it is being rated for a specific context, and some raters actually look at that context. 3) It depends, but you should expect around a full-point or two lower rating here than what you would get in your profile. In your profile, the only people who may even click on your photo are those, that may think your image is worthy of something to look at it, or those people on fstoppers that are already following you. People who follow you are bound to give you a 'Like' vote. They already know and appreciate your style. There are of course those that are not as critical, you sometimes get the 'at-a-boy' vote. In a contest, your putting your photo in a place, that in order to stand-out, it has to be something special, to even make it to an average of '3', there are no, or very few "at-a-boy" votes here.
The rating system of 5 stars is ridiculous and 100% subjective. Some my favorite photos in my portfolio are the lowest rated. I couldn’t care less. I don’t post on this website for affirmation that I am a great photographer. I rate my own photos in my photo database. If it is a 1, I throw it away. Usually any photo rated lower that 8 I would not bother to edit. A 9 would go into my portfolio and I have never rated one of my own photos a 10 ( 5 on this website ). If you are offended by a 1 or 2 rating on this site you should not be posting on public websites. Using a 1-5 rating system is woefully inadequate. I use a 1-100 scale. The only reason to keep a photo rated lower 6 is that time may improves the photo and I might re-evaluate in 5 years. Or you have a blurry underexposed photo of Sasquatch. The inability to differentiate between a 4 and a 5 rating is like trying to cut a steak with a recently sharpened knife and a butter knife.
Does it matter to you why the scores for one of your favorite pictures are low? If you've bothered to enter a contest, aren't you just a little curious about the thinking of those who have rated it poorly?
I think there is a change stirring within photography and its subtle. Wether it will produce any fruit remains to be seen. ( seen - get it lol ) Yet its applicable to contest validation and unrealistic voting in a way. Because it's related to a persons visual acuity and skill set. It also has to do with a form of digital computerized fully automated seeing provided by the very scientific fast cameras of today. That can focus at ight speed and provide twenty images a second all seemingly perfect in every way.
So much so that they could have an unintended purpose, of leaving out the one ingredient most important, the voice and imprint of the artist. So let me be perfectly clear here in that unless one relies upon the basics of the craft which are composition, exposure and depth of field tendencies to let technology create images can potentially occur. I think its maybe why there is a resurgence in analog. It by its very nature removes technology. It slows a person down to think, create and then begin the most important journey of all finding your voice.
Low votes on what I know is a good photograph then make prefect sense because it’s a lack of understanding. A lot of people simply do not know what makes up a good photograph nor do they understand what they’re looking at. I think to a large degree they judge a photograph by what they know, and that is living in the green box, on full auto, with a lot of HDR . If thats not it then it simply for whatever reason they chose onr over another. The end result I think is that contests in and of themselves are fun but when they become an ego validation type journey they become toxic to a persons seeing and art. Nothing will kill the heart and soul like ego for ego's sake. In fact it goes far beyong photography and has even much deeper implications.
Thank you for your vote on El Captian. If I win ( which I seriously doubt ) I will donate anything to someone coming up the trail. Also I am not making a video. In fact I dont even know what video people are talking about. Heres my deal as an older photographer. I enjoy seeing others pictures, I am positive and not negative, I do it for myself and the craft alone. Plus I love the fellowship of like minded people. I am also beginning to revisit film again because I love the process and the authentic aesthetic. Hence my recent contest addition. Which I took on Ektar 120 100 ASA film and it ended up a 200 MB file which became a 100 MB file when I made it BW in Lightroom. I did call Murohys Camera and in talking to the nice girl, she said they are processing 20 to 40 rolls of film a day. Again thanks for the vote and you are right about confidence. Self confidence comes from learning the craft and years of seeing, in fact its the only way.
Ratings play no role into who wins or who gets selected for the videos. But like Robert said, top rated images of past contests hover just over a 3 star rating. If your images are close to a 3 star rating with a lot of votes, its a solid image. If its closer to a 1 star, it either doesn't fit the category or its not a good image. There's really not that many people out there giving 1s to just give 1s.
"no role..."? I wouldn't go so far as to say no role. If you watch the videos, you can tell our fearless leaders do pay keen attention to the public vote, and yes they have been accused in the past of paying too much attention to only picking high-voted items. They use words, like, this was the highest rated, or this was the highest rated for most of the contest... I don't remember if it was last month or the month before where Patrick had picked one that was really quite lowly rated, like less than 2, that he knew the public didn't like including myself. So yes sometimes yes they buck-the-system, but in general... the highest voted, are also the ones that could very well be in the contest selections.