Your photo, critiqued and/or praised. It's about learning and improving.

Discussion in 'Cameras and Photography' started by tybrad, Sep 9, 2012.

  1. tybrad

    tybrad 21234

    Messages:
    17,803
    SO here is a thread that can be used for anyone who is interested in having their photo (just one at a time) looked over by others here and have input made. YOU will need to determine who is qualified in your mind to pay attention to but please- no vitriol or bad feelings.:thumbsdn: So we'll see how this is received.:scratch2:

    You, by posting a pic and asking for assistance, have tacitly given approval for others to work with your image and reposting it. Remember that YOU have come here, asking for assistance.


    It will help to give information on...
    Experience level
    Camera and lens
    ISO
    tripod or not
    weather/wind conditions if you recall them

    THE CAVEATS:
    Comments on photos should be made in the name of helping someone out in anything about the photo thinking, making, and post-production process..

    Return comments made to the people adding assistance for you should be respectful.

    This can only work in the vein of education.

    There are few "absolutes" in any creative process but there are SOME.

    This cannot work if you have too much pride to accept others commenting on your work.

    So here is one of mine as the opener for critiquing.
    [​IMG]
    Advanced amateur level (shot freelance pro in the 80's)
    Morning light, overcast
    Nikon D7000, Tamron 28-70 MF (at 70mm)
    Handheld
    1/13sec @ f11, ISO 200
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2014

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. cwall99

    cwall99 Addicted Member

    Now this is a brilliant idea.

    Not that I'm a budding photog, but now I wish I had some pix to submit.
     
  3. When making photos (if you want them to be clear and direct to the viewer) you have to ask yourself a few questions first:

    What is my intent?
    What am I trying to convey in the photograph?
    What attracts me to this subject?
    Does the lighting compliment the subject?
    What do I include and/or exclude in the scene?

    There are others but these should be basic in most cases. Now, as for the photo you posted, there are lots of things I find wrong with the photograph but here are two that stand out:

    1. Too busy! What is it you are photographing? The foliage or the structure in the background? Your reason(s) for taking the photo should be clear and strong and leave little or (better yet) no doubt as to your intent.

    2. Simplify! Change your view. Move around and don't just settle for the easy shot. Pay attention to what you see in the viewfinder and try different views from different angles.

    Personally, I find the structure to be much more interesting than the foliage and/or power pole. I would concentrate on that instead but since I was not there maybe it was not possible to get in a position to isolate the building from everything else. In which case I would have moved on and looked for something else to photograph.
     
    axelXkane likes this.
  4. chicks

    chicks Lunatic Member

    Messages:
    17,394
    Location:
    The Big Valley, CA
    OK, lemmie try. I was a P&S shooter, no real skill, but bought a real cheap Olympus E-P2 on clearance, and have acquired an assortment of legacy and native lenses for it. Very interested in learning.

    This one was hand-held, natural/incadescent lighting mix. Oly E-P2 with Oly 45mm f/1.8.

    Subject is (hopefully) obvious, and was delicious! What could I have done better?

    [​IMG]
     
    willhowl likes this.
  5. onepixel

    onepixel .

    Messages:
    33,671
    It would've been perfect if you had invited me over! :D

    Couple things I would've done is shown more of the bottom of the bowl/foreground. More depth of field so all the clams were in focus and so the background wasn't as blurry. Other than that looks real tasty to me!
     
    pustelniakr likes this.
  6. Ohighway

    Ohighway Wannabe Minimalist Subscriber

    I'd agree, plus maybe one more thing. I'd think it would be nice to see the complete shape of the bowl, not have it cut off at the right and left edges. Somehow that would make it more pleasing to me.

    I like the colors...
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  7. chicks

    chicks Lunatic Member

    Messages:
    17,394
    Location:
    The Big Valley, CA
    :scratch2: I actually tried those suggestions at the time, but thought the one above was less cluttered. Maybe some cropping of this one would work better? :dunno:

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Much much better, Chicks. I agree with the others assessment on your previous example. As much as I preach about cropping you have to be careful not to over do it in camera or in post processing.
     
  9. chicks

    chicks Lunatic Member

    Messages:
    17,394
    Location:
    The Big Valley, CA
    So much to learn... :sigh:
     
  10. onepixel

    onepixel .

    Messages:
    33,671
    I like the 1st image better, because it is less cluttered. On the 2nd one you might want to rotate the image a degree or two clockwise so it's level.
     
  11. tybrad

    tybrad 21234

    Messages:
    17,803
    The structure is indeed interesting on its own, and I have many of it. The primary intent on this shot were to juxtapose the industrial and the natural. The wired intentionally included to service the fact that industry flows from nature. Perhaps this cleans up a bit and still maintains my original vision.
    [​IMG]
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  12. Forget the foliage. Get down their and explore that cool building. Lots of textures and cool details to explore.
     
    malden likes this.
  13. MichaelJ

    MichaelJ Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    1,924
    Location:
    Fox River Valley, Wisconsin
    Chicks, your use of shallow depth of field is excellent!
     
  14. MichaelJ

    MichaelJ Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    1,924
    Location:
    Fox River Valley, Wisconsin
    Tybrad, I agree with Jess. Intellectually I understand what you are trying to do but personally, I'd rather see close up's of the building. It's full of possibilities.
     
  15. old_tv_nut

    old_tv_nut See Yourself on Color TV! Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,421
    Location:
    Sahuarita
    (Referring to the first post) OK, but I think that sentiment didn't come through to everyone. My feeling is that it's a great illustration to accompany some text, like a news article "anbandoned plant going back to nature," but it doesn't stand on its own, as many interpretations are possible.
     
  16. old_tv_nut

    old_tv_nut See Yourself on Color TV! Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,421
    Location:
    Sahuarita
    Antique steam tractor provides the steam for cooking sweet corn at the Michigan Flywheelers meet.
    [​IMG]
    IMG_4519cr by old_tv_nut, on Flickr


    ----
    Ok, so I'm not going to pay any attenton to critiques that tell me the subject is not obvious. I intend the picture to be captioned as above.

    I do want comments on the cropping and composition, especially that tree that separates the tractor from the cooking. Visual punctuation, or distracting junk?
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  17. jntit

    jntit Super Member

    Messages:
    1,079
    Location:
    Madrid New Mexico
    I like this thread, perhaps I'll pull out my camera, Olympus om2s film, and give it a try. If you don't mind I have a question. Is there a rule of thumb for the combination of shutter speed & f stop for depth of field?
     
  18. old_tv_nut

    old_tv_nut See Yourself on Color TV! Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,421
    Location:
    Sahuarita
    Just to help compare, here is the result of applying the Photoshop chainsaw tool:
    [​IMG]
    IMG_4519crps by old_tv_nut, on Flickr
     
  19. old_tv_nut

    old_tv_nut See Yourself on Color TV! Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,421
    Location:
    Sahuarita
    No rule of thunb that will apply to every camera and every display of the images from that camera. Depends on sensor size and eventual display (print) size and viewing distance.

    You can either go through calculations for a numerical answer, or, if it's digital and mistakes are free, try different combinations and select the one that gets the effect you want.

    [Edit - changed "since it's digital" to "if it's digital".] On your film camera, the lens may have a depth of field scale, but that's not absolute truth, since it has to be based on an assumed enlargement size and viewing distance.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  20. MichaelJ

    MichaelJ Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    1,924
    Location:
    Fox River Valley, Wisconsin
    The longer the focal length of the lens and the wider lens opening the shallower depth of field will be. An f1.8 will give you a much shallower DOF than F16 for example, especially with the longer focal length lenses. Wide angle and fisheye lenses however, will be tack sharp or close to it at nearly any f stop. You will need to adjust your shutter speed accordingly for proper exposure.
     

Share This Page