The second image was used for a CD cover and flipped in the final edit so she is looking left to right & the negative space was expanded and used for track listing and production credits.
Thanks for the critique.
PQ
Composition is KEY
- Thread starter MichaelJ
- Start date
The second image was used for a CD cover and flipped in the final edit so she is looking left to right & the negative space was expanded and used for track listing and production credits.
Thanks for the critique.
PQ
I think the startled feeling I got is perfectly appropriate for an album cover! Context is important in making judgments.
GuyK
Addicted Member
In the first pic, it seems like there are too many elements competing to be the subject. I might have re-framed this one with less of the foreground flowers, and perhaps softened them up with a shallower DOF if the mountain was the intended subject. Or framed in tighter on some of the flowers and softened the background a bit if the flowers were the subject. I do like the way the colors work together, and the (I presume) late afternoon sun on the mountain. But being as I am from the PNW, the mountain would always be my subject when lit like that, because it just doesn't happen very often.
I like the second as is, but wonder what this one would look like as a vertical with more sky for dead space, and also as a wider image. That scene lends itself equally to a number of different pictures.
Just my two cents.
Thanks for the input.
I agree with the critique I think moving closer & cropping out the trees would improve the image. I am not sure why I cropped that way maybe to fit a print format.
The 2nd image is a scan of 35mm Fugichome Velvia, water droplets on the lens from a few falling snow flakes were cropped out of the sky. But its not like the sky was anything special gust grey space.
PQ
I actually felt that the image content is OK, but the lighting is not helping the foreground, making it hard to see; so I wondered what applying a gradient filter would do:
GuyK
Addicted Member
Yet another example showing how art is subjective. Three people observing the same image, and all three seeing something slightly different in it.
Last edited:
Exactly. That's why this thread only works if people take the time to comment.
Still waiting for some analysis of the ones I posted...
GuyK
Addicted Member
I like this one as is. The only thing I would really consider changing would be a slightly different crop. I'd try and see what it looked like without the paint chips at the edge of the trunk. Just me, but I think they're a little distracting. It might not work, though, because it will change the proportions of your composition.
I got nothing for your other pics, they're not a genre of photography I have much practice with.
Thanks.
I agree about the paint chips - would touch them up it was an image for sale; but for club competition our rule is that small distractions can be removed, but things cannot be added. I felt this was an iffy case because it involved modifying the subject. We debate this rule a bit on occasion, but haven't found a clear way to modify it.
GuyK
Addicted Member
If we're both referring to the pic of Mt Rainier, I wouldn't crop out all the trees. Just the small stand of 2 or 3 to the right of the pic.
I should note that I am not a professional, nor even a particularly practiced amateur photographer. I've only got back into this about a year ago after having not taken pics for 25 years or more. So some of the way I see things are likely unconventional. And worse, many of the things I see may be totally cliche.
Last edited:
No worries every one has an opinion.
For the record it is not Mt Rainier It is Mt Adams is southern Washington. Photo was taken in Hood River Oregon looking north.
PQ
Old Ears too
Super Member
I like the ROOT BEER shot quite a bit.
Was that an old Mercedes fender?
Markoneswift
Quartz locked n ready to rock
If "every picture tells a story" - I think a lot of stories don't get told because we all tend to take a lot of meaningless photographs of 'stuff'. Maybe we should learn to shoot digital like its film - each shot has a cost, but in this digital world the cost is time - time spent digging through all the dross 
Drat - I answered this but must not have hit "post."
It's a 1949 Buick Super convertible. (Super had 3 portholes per side, Roadmaster had 4.)
I like the pacement of the two planes and also how the shadows of the trees emphasize the perspective and the size difference. The composition also illustrates the technique of repetition, though just barely, with only two objects. Juxtaposition and contrast of the two main objects are strong points.
I wonder if having more detail in the highlights (distinguishing sky vs. top of the yellow plane) would be an improvement or a distraction. If the original is a raw file, you might try lowering the higlights to see how it looks.
Three variations on the same viewpoint. Shot out the window while driving (by just pointing the camera towards the drivers side the window).
Bogframe
Super Member
My grandfather, artist A.J. Bogdanove Z"L had one hard and fast composition rule that he taught to my father, who taught it to me:
"The Horizon is ALWAYS horizontal."
With this rule in my head, I go crazy every time I see what could be a great landscape ruined by the camera being at a tilt.
With that in mind, this is one of my favorite compositions from my trip to Monhegan Island in Maine a few weeks ago.
"The Horizon is ALWAYS horizontal."
With this rule in my head, I go crazy every time I see what could be a great landscape ruined by the camera being at a tilt.
With that in mind, this is one of my favorite compositions from my trip to Monhegan Island in Maine a few weeks ago.
Late Boomer
Super Member
^ I don't think she is a lobster cove.