|
Baron Dirigible posted:Anyway, two of my own -- it's been a long time between drinks, but I went on a day-trip recently down to the Great Ocean Road and went straight into full-on tourist mode. It's really hard to move away from "this is an amazing and awe-inspiring vista, I must spend the entire time looking at it through a wide-angle lens". 5.0 is not a wider aperture than 1.4. Remember, it's an inverse relationship, so 5.0 is narrower than 1.4. An f-value of 5.0 is negligible if you're shooting at infinity and with 1/500s shutter speed you could have shot at a larger value, like f/8 or f/10. The image will be a lot sharper so it won't look as soft. Looks like you know what you did wrong with the first...it's tempting to leave a prime wide open but really the main uses for that are for the razor-thin DoF effect or low light scenarios (for which high ISO is becoming better substitute). Composition wise the first photo is fair but it's very centrally-weighted. I recommend you crop a bit of the ocean at the bottom to put more emphasis on the cliffs. Tone-wise the photo is very flat. Looks like you did too strong of a gradient so you need to readjust it. The sky is dim and the trees are just a splotch of black. In lightroom I pulled the tone curve upwards and boosted shadows a bit. To adjust for the flatness of the colors I boosted vibrance. I played with the saturation sliders to make the cliffs less blue.  For photo 2 it looks like your camera is underexposing things quite seriously. I boosted the exposure and recropped as the water in the foreground weakens the subject (the two islands + cliffs) quite substantially. I boosted vibrance a bit to compensate for the cloudy sky and did a bit of split toning to get the entire image more sepia-ish.  Here's mine. I took this photo in the Colosseum in an attempt to capture it in a most-classical sense as possible, deemphasizing the fact that it's the 21st century with tourists crawling all over the ruins. Should I eliminate the flare? Desaturate the greenness but keep the rest?  flare WIP by wholesome_, on Flickr
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:5.0 is not a wider aperture than 1.4. Remember, it's an inverse relationship, so 5.0 is narrower than 1.4. An f-value of 5.0 is negligible if you're shooting at infinity and with 1/500s shutter speed you could have shot at a larger value, like f/8 or f/10. The image will be a lot sharper so it won't look as soft.  I think the main thing I've learned here is not to be afraid of shooting a higher aperture, and I really should be cropping closer than I am. I went ahead and edited the RAW file for the second in Lightroom to match your suggestions, but I won't bother posting it again because it was more a learning exercise than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
EDIT: Added critique.Suicide Watch posted:
While the lack of detail in the lightest and darkest areas of the photo seems intentional, the result is an abundance blown out and underexposed areas. I can almost make out details in the darkest areas, which could use to be exposed 1 stop more. Here's mine.  JDD_0332.jpg by jdoscher, on Flickr hybr1d fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Wherein hybr1d does not read the OP, like a dumb person. Sorry bro. The photo is nicely exposed I guess. Feels more like a snapshot than anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Here's mine. I took this photo in the Colosseum in an attempt to capture it in a most-classical sense as possible, deemphasizing the fact that it's the 21st century with tourists crawling all over the ruins. Should I eliminate the flare? Desaturate the greenness but keep the rest? I think it definitely would have captured more of that classical feel if you could get it without any people in there, although I have no idea how feasible that would have been, given its popularity as a tourist destination (maybe a long exposure or exposure blending?). I'm personally not a fan of the flare; I don't think it really does anything to push the photo closer to your goal. Apart from that, I think works pretty well, especially as it shows the Colosseum from a less common and more intimate point of view. My picture:  DSC_4625 by khyrre, on Flickr I've been in kind of a square crop mood, which I think worked out here since there wasn't much to either side of the contents of the picture. The lighting was pretty harsh since this was mid-afternoon, so I slapped on a Portra 400 VC++ preset from VSCO Film and did a bit of dodging, then added a touch of split toning. Now that I'm looking at it again, I realize that there's that sliver of a fencepost on the left that I probably should have tried to crop around, and the bits of sky showing are perhaps a bit too blue/dark. But apart from that, I think it turned out okay composition-wise? Maybe? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
404notfound posted:
I like it! The handle helps reinforce that its a door, not just a fence, so being there helps tell the story I think. It's a decent composition all around, but it seems like the clarity was bumped too high? I tend to do that when I process photos too, so I might just be projecting. Very nice colors and pin sharp though, that's sometimes a challenge for me to get, even with something like this.  DSC_0590 by jpitha, on Flickr I'm not sure about the colors here, they might be too much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Shampoo posted:
Personally I think the colors are fine- but the people in the photo seem to be "in the way". I think the benches do a great job balancing out the photo and giving scale to everything, but a long exposure to blur or remove the people would have really made a better photo overall. Here's mine- I had some room to play with exposure & contrast, and went for more contrast to emphasize the lines from the plant.  JDD_0351.jpg by jdoscher, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Anyway here's some still life stuff I've been working on. I really like this. I maybe even prefer it at thumbnail size because it's less clear that it's a photo and is just super bold and cartoony looking. A full set of similarly sized objects on a grid (maybe square crops?) would look great, especially if you could match the colours closely so a green object has a tomato-red background with blue details etc.  Southbank Rain by David Galletly, on Flickr I shot this while taking cover from a heavy downpour in London. I know there's probably a better photo in there but, as a beginner, I can't put my finger on what exactly it would be. I like that it tells a story, that the bench leads out to the skater and that the rail runs parallel to his sight-line. I'm not sure that the pillar on the right is doing much (guess it kinda provides context for what he's sheltering under?).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
NebZ posted:
Well unfortunately it's too late to turn around and drive 700 miles back there, but I took everyone's critiques into consideration, played with the curves a little, AND got rid of that house on the left. How does this look?  Version 2 by Jenseales, on Flickr Original  Home by Jenseales, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Tenterhooks posted:
It seems like he's staring at the pillar. I agree that it's telling a story, but it would be much more powerful if we could see what he was looking at - maybe a group a girls or some skaters? Maybe if we could even see his face? I can't tell what his emotion is. The pillar has some interesting texture and colors on it, but it's a big blob that takes up good quarter of the screen. I commend you on using leading lines to reinforce where the viewer should be looking!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Turd Nelson posted:
Lack of house is good, but I personally like the ground more washed out like in the first pic, gives more of a desolate feeling. It's a great picture either way though, but I guess it depends on what you want to transmit with it, if you want to focus sorely on the isolation aspect or more of a play on the isolation with the temperature/lack of water/environment. quote:
This is interesting visually, I like the DoF and the vignetting. It's also interesting because when I look at the twirly branches "PLANT!" doesn't imediately comes to mind, what makes for a nice abstract picture. It kind of reminds me of a Cloud Chamber. But if you were looking for something more blatantly "natural", I'm not sure it works, because, as before, it doesn't look very much plant-like to me. Three from me. Been playing with colours. Not sure about crop on the first one and if the second one is interesting at all for other people (I like it). I like how there's this splash of paint in the eyes on the third, but should I crop it to center the face? Right now It feels unbalanced.   
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Turd Nelson posted:Well unfortunately it's too late to turn around and drive 700 miles back there, but I took everyone's critiques into consideration, played with the curves a little, AND got rid of that house on the left. How does this look? I generally like this, I think mostly because it's along the genre that I try to shoot. My only complaint is the basin in the foreground. Maybe it's me, but I just find it kind of distracting.  Apple Crates by benruset, on Flickr I think one of my biggest problems is getting interesting composition. I'd like to know what, if anything, could have been done differently to make this a better photo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I agree that the reason people don't get them is they are storytelling photos that aren't really telling stories. They're in their own way. The idea of a "storytelling" image comes from Understanding Exposure, which is one that gets recommended forever around here for good reason. Sorry, I didn't see this before. Thanks, mang, this was really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I generally like this, I think mostly because it's along the genre that I try to shoot. My only complaint is the basin in the foreground. Maybe it's me, but I just find it kind of distracting. Take a few steps back to get the whole tree in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I generally like this, I think mostly because it's along the genre that I try to shoot. My only complaint is the basin in the foreground. Maybe it's me, but I just find it kind of distracting. What were you trying to shoot? The tree in the field? The apple crates?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Hi, This is my first time posting in this thread, and seeing the overall quality/experience of others here I'm more comfortable critiquing my own photos. I've tried to pick three very different conditions/lens choices to start with. The three photos I'm posting here are JPEG straight from a d5100, which is my first self-critique: I'm at the stage now where although I shoot raw + jpeg I only tend to make (what I think are) marginal gains for a large amount of time messing around in rawtherapee with the actual raws- If I look at the images I process in post and compare them to the jpeg straight from camera I tend to find insufficient improvement for the work I'm putting in. Maybe I should deny myself the comparison by only shooting raw? I'd love to work with lightroom at some point but I'm tied to linux machines for work.  Feltre from San Fermo by barfish, on Flickr I really like this photo- it's maybe one of the first that I've 'surprised myself' with, in that it came out sharper than I was expecting for the time of day and cloud conditions. However, while it's better than most of my photos that isn't saying much: My critique would be that while there's some nice range in the clouds and the town itself is clear, the mountains are flat and missing dynamic range. I don't know my way around gimp (or any other software for that matter) enough yet, but if I did I'd try to improve the contrast and maybe make them a little greener, removing some of the haze.  Action Andre by barfish, on Flickr I both love and hate the composition in this photo- the motion of the guy on the zipline is implied nicely by his position off-center, and the 'moment' is nicely captured, but when the eye wanders things go downhill... He's not as sharp as he could be, the very shallow DoF draws the eye directly to him, but it only partially hides the multitude of sins. The CA (I think it's CA?) on the zipline, the lack of any verticals (the tree, the streetlights).. it's a bit of a snapshot when it could have been so much more. If I could retake this photo I'd shoot at one or two stops more, and pay more attention to the verticals in the background. I'm still at the stage where 'spontaneous' shots like this are hard to get right, but I guess shooting continuous would really help here- this was one of only three shots with +/-1 ev bracketing when spray and pray might have made the difference instead.  The wedding venue, 2 by barfish, on Flickr I was at a loss to show either this photo, or the one before it in the set. If this is cheating the 3 photo rule, consider this a critique of this photo alone. It's using a 55-300 at the maximum zoom, and as open as this goes at the long end which is probably some kind of crime, especially given that I was shooting aperture priority and the camera chose 1/4000 shutter speed- I had much more aperture to play with. The fact that the monastery is centered when there was so much more texture and detail to show in the mountains around it makes me prefer the composition of the previous photo, but this one has a sharper, less washed-out background to it. In both cases I did a little in post- I stretched the contrast a bit, applied an unsharp mask and tweaked the WB. If I could take this again I'd have stopped down quite a bit, and composed as I had in the previous shot. StarkingBarfish fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Hi, Dog, did you read the OP, like a smart person? Edit: didnt realize that critiquing your own counts now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
^^^ missed your edit, sorry. Had me worried there!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Hi, 1. I like this photo. Those mountains are pretty awe inspiring, and the sunset gives it some great color. I think some of the issue with the mountains may be atmospheric haze. It looks a tad underexposed to me (all of your photos do actually). 2. The main problem I have with this photo is that my eye is drawn to the woman on the slide. She is wearing a white dress, and is silhouetted against the night sky, while your friend blends into the background a bit. This photo also feels dark to me. The focusing and depth of field is impressive though, and that sharpness really makes the photo. 3. This is my favorite one. It also feels a bit dark, but I love how you shot it surrounded by the trees. I think that really emphasizes its remote position. I like that you metered for the white of the building, instead of the forrest, the surrounding dark forrest gives the photo a mysterious feel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Thanks! I've been shooting bracketed at +/- 1ev and for some reason I usually prefer the less exposed of the three. I'll try the middle exposure in future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Thanks! I've been shooting bracketed at +/- 1ev and for some reason I usually prefer the less exposed of the three. I'll try the middle exposure in future. Based on my experience with (older) Nikon cameras, I've discovered that I find underexposed to look better on the camera's LCD, but then hate it after transferring to my computer. Make sure you use the histogram to decide which exposure is better. (Exception: When you actually want the picture to be overall darker, e.g. give a sense of it being at dusk, then obviously you shouldn't try to fill the histogram.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:What were you trying to shoot? The tree in the field? The apple crates? The crates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Turd Nelson posted:Well unfortunately it's too late to turn around and drive 700 miles back there, but I took everyone's critiques into consideration, played with the curves a little, AND got rid of that house on the left. How does this look? Composition definitely improved a little bit by taking out that house on the side, but I'm going to have to agree with Primo Itch: I preferred the washed out colors of the original a little more. What I was getting at in my original critique was that you didn't need to make your colors more bold, you just needed to add a little bit more contrast between the house's roof and the sky (which was a little bright in that area anyway). I think both could be accomplished by simply darkening the sky a little bit. Gonna have to disagree with ZippySLC on the basin though. It might be a little distracting, but it keeps that area from being empty space. Which, admittedly, you want with an isolation shot, but I think it adds a little bit of clutter in the foreground, making it something of a little spot of former habitation in the vast wilderness surrounding it. Primo Itch posted:Three from me. Been playing with colours. Not sure about crop on the first one and if the second one is interesting at all for other people (I like it). I like how there's this splash of paint in the eyes on the third, but should I crop it to center the face? Right now It feels unbalanced. 1. Crop looks fine to me. Adds a certain asymmetry to the shot, and to me, balances the shallow field on the right side. 2. I don't personally find this one all that interesting. 3. I really dig how you framed this one. Feels almost like a portrait shot. I'd leave it as is. ZippySLC posted:I generally like this, I think mostly because it's along the genre that I try to shoot. My only complaint is the basin in the foreground. Maybe it's me, but I just find it kind of distracting. I think you could have focused a little closer on the apple crates, and maybe gone with a portrait orientation to get most of the tree. Your subject also doesn't have a whole lot of contrast with the field, so it really doesn't get the starring role that you intended it to have. The field surrounding the crates should probably be a little darker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Tenterhooks posted:I really like this. I maybe even prefer it at thumbnail size because it's less clear that it's a photo and is just super bold and cartoony looking. A full set of similarly sized objects on a grid (maybe square crops?) would look great, especially if you could match the colours closely so a green object has a tomato-red background with blue details etc. Thanks, I think that was the point, to make it sort of surreal. I was going to play with more organic objects and color backgrounds and make fun of color theory, but I got lazy. As for your skater, it's a fine photo but it has some issues that aren't super obvious. Turd Nelson mentioned that he would like to see where this dude is looking, and I think that touches on it, it's about the composition, and I am saying this without knowing what else is in the scene. It seems like the skater is he foreground of this image, he could be an extra, but he is also a strong contender for the image's focal point, but it's all in competition. Sometimes showing more of the rest of the scene can isolate a subject. I'm not sure if it'll work here, but it might.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:
I like this shot because I think it is an interesting subject and I like the composition you have chosen. The tree that's blocking a good chunk of the house is an unfortunate distraction, but I don't think it's a big enough deal to write the photo off entirely. If I was going to improve the shot- the first thing I would do is work on minimizing the problems the diffusion has caused. I'd get rid of all (or most) of the blue in the photo straight up, and then I'd tone down the aqua a bit as well. I think if you tried some dodging and burning some of the foreground trees that could help liven the photo up a bit, and then maybe try masking a bit of the house to bring up the exposure levels on it just a bit. I think you have a lot to work with and this is well on its way to being a pretty cool photo- I like the location for sure! I'd be interested to hear critiques on this photo of mine:  The Land by TomOlson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I'd be interested to hear critiques on this photo of mine: I think the balloons actually kind if cheapen the shot. Are they photoshopped in? Is there a reason for them? Personally, if she were simply standing there gazing out, and you lost some off the top to get more of a cinematic crop like 16:9 I think it would really speak more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I like this shot because I think it is an interesting subject and I like the composition you have chosen. The tree that's blocking a good chunk of the house is an unfortunate distraction, but I don't think it's a big enough deal to write the photo off entirely. If I was going to improve the shot- the first thing I would do is work on minimizing the problems the diffusion has caused. I'd get rid of all (or most) of the blue in the photo straight up, and then I'd tone down the aqua a bit as well. I think if you tried some dodging and burning some of the foreground trees that could help liven the photo up a bit, and then maybe try masking a bit of the house to bring up the exposure levels on it just a bit. I think you have a lot to work with and this is well on its way to being a pretty cool photo- I like the location for sure! I kinda wish there were more separation between balloon and trees. It's a pretty image, but if I start to think about it, it doesn't make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I'd be interested to hear critiques on this photo of mine: Composition/processing is fine, but I think the balloons come off as very hackneyed and shallow. I think your head's in the right place, but finding a subtler way to convey your message would go a long way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
If it helps any, I'm doing a series involving the same theme and this is something like the 7th or 8th image, but thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:If it helps any, I'm doing a series involving the same theme and this is something like the 7th or 8th image, but thank you. I'd be interested in seeing one or more of the other images in the series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
 RangerScum posted:I'd be interested to hear critiques on this photo of mine: I like everything about this shot except the centre framing of the woman. My eye leads me from the centre following the valley to the left. If more of the right space was cropped away I think it would work even better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:
I like this a lot, and like you said, it's part of a series. The one thing I do have a gripe with is that I can immediately tell the balloons were photoshopped in. Are these actual photos of balloons you have manipualted into the image or did you draw a gradient line on the shape in Photoshop? They're just too "clean" for the image, they stick out. ---   
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
scotty posted:I like this a lot, and like you said, it's part of a series. The one thing I do have a gripe with is that I can immediately tell the balloons were photoshopped in. Are these actual photos of balloons you have manipualted into the image or did you draw a gradient line on the shape in Photoshop? They're just too "clean" for the image, they stick out. Have to agree with what he's saying... image is awesome... balloons just looks Photoshoped in. scotty, love the vibe of your pictures 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Turd Nelson posted:Well unfortunately it's too late to turn around and drive 700 miles back there, but I took everyone's critiques into consideration, played with the curves a little, AND got rid of that house on the left. How does this look? Good work. Be careful with your clone/healing tool though, I can see a repeating grass pattern where the house used to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
scotty posted:I like this a lot, and like you said, it's part of a series. The one thing I do have a gripe with is that I can immediately tell the balloons were photoshopped in. Are these actual photos of balloons you have manipualted into the image or did you draw a gradient line on the shape in Photoshop? They're just too "clean" for the image, they stick out. I like these. They have a very early morning after the party kind of feel. I would say watch your highlights a little on that last one. That's one I'd pull the white level down a little to prevent that kind of flare-y highlights. I haven't been posting much. Film work isn't quite as photogenic as you'd expect. Here's a still from a film I wrapped in August.  Lachlan-1 by TimFPictures, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:I like these. They have a very early morning after the party kind of feel. I would say watch your highlights a little on that last one. That's one I'd pull the white level down a little to prevent that kind of flare-y highlights. Perhaps it's because you said it's a still from a film, but I can definitely see this image being part of a larger story. That said, I love the lighting and the interplay of the glance between the actors. Only comments I have on it are that the man on the left seems to throw off the visual balance to me--I'm looking for something on the right to balance his presence and not finding anything. Also, (and this is probably bordering on pixel peeping), her face doesn't seem to be quite as in focus as his does. A little more depth of field wouldn't have hurt on that, with him and even his necklace being in pretty sharp focus. This is my first post in the PAD thread, so please tear me apart, goons...  Things I like: -The contrast of light from the sun drawing the eye with some diagonals leading the eye to the darker areas of the image. -The repetitive verticals vs. the diagonals created by the unistrut. Things that need work: -I should have used a tripod and a smaller aperture. The depth of field isn't as wide as I'd like. Definitely interested in getting some more scathing critique on some of my images, honestly have no clue if I've shot anything good enough for PAD but I'm eager to learn and I'd rather share somewhere where I can get honest critique. v  v
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
That's actually a pretty good picture. The arrangement of form is really good. I think you're worrying too much about the depth of field as well - it looks fine to me. Honestly, the only real change that I'd make to it is dialing back the saturation a bit. The color adds some spice to the photo, but I think it gives this cold, industrial space a little bit more life than it should have. Less intense, washed-out colors would give you the same splash of color without making the palette too vivid. -- A picture I took this weekend:  Microcosm by venusian-weasel, on Flickr I like how the sunlight backlights the moss in the front, but I get the feeling that the photo overall is a little dark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
I like the photo quite a lot but the saturation of the green seems a little off to me. I went for a wander around an abandoned race track that in my town. It hasn't hosted a race since the early 80's and in recent years it was given over to the local Aboriginal people because it 's a sacred sight to them. The remains of the racetrack now sit rotting quietly into nothingness.  061.jpg by drgarbanzo, on Flickr  026.jpg by drgarbanzo, on Flickr  074.jpg by drgarbanzo, on Flickr  079.jpg by drgarbanzo, on Flickr  083.jpg by drgarbanzo, on Flickr (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Shellman posted:
I can't give a competent critique, but I don't see any blur in the depth of it. I can say I like it though, its an interesting picture particularly with the sunlit areas and dark areas. I like pictures that invite exploration and this photo does that - If I was standing there I would walk inside and look around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Redleg posted:I can't give a competent critique, but I don't see any blur in the depth of it. I can say I like it though, its an interesting picture particularly with the sunlit areas and dark areas. I like pictures that invite exploration and this photo does that - If I was standing there I would walk inside and look around. I guess what I really meant was that I would have liked to have stopped down to make it more tack sharp. I was shooting wide open (f/2.0) on a wide angle lens cause of the available light and the tight space. Didn't have my tripod since it was one of those opportunity shots--the door to that area was open from construction, but is normally locked shut. And so I don't only comment on my image... Dr. Garbanzo posted:
I quite like this image--probably because I'm a sucker for urban decay and macro-ish photography as well. I like the sharpness of the rust flakes and the arc of the 'damaged' line across the image. The green tuft in the bottom left is distracting though, and I would wonder about playing around with the crop. Also, the 'damaged' line on up is in sharp focus, whereas below it is not. I'm not sure if I like that visually, it would have been nice to have something down there that drew the eye more, either something in focus or another object or something. The visual weight feels concentrated in that upper < 1/3. Edit for another critique: Venusian Weasel posted:A picture I took this weekend: I like the exposure..Bryan Peterson writes that your camera's meter should show an underexposure of 2/3 a stop when you're shooting a very green shot. I like light pooling almost halfway up the image on the left side, pity it's falling on dirt instead of a more fitting subject! Looking at the image on your flickr, it's very sharp and I would wonder about taking a crop of an area within it and showcasing texture and chiaroscuro as the subject. As it is, it's very pretty to look at but with the whole image in focus, my eye hits the patch of light, sees nothing, and kind of roams from growth to growth looking for the main subject of the piece. I bet there are several different crops you could take of it though to showcase some of the detail. Hokkaido Anxiety fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 02:36
|
|