5 Photos for Critiquing

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by One4All, Aug 5, 2006.

  1. One4All

    One4All Guest

    One4All, Aug 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. One4All

    Guest

    One4All wrote:
    > I'd appreciate it if anyone would care to critique the five photos at:
    >

    The first thing I did was put my company logo on Hallway and Dancers
    and posted them on my website. Just kidding - I remember how touchy
    you are about that.

    Halway- I wish you would have shot lower, maybe place the camera on the
    floor. I am limber, I like to turn around and shoot between my legs. I
    really like this one.

    Dancers - If you have the raw you can blend two exposures for better
    detail in the faces.

    Circles - I don't know what I am supposed to be looking at but I
    took one look at the 24 tooth sprocket and thought it should be renamed
    'Nowhere Fast'.

    Bird - out of focus.

    Good luck,
    Ron
    , Aug 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. One4All

    mdsnurse5 Guest

    One4All wrote:
    > I'd appreciate it if anyone would care to critique the five photos at:
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/david_werner


    Other than the bird being out of focus, I loved the pics. I
    assume that you wanted the dancers' faces in silouette?

    Er...is that a used condom floating in "clear waters"? <g>

    Jackie
    mdsnurse5, Aug 5, 2006
    #3
  4. One4All

    One4All Guest

    wrote:
    > One4All wrote:
    > > I'd appreciate it if anyone would care to critique the five photos at:
    > >

    > The first thing I did was put my company logo on Hallway and Dancers
    > and posted them on my website. Just kidding - I remember how touchy
    > you are about that.
    >
    > Hallway- I wish you would have shot lower, maybe place the camera on the
    > floor. I am limber, I like to turn around and shoot between my legs. I
    > really like this one.


    I shot "Hallway" with an inexpensive 35-mm Pentax film camera in 2003.
    The problem with shooting low is that, given dimensions of the hallway
    & limitations of my zoom lens, I wanted, at all costs to include the
    tops of the arches on the left, with some space above them. They could
    not be cut off.

    For a lower shot, I would have had to tilt the camera upward, resulting
    in the pyramid effect, narrow at top, wide at bottom. You may have
    wanted that effect, & in fact, it may have introduced more drama into
    the picture, but people, when they see that, assume the photog didn't
    know what he was doing.

    To avoid the pyramid effect when you shoot architectural subjects, you
    must keep the film/sensor plane parallel with the vertical lines.
    That's why most architecture is shot with view cameras, because while
    the back must remain parallel, the front can be raised or lowered (not
    tilted) to include as much height as possible at that camera location.

    It was a challenge for me, wandering those halls where people like
    Einstein and Hegel walked, with only my Pentax, to get this photo. I
    raised as high as I could on tip-toe, keeping the film plane parallel
    with the verticals, & getting the tops of those arches. I just exposed,
    as I usually do, with what the camera's meter told me.
    >
    > Dancers - If you have the raw you can blend two exposures for better
    > detail in the faces.


    Yes, I need to go back & do a better job on those faces & I'll try your
    suggestion.
    >
    > Circles - I don't know what I am supposed to be looking at but I
    > took one look at the 24 tooth sprocket and thought it should be renamed
    > 'Nowhere Fast'.


    Obviously, you're a cyclist. : ) Well, at first I thought highly of
    this photo, taken almost 30 years ago. (Yours is the first feedback
    I've gotten.) I thought it was a great image of "found art," showing
    pattern in seeming chaos. Your comment, "I don't know what I'm supposed
    to be looking at...,"tells me a lot about what I intended and what a
    viewer gets out of it. In fact, the more I look at this photo, the more
    I see where you're coming from. I probably could do a better job, maybe
    cropping it more. Also, I think the tonality is too dark, maybe even
    too flat. Back to PS.

    > Bird - out of focus.


    Others have pointed this out, too. <sigh> > OTOH, what's wrong with a
    little soft-focus in a photo like this, even if I didn't intend it?

    > Good luck,
    > Ron
    One4All, Aug 5, 2006
    #4
  5. One4All

    Frank ess Guest

    One4All wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> One4All wrote:
    >>> I'd appreciate it if anyone would care to critique the five photos
    >>> at:
    >>>



    <snip>

    >
    >> Bird - out of focus.

    >
    > Others have pointed this out, too. <sigh> > OTOH, what's wrong with
    > a
    > little soft-focus in a photo like this, even if I didn't intend it?
    >


    Some birds defy focus. I have encountered quite a few. Odd, but when
    zoomed-in you can see the feathers' components and eye-edges are
    sharp, but draw back a bit, and blur sets in.

    Do you suppose there is some survival value in that?

    --
    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Aug 6, 2006
    #5
  6. One4All

    Guest


    > I shot "Hallway" with an inexpensive 35-mm Pentax film camera in 2003.
    > The problem with shooting low is that, given dimensions of the hallway
    > & limitations of my zoom lens, I wanted, at all costs to include the
    > tops of the arches on the left, with some space above them. They could
    > not be cut off.
    >
    > For a lower shot, I would have had to tilt the camera upward, resulting
    > in the pyramid effect, narrow at top, wide at bottom. You may have
    > wanted that effect, & in fact, it may have introduced more drama into
    > the picture, but people, when they see that, assume the photog didn't
    > know what he was doing.
    >
    > To avoid the pyramid effect when you shoot architectural subjects, you
    > must keep the film/sensor plane parallel with the vertical lines.
    > That's why most architecture is shot with view cameras, because while
    > the back must remain parallel, the front can be raised or lowered (not
    > tilted) to include as much height as possible at that camera location.
    >
    > It was a challenge for me, wandering those halls where people like
    > Einstein and Hegel walked, with only my Pentax, to get this photo. I
    > raised as high as I could on tip-toe, keeping the film plane parallel
    > with the verticals, & getting the tops of those arches. I just exposed,
    > as I usually do, with what the camera's meter told me.
    > >


    I think are right that it would not have worked just to shoot lower,
    but as soon as I saw the photo I knew that I wanted it to make me feel
    small - like a child. After you mentioned the big E. was there I feel
    that way even more.

    >
    > what's wrong with a
    > little soft-focus in a photo like this, even if I didn't intend it?
    >


    I have found that it is always a bad idea to let others see work with
    technical problems. Especially if it is peers or someone that could
    feel threatened or intimidated by you. Their attention will be drawn
    immediately to the flaw and it will dominate the conversation no matter
    how you try to move on to a better photo.
    Notice how competently and successfully you were able to respond to my
    criticism of 'Halway'.

    Keep up the good work,
    Ron
    , Aug 6, 2006
    #6
  7. One4All

    Ray Fischer Guest

    One4All <> wrote:
    >I'd appreciate it if anyone would care to critique the five photos at:
    >http://www.pbase.com/markuson/david_werner


    Hallway: I like the monocromaticity but the viewpoint is boring. You
    could try it in B&W with different contrast.

    Water: Shrug. Average shot with an average shutter speed and an
    average focal length. Needs better focus as well as the highlights on
    the rocks are a bit fuzzy. But the orange of the rocks is a nice
    contrast with the coolness of the water.

    Dancers: Nice colors but I might have tried for a more egde-on angle
    to put the three dancers closer together in the frame.

    Bird: Tsk. Close but no ceegar. Focus, focus, focus.

    Circles: Dunno.

    Summary: There's potential but you need to work on your technical skills.
    Keep it up.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Aug 6, 2006
    #7
  8. One4All

    Ray Fischer Guest

    One4All <> wrote:
    >I shot "Hallway" with an inexpensive 35-mm Pentax film camera in 2003.
    >The problem with shooting low is that, given dimensions of the hallway
    >& limitations of my zoom lens, I wanted, at all costs to include the
    >tops of the arches on the left, with some space above them. They could
    >not be cut off.


    You're right, they are important.

    >For a lower shot, I would have had to tilt the camera upward, resulting
    >in the pyramid effect, narrow at top, wide at bottom. You may have
    >wanted that effect, & in fact, it may have introduced more drama into
    >the picture, but people, when they see that, assume the photog didn't
    >know what he was doing.


    That's how we all get sucked into spending ever more money: "With
    that 10-22 zoom to go along with the 16-35mm f28 I could have found
    the right focal length to make that picture just right. And it's only
    be $2000."

    >To avoid the pyramid effect when you shoot architectural subjects, you
    >must keep the film/sensor plane parallel with the vertical lines.


    You can cheat using Photoshop, but that involves some tradeoff.

    >That's why most architecture is shot with view cameras,


    A tilt-shift lens! Only $600!

    >> Bird - out of focus.

    >
    >Others have pointed this out, too. <sigh> > OTOH, what's wrong with a
    >little soft-focus in a photo like this, even if I didn't intend it?


    It's not a "little". And there's nothing much left to look at as a
    result.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Aug 6, 2006
    #8
  9. One4All

    Mark² Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > One4All <> wrote:
    >> I shot "Hallway" with an inexpensive 35-mm Pentax film camera in
    >> 2003. The problem with shooting low is that, given dimensions of the
    >> hallway & limitations of my zoom lens, I wanted, at all costs to
    >> include the tops of the arches on the left, with some space above
    >> them. They could not be cut off.

    >
    > You're right, they are important.
    >
    >> For a lower shot, I would have had to tilt the camera upward,
    >> resulting in the pyramid effect, narrow at top, wide at bottom. You
    >> may have wanted that effect, & in fact, it may have introduced more
    >> drama into the picture, but people, when they see that, assume the
    >> photog didn't know what he was doing.

    >
    > That's how we all get sucked into spending ever more money: "With
    > that 10-22 zoom to go along with the 16-35mm f28 I could have found
    > the right focal length to make that picture just right. And it's only
    > be $2000."
    >
    >> To avoid the pyramid effect when you shoot architectural subjects,
    >> you must keep the film/sensor plane parallel with the vertical lines.

    >
    > You can cheat using Photoshop, but that involves some tradeoff.
    >
    >> That's why most architecture is shot with view cameras,

    >
    > A tilt-shift lens! Only $600!


    Only $600??
    The Canons cost $1000+!
    :(

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Aug 6, 2006
    #9
  10. One4All

    George Kerby Guest

    On 8/6/06 3:19 AM, in article cChBg.13042$lv.3537@fed1read12, "Mark²"
    <mjmorganlowest even number here@cox..net> wrote:

    > Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> One4All <> wrote:
    >>> I shot "Hallway" with an inexpensive 35-mm Pentax film camera in
    >>> 2003. The problem with shooting low is that, given dimensions of the
    >>> hallway & limitations of my zoom lens, I wanted, at all costs to
    >>> include the tops of the arches on the left, with some space above
    >>> them. They could not be cut off.

    >>
    >> You're right, they are important.
    >>
    >>> For a lower shot, I would have had to tilt the camera upward,
    >>> resulting in the pyramid effect, narrow at top, wide at bottom. You
    >>> may have wanted that effect, & in fact, it may have introduced more
    >>> drama into the picture, but people, when they see that, assume the
    >>> photog didn't know what he was doing.

    >>
    >> That's how we all get sucked into spending ever more money: "With
    >> that 10-22 zoom to go along with the 16-35mm f28 I could have found
    >> the right focal length to make that picture just right. And it's only
    >> be $2000."
    >>
    >>> To avoid the pyramid effect when you shoot architectural subjects,
    >>> you must keep the film/sensor plane parallel with the vertical lines.

    >>
    >> You can cheat using Photoshop, but that involves some tradeoff.
    >>
    >>> That's why most architecture is shot with view cameras,

    >>
    >> A tilt-shift lens! Only $600!

    >
    > Only $600??
    > The Canons cost $1000+!
    > :(

    Do I hear "Sigma"?
    NOOOOOOOOO not again!


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    George Kerby, Aug 6, 2006
    #10
  11. One4All

    One4All Guest

    I had entered these 5 in the local county fair, and the results are
    these:

    Hallway: Best of Show
    Circles: Best of Show
    Water: Third Place.
    Dancing Senoritas: Second Place.
    Patio Bird: Didn't place.

    I think those who offered critiques were right on, for the most part,
    esp. re: Patio Bird. Their pointing out the focus flaw prepared me for
    this outcome. I really had hopes for this photo. They were also right
    on in wishing the the faces in Dancing Senoritas were clearer. Ron
    attached meaning to Circles ("Nowhere Fast"), and the judges did, too.
    I had entered this in the Still Life category, but the judges placed it
    in the Nostalgia category. Both Ron & the judges saw the humanity
    behind what I saw only as shapes and patterns. As to Hallway, the title
    I gave it in the fair was, An "Einstein" Hallway, Berlin University.
    The globed lights resembled planets & the grid of the partition
    resembled rationality to me; this is why I took the picture. Maybe that
    gives Hallway a bit more meaning.











    One4All wrote:
    > I'd appreciate it if anyone would care to critique the five photos at:
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/david_werner
    One4All, Aug 9, 2006
    #11
  12. One4All

    no_name Guest

    One4All wrote:

    > I'd appreciate it if anyone would care to critique the five photos at:
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/david_werner
    >


    The senoritas and the bird could both need fill flash.

    I like the circles.

    The cool clear water needs a longer exposure, but really needs to be
    recomposed as well.

    The Hallway would be more interesting with a person in it, especially
    one framed by the glass in the closed half of the double door. Or
    perhaps one motion blurred while walking in the hall.
    no_name, Aug 9, 2006
    #12
  13. One4All

    Petri Lopia Guest

    Petri Lopia, Aug 20, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. beachpirate2

    Misc mountain photos and beach sunrise photos

    beachpirate2, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    597
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. Iconoclast

    Are digital photos better than B/W photos?

    Iconoclast, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    683
    Steve House
    Jan 24, 2004
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    872
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Will Dockery

    Re: Critiquing digital phtotography

    Will Dockery, Oct 19, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    712
    Rob Evans
    Oct 24, 2008
  5. Paul Furman
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    658
    Peter
    Mar 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page