Opinions on these shots please

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Craig M. Bobchin, Aug 5, 2005.

  1. Hi all,

    I recently took a vacation to the S.F. Bay area. During the week I took
    over 700 shots with the 20d. I've posted a few of them and would like to
    hear comments/critiques on these so I can improve my technique.

    The gallery is at: http://www.pbase.com/craigbob/sf_vacation

    Thanks

    Craig
     
    Craig M. Bobchin, Aug 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Craig M. Bobchin

    Pete D Guest

    Hi Craig,

    The shots are fine if not startling, the subjects you have posted links to
    are pretty subdued, perhaps we could see some of your others. Couple of
    things to keep in mind when out shooting (particularly with digital) is
    think more, shoot less and make sure you keep your horizon straight unless
    there is a very special reason not to.

    "Craig M. Bobchin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I recently took a vacation to the S.F. Bay area. During the week I took
    > over 700 shots with the 20d. I've posted a few of them and would like to
    > hear comments/critiques on these so I can improve my technique.
    >
    > The gallery is at: http://www.pbase.com/craigbob/sf_vacation
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Craig
     
    Pete D, Aug 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Craig M. Bobchin

    salgud Guest

    Craig M. Bobchin wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I recently took a vacation to the S.F. Bay area. During the week I took
    > over 700 shots with the 20d. I've posted a few of them and would like to
    > hear comments/critiques on these so I can improve my technique.
    >
    > The gallery is at: http://www.pbase.com/craigbob/sf_vacation
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Craig


    I'll start by saying I'm no longer a "serious" photographer and
    unqualified to make technical comments. From that standpoint, I hope
    when I get my first digital camera (I'm shopping as we speak) that my
    pics are technically this good.

    As to composition and such. They all seem very symetrical - subject in
    the center of the screen. None of them really "catch my eye" or make me
    want to look harder or longer. They're technically good enough for my
    inexperience eye, but I wouldn't care to look. I think it's often the
    toughest thing to do in photography, to find a way to "see" differently
    than everyone else with a camera sees that same scene. If you can
    manage that, your pics will be far more interesting and you'll feel
    much better about what you're accomplishing.
    Hope this helps in your world.
     
    salgud, Aug 5, 2005
    #3
  4. Thanks for the comments. Which of the images did not have straight
    horizons? As for some other images check out the rest of my galleries at
    www.pbase.com/craigbob .

    In article <DQQIe.72719$>,
    says...
    > Hi Craig,
    >
    > The shots are fine if not startling, the subjects you have posted links to
    > are pretty subdued, perhaps we could see some of your others. Couple of
    > things to keep in mind when out shooting (particularly with digital) is
    > think more, shoot less and make sure you keep your horizon straight unless
    > there is a very special reason not to.
    >
    > "Craig M. Bobchin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > I recently took a vacation to the S.F. Bay area. During the week I took
    > > over 700 shots with the 20d. I've posted a few of them and would like to
    > > hear comments/critiques on these so I can improve my technique.
    > >
    > > The gallery is at: http://www.pbase.com/craigbob/sf_vacation
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > Craig

    >
    >
    >
     
    Craig M. Bobchin, Aug 5, 2005
    #4
  5. Dave, thanks for the comments.

    I agree that finding a way to 'see' differently is tough, and I try very
    hard to do so. I really thought the Rock candy was very different in
    composition.

    > I'll start by saying I'm no longer a "serious" photographer and
    > unqualified to make technical comments. From that standpoint, I hope
    > when I get my first digital camera (I'm shopping as we speak) that my
    > pics are technically this good.
    >
    > As to composition and such. They all seem very symetrical - subject in
    > the center of the screen. None of them really "catch my eye" or make me
    > want to look harder or longer. They're technically good enough for my
    > inexperience eye, but I wouldn't care to look. I think it's often the
    > toughest thing to do in photography, to find a way to "see" differently
    > than everyone else with a camera sees that same scene. If you can
    > manage that, your pics will be far more interesting and you'll feel
    > much better about what you're accomplishing.
    > Hope this helps in your world.
    >
    >
     
    Craig M. Bobchin, Aug 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Craig M. Bobchin

    wavelength Guest

    Craig,

    The observatory I like, but I cant tell which way is up. If you could
    have gotten very wide angle, like 12mm, and added a person to get the
    sheer size of the place captured, you would have a "great" picture.

    The oracle buildings have no point and no composition. Maybe zooming in
    to get the juxtaposition of the residential right next to the cold
    glass structures.. dunno. You obviously saw something, you need to
    decide what elements NEED to be there to convey the idea of what you
    was, and leave th rest out.

    Pyro chef needed to have the pyro chef in the picture. Close in on the
    subject and wait for the flame. The people in the background are
    superfluous.

    Rock candy did have different composition, but it was not engaging.
    Can't see the rest of the scene here. The angle of the flash deleted
    any real contrast. Need off camera or a diffuser or something.

    I didn't mind snoopy glass, but then again, I just didn't mind it. It
    didn't make me think or feel anything besides, "oh, snoopy" and move
    on.

    Coit sky. Too much sky, not enough Coit. You might look silly, but if
    your lense is not wide enough, then lie on the ground. I looked like an
    idiot at Yellowstone half of my trip, but I got some good pictures.

    Doorway. I like this one. Would have been better if you were dead in
    the center of the door. Also, it seems as though the door is not quite
    in focus. Could be wrong.

    Guard tower. Too little contrast IMHO. I didn't mind the truck. Good
    picture, but not striking.
     
    wavelength, Aug 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Thanks for your opinions and thoughts they are quite helpful.See my
    comments below:

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Craig,
    >
    > The observatory I like, but I cant tell which way is up. If you could
    > have gotten very wide angle, like 12mm, and added a person to get the
    > sheer size of the place captured, you would have a "great" picture.


    I do have other images, but the ones I posted were geared for a more
    artistic/abstract feel. I wanted to capture the detail of the
    latticework and the juxtaposition of the telescope and the observatory
    slit.

    > The oracle buildings have no point and no composition. Maybe zooming in
    > to get the juxtaposition of the residential right next to the cold
    > glass structures.. dunno. You obviously saw something, you need to
    > decide what elements NEED to be there to convey the idea of what you
    > was, and leave th rest out.


    I did like the contrast of the residences and the glass buildings. I
    felt that the wood borders around the rocks acted as an angle pointing
    to that. Maybe cropping it closer to eliminate the water will help.

    > Pyro chef needed to have the pyro chef in the picture. Close in on the
    > subject and wait for the flame. The people in the background are
    > superfluous.


    I see what you mean on this.

    > Rock candy did have different composition, but it was not engaging.
    > Can't see the rest of the scene here. The angle of the flash deleted
    > any real contrast. Need off camera or a diffuser or something.


    Hmmm I intentionally wanted this as a kind of abstract looking shot.
    What would you have liked to see?

    > I didn't mind snoopy glass, but then again, I just didn't mind it. It
    > didn't make me think or feel anything besides, "oh, snoopy" and move
    > on.


    For me I liked the colors and the curves, but would have preferred to
    remove the sclupture, but that was not possible.

    > Coit sky. Too much sky, not enough Coit. You might look silly, but if
    > your lense is not wide enough, then lie on the ground. I looked like an
    > idiot at Yellowstone half of my trip, but I got some good pictures.


    I actually had the camera lying on the ground wide open. I guess I
    needed a wider angle lens on this one.

    >
    > Doorway. I like this one. Would have been better if you were dead in
    > the center of the door. Also, it seems as though the door is not quite
    > in focus. Could be wrong.


    I thought I was in the center when I shot it. I looked at the RAW and
    the door is in focus.

    >
    > Guard tower. Too little contrast IMHO. I didn't mind the truck. Good
    > picture, but not striking.


    I was going for the sepia toned snapshot style of this so it looked like
    it was taken back in the 40s.


    Again thanks for your helpful critique.
     
    Craig M. Bobchin, Aug 6, 2005
    #7
  8. Craig M. Bobchin

    salgud Guest

    Craig M. Bobchin wrote:
    > Thanks for your opinions and thoughts they are quite helpful.See my
    > comments below:
    >
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > Craig,
    > >
    > > The observatory I like, but I cant tell which way is up. If you could
    > > have gotten very wide angle, like 12mm, and added a person to get the
    > > sheer size of the place captured, you would have a "great" picture.

    >
    > I do have other images, but the ones I posted were geared for a more
    > artistic/abstract feel. I wanted to capture the detail of the
    > latticework and the juxtaposition of the telescope and the observatory
    > slit.
    >
    > > The oracle buildings have no point and no composition. Maybe zooming in
    > > to get the juxtaposition of the residential right next to the cold
    > > glass structures.. dunno. You obviously saw something, you need to
    > > decide what elements NEED to be there to convey the idea of what you
    > > was, and leave th rest out.

    >
    > I did like the contrast of the residences and the glass buildings. I
    > felt that the wood borders around the rocks acted as an angle pointing
    > to that. Maybe cropping it closer to eliminate the water will help.
    >
    > > Pyro chef needed to have the pyro chef in the picture. Close in on the
    > > subject and wait for the flame. The people in the background are
    > > superfluous.

    >
    > I see what you mean on this.
    >
    > > Rock candy did have different composition, but it was not engaging.
    > > Can't see the rest of the scene here. The angle of the flash deleted
    > > any real contrast. Need off camera or a diffuser or something.

    >
    > Hmmm I intentionally wanted this as a kind of abstract looking shot.
    > What would you have liked to see?
    >
    > > I didn't mind snoopy glass, but then again, I just didn't mind it. It
    > > didn't make me think or feel anything besides, "oh, snoopy" and move
    > > on.

    >
    > For me I liked the colors and the curves, but would have preferred to
    > remove the sclupture, but that was not possible.
    >
    > > Coit sky. Too much sky, not enough Coit. You might look silly, but if
    > > your lense is not wide enough, then lie on the ground. I looked like an
    > > idiot at Yellowstone half of my trip, but I got some good pictures.

    >
    > I actually had the camera lying on the ground wide open. I guess I
    > needed a wider angle lens on this one.
    >
    > >
    > > Doorway. I like this one. Would have been better if you were dead in
    > > the center of the door. Also, it seems as though the door is not quite
    > > in focus. Could be wrong.

    >
    > I thought I was in the center when I shot it. I looked at the RAW and
    > the door is in focus.
    >
    > >
    > > Guard tower. Too little contrast IMHO. I didn't mind the truck. Good
    > > picture, but not striking.

    >
    > I was going for the sepia toned snapshot style of this so it looked like
    > it was taken back in the 40s.
    >
    >
    > Again thanks for your helpful critique.


    Craig,
    You're right, the rock candy pic is different. I tend to generalize to
    much!
    More importantly from my perspective, is that you had the guts to post
    the pics and ask publicly for feedback! I admire that, and can't help
    but think that with that kind of willingness and committment, you'll
    improve as photographer quickly.
    Best of luck to you!
     
    salgud, Aug 8, 2005
    #8
    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. Anthony Buckland

    Opinions concerning these three ultracompacts?

    Anthony Buckland, Dec 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    290
    Anthony Buckland
    Dec 5, 2003
  2. IRISH1EAR

    swim meet shots with 10d ,suggestions please !

    IRISH1EAR, Feb 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
    IRISH1EAR
    Feb 25, 2004
  3. Mr.Bolshoy Huy

    any opinions of these?

    Mr.Bolshoy Huy, May 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    319
    Mr.Bolshoy Huy
    May 22, 2005
  4. SMS
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,210
    John Turco
    Jul 18, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    460
Loading...

Share This Page