Originally posted by buffalobillWe all want to see your pictures. The opinions of your pics are given in an effort to improve your photography if you are happy snapping away that's great we still wanna see em. This thread is our camera club. Throw a couple to rag.. I got stuffed last time,, but have some more in this round.. no chance of fairing well though.
Yeah! My last entries were trashed by the critics.
Originally posted by Tirau DanI can't wait to see the entries for this round.
We all want to see your pictures. The opinions of your pics are given in an effort to improve your photography if you are happy snapping away that's great we still wanna see em. This thread is our camera club. Throw a couple to rag.. I got stuffed last time,, but have some more in this round.. no chance of fairing well though.
I sent in some picture that I like, but they are not much more than snapshots, really.
We'll have to see what the critics think.
Which reminds me, someone did a detailed critique of the Sunrise/Set photos.
I found that very useful (and encouraging!) feedback.
Originally posted by VargThat would be me. Haven't had time to go to that level of detail on the moving water photos, but would be happy to comment on a specific photo if you want.
I can't wait to see the entries for this round.
I sent in some picture that I like, but they are not much more than snapshots, really.
We'll have to see what the critics think.
Which reminds me, someone did a detailed critique of the Sunrise/Set photos.
I found that very useful (and encouraging!) feedback.
Originally posted by WRAITHKNIGHTSure....
Could you give a critique of no.34 fountains please?
cheers
WKš
First time I went through the pictures I zoomed right past this one - colors are flat, foreground is underexposed, sky is overexposed - just what one would expect from a point and shoot camera on standard 35mm negative film. End of story...
...well, almost. The next time I went through the photos I looked a little longer, and the more I looked the more I liked it. So much so that it ended on the top of my list. So, what happened?
The photo has a surreal feel to it - the underexposed foreground, and the overexposed background add to that feel. If you had shortened the exposure to darken the sky a tad, used fill flash to brighten up the foreground, and used a better color film (like any number of slow slide films) to improve the colors of the photo, it would have been a "better" photo, but I think it would have lost that surrealistic sense. The one person in the photo, in silhouette, against the background of a park on a sunny day with multiple fountains makes the viewer wonder where all the people are - there should be lots more - kinda gives the sense of someone walking through a city where everyone else suddenly disappeared. Hence the surrealistic feel.
A few thoughts on possible improvements: crop the lamp out of the left side of the photo - it's a bit distracting. Play with a little cropping on the right and bottom, just to see what happens. You might even think about making this a black and white (Photoshop can do that pretty easily) to enhace that surrealistic feel.
Good photo - that's my two cents.
If I may chime in...
I completely agree that this picture is a real sleeper. It was easy to dismiss at first glance but the more I looked at it the more intrigued I became. The picture really invites the mind on a tour with its mysterious dark gothic imagery. Who is that man? Where is he going? What’s lurking in those shadows? And what century is it? A journey in a picture. Wonderful!
Chiming in, too... I mostly agree with Het Blumper, although I liked the picture right away. My main criticism is that it looks cluttered, not only because of the lamp on the left side (btw, I am not sure cropping the lamp out would be a good idea, because you would have to crop quite a bit of the fountain, too). But I guess that was unavoidable. I think I would have preferred a little less foreground and a little more sky. If I had taken the picture, I would probably also have tried to kneel down to see if that perspective might be better (I have no idea if it would have been in this case, I just thought to throw in the idea, as many people don't think of it).
All good points people, I must admit I did kneel down to take the photo and I couldn't get more sky in as lens flare would have been an issue.As I had only just started getting into photography I had no flash and only my trusty 50mm lens to do the deed.In hindsight I would probably have made it a bit better, as for slide film I know colour saturation would be a lot better but it does get costly mounting and all that. I used 400 speed film which helped give it the surreal feel(grainy).
The camera I use is a Minolta X700 SLR.
Thanks for an excellent critique i'll definitely want one on my next lot.š
Originally posted by The PlumberI'd appreciate some thoughts on my gf's 25. Strength. It was a picture which I wrote off immediately, but there's something about it.
That would be me. Haven't had time to go to that level of detail on the moving water photos, but would be happy to comment on a specific photo if you want.
Only about 7-8 hours to get your late submissions in.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakStrength...
I'd appreciate some thoughts on my gf's 25. Strength. It was a picture which I wrote off immediately, but there's something about it.
Only about 7-8 hours to get your late submissions in.
D
...an unusual perspective on an oft-photo'd subject. I liked the photo, and I thought it was a creative approach to shooting a waterfall. In this instance, I think Nordly's preference for the short exposure actually works better on the water than a long, blurring exposure, so well done.
A few thoughts on improvement.... Could be my faulty eyes, but the focus doesn't seem sharp, particularly the tree and sky - the falls seems to be cripser. Not sure you'd be able to go back and shoot it again (I don't know where the Iguazu falls are), but I suspect you used a long lense with a fairly narrow depth of field. You should still be able to get everything in focus, but you might have to open up the aperture a bit, and use an even shorter exposure, which would be OK for this shot.
Setting aside the possibility of reshooting to get everything in focus, I would like to see a little more color saturation - you might be able to do that in Photoshop by just playing with the contrast, or use the color sliders to pump up the blue in the sky and the green in the tree - you have to real careful with this, as it can quickly become overprocessed and unnatural looking. I'd also crop out the little branch (and maybe the cloud too) on the right side - it's a tad distracting.
Originally posted by WRAITHKNIGHTWhere did you take it?
All good points people, I must admit I did kneel down to take the photo and I couldn't get more sky in as lens flare would have been an issue.As I had only just started getting into photography I had no flash and only my trusty 50mm lens to do the deed.In hindsight I would probably have made it a bit better, as for slide film I know colour saturation w ...[text shortened]... inolta X700 SLR.
Thanks for an excellent critique i'll definitely want one on my next lot.š