And again, I'm really proud of all of you for the quick critiques you just did. Those were some truly good observations - and I'm not saying so to kiss your collective asses.
I think that it's a little overly bright and the contrast could be toned down - it's a bit too unreal & technicolor-ish for my liking. On the other hand, I like the crisp sharpness. Gah, I'm not used to this.. haven't even barely
...
more
I think that it's a little overly bright and the contrast could be toned down - it's a bit too unreal & technicolor-ish for my liking. On the other hand, I like the crisp sharpness. Gah, I'm not used to this.. haven't even barely picked up a camera in yrs,, how's that?
less
OK, good. You did a good job finding positives and negatives. I’m a very harsh critic of my own work, and although I found this photo to be good, there are a few problems with it that have driven me nuts ever since I finished with it in Photoshop
...
more
OK, good. You did a good job finding positives and negatives. I’m a very harsh critic of my own work, and although I found this photo to be good, there are a few problems with it that have driven me nuts ever since I finished with it in Photoshop several years ago. It should be noted that although I found things in this photo that some of you didn’t (and vice versa), that doesn’t make one critique better than another. We all have different points of view on what makes a photo good or bad…and that’s a good thing.
So, here’s my critique:
Compositionally, this image has some very nice features. The mountain range occupying the upper third of the photo, and the avalanche lilies occupying the bottom right of the photo anchor the image and draw the eyes all over the photo. Helping in that are several other features, such as the pink heather flowers, the snow patch, the rocky outcrop on the left, the tree on the right, and the clouds. Despite all these objects, the photo isn’t cluttered with them. Rather, they are complimentary. Depth of field it also very good, as everything from the foreground to the background is in acceptable focus. Colors are also acceptably vibrant.
However, the blown out areas on the clouds are distracting and continually attract my attention, even when looking at the remainder of the image. The image is also a bit flat inasmuch as it could use more contrast to define edges better and to show stronger shadows. Part of this is because of the time of day at which it was taken and the fact that much of the image is out of the sun. The sky is also an odd color, undoubtedly due to the merging the two images using the HDR software. The image also seems to be a bit too over-sharpened, as the foreground looks a bit “crunchy.”
Any questions?
less
Still better than pictures I take...but thats why I am here.
OK, good. You did a good job finding positives and negatives. I’m a very harsh critic of my own work, and although I found this photo to be good, there are a few problems with it that have driven me nuts ever since I finished with it in Photoshop
...
more
OK, good. You did a good job finding positives and negatives. I’m a very harsh critic of my own work, and although I found this photo to be good, there are a few problems with it that have driven me nuts ever since I finished with it in Photoshop several years ago. It should be noted that although I found things in this photo that some of you didn’t (and vice versa), that doesn’t make one critique better than another. We all have different points of view on what makes a photo good or bad…and that’s a good thing.
So, here’s my critique:
Compositionally, this image has some very nice features. The mountain range occupying the upper third of the photo, and the avalanche lilies occupying the bottom right of the photo anchor the image and draw the eyes all over the photo. Helping in that are several other features, such as the pink heather flowers, the snow patch, the rocky outcrop on the left, the tree on the right, and the clouds. Despite all these objects, the photo isn’t cluttered with them. Rather, they are complimentary. Depth of field it also very good, as everything from the foreground to the background is in acceptable focus. Colors are also acceptably vibrant.
However, the blown out areas on the clouds are distracting and continually attract my attention, even when looking at the remainder of the image. The image is also a bit flat inasmuch as it could use more contrast to define edges better and to show stronger shadows. Part of this is because of the time of day at which it was taken and the fact that much of the image is out of the sun. The sky is also an odd color, undoubtedly due to the merging the two images using the HDR software. The image also seems to be a bit too over-sharpened, as the foreground looks a bit “crunchy.”
Any questions?
less
That is soo much more technical than I've had to do in a long time lol.
So, I wanted to point out that when I critique a photo, I look at both technical and compositional aspects of the photo. Many of you did the same, so that's great!
That is soo much more technical than I've had to do in a long time lol.
I've been doing this for almost 15 years now. I just wanted to show everyone what a detailed critique looks like. I in no way expect the same from you. Even one good thing and one bad thing can help. For instance. Your, and others', point about how the mountains look isn't even part of my critique, but is totally valid.
I literallly hadn't picked up a camera in a good 3-5 years, easy, and I used to be fairly decent (I think maybe?) - was even the official photographer for a cpl local bands - and when I picked it up, at first I had a hard time but once I got the hang of it it was like riding a bike. For me, the hard part is the ps.
I literallly hadn't picked up a camera in a good 3-5 years, easy, and I used to be fairly decent (I think maybe?) - was even the official photographer for a cpl local bands - and when I picked it up, at first I had a hard time but once I got the
...
more
I literallly hadn't picked up a camera in a good 3-5 years, easy, and I used to be fairly decent (I think maybe?) - was even the official photographer for a cpl local bands - and when I picked it up, at first I had a hard time but once I got the hang of it it was like riding a bike. For me, the hard part is the ps.
less
So, I got somewhat detailed in my critique and I don’t necessarily expect all of you to see the things I did. For that matter, I have no doubt that I didn’t see all the potential positives and negatives of the photo. We all have different perspectives, and we all have things that draw our eye more so than others. As such, no two critiques are likely to be the same, and no one observation is inherently better than another.
OK, here’s another photo:
Red-orange mycena, Mount Rainier National Park
Photo taken by Vaccinium. f/2.8, 1/8th sec., ISO 100, Color temperature: 6500, Sigma 105 mm macro lens on a Canon 10D camera body, from tripod under tree canopy and shade, optimized sharpness, color, and contrast using Adobe Photoshop CS2
This photo is much simpler than the previous one, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t as many positives and negatives. Just find at least one positive and negative, and post them.
I literallly hadn't picked up a camera in a good 3-5 years, easy, and I used to be fairly decent (I think maybe?) - was even the official photographer for a cpl local bands - and when I picked it up, at first I had a hard time but once I got the
...
more
I literallly hadn't picked up a camera in a good 3-5 years, easy, and I used to be fairly decent (I think maybe?) - was even the official photographer for a cpl local bands - and when I picked it up, at first I had a hard time but once I got the hang of it it was like riding a bike. For me, the hard part is the ps.
less
I think it is something that I would like getting into. I like in a beautiful small town with so many photo ops that its sickening not having a camera.
I've been doing this for almost 15 years now. I just wanted to show everyone what a detailed critique looks like. I in no way expect the same from you. Even one good thing and one bad thing can help. For instance. Your, and others',
...
more
I've been doing this for almost 15 years now. I just wanted to show everyone what a detailed critique looks like. I in no way expect the same from you. Even one good thing and one bad thing can help. For instance. Your, and others', point about how the mountains look isn't even part of my critique, but is totally valid.
less
I suppose I've also never really dealt with a critique that wasn't "black and white" either. In high school when we did critiquing the teacher was more like "this is what's wrong with it and this is what you could have done better" and there wasn't really any artistic wiggle room. Like a photo I took of a Coke bottle that's super blurry but looks a lot like it could be an ad, and I believe that one was graded as a 2/10 lol.
It's refreshing to see such open minded critiquing.
I think it is something that I would like getting into. I like in a beautiful small town with so many photo ops that its sickening not having a camera.
Small towns and big cities are the best places for "civilization" photos, IMO. Suburbs and medium-sized cities can have their shots too, but aren't quite the same.
So, I got somewhat detailed in my critique and I don’t necessarily expect all of you to see the things I did. For that matter, I have no doubt that I didn’t see all the potential positives and negatives of the photo. We all have different
...
more
So, I got somewhat detailed in my critique and I don’t necessarily expect all of you to see the things I did. For that matter, I have no doubt that I didn’t see all the potential positives and negatives of the photo. We all have different perspectives, and we all have things that draw our eye more so than others. As such, no two critiques are likely to be the same, and no one observation is inherently better than another.
OK, here’s another photo:
Red-orange mycena, Mount Rainier National Park
Photo taken by Vaccinium. f/2.8, 1/8th sec., ISO 100, Color temperature: 6500, Sigma 105 mm macro lens on a Canon 10D camera body, from tripod under tree canopy and shade, optimized sharpness, color, and contrast using Adobe Photoshop CS2
This photo is much simpler than the previous one, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t as many positives and negatives. Just find at least one positive and negative, and post them.
less
The mushroom right up front blocks all the other mushrooms and makes it hard to focus on anything else because I feel like I need to wipe off the screen.
I left my camera on a ski trip Christmas 09 and haven't had anything but my phone since then but "HE" knows its what I want next month
Mine broke probably around that time period, maybe a little earlier, and same here, only a camera phone. The pics I took recently were for a blog post (and of course, as soon as I uploaded them my hard drive totally died, so they haven't been extracted yet, so the post, which I started on in april, has yet to be done, lol) were on my dad's camera, which he was kind enough to let me borrow. Luckily I have 2 of thte pics done & on flickr & hv dl'd them to the new computer.
Small towns and big cities are the best places for "civilization" photos, IMO. Suburbs and medium-sized cities can have their shots too, but aren't quite the same.
The things that we do with the American Legion on our bike rides leads us to some fab places. I would have killed for a better camera when we delivered all the Easter Baskets to the kids at the burn hospital. It was incredible.
So, I got somewhat detailed in my critique and I don’t necessarily expect all of you to see the things I did. For that matter, I have no doubt that I didn’t see all the potential positives and negatives of the photo. We all have different
...
more
So, I got somewhat detailed in my critique and I don’t necessarily expect all of you to see the things I did. For that matter, I have no doubt that I didn’t see all the potential positives and negatives of the photo. We all have different perspectives, and we all have things that draw our eye more so than others. As such, no two critiques are likely to be the same, and no one observation is inherently better than another.
OK, here’s another photo:
Red-orange mycena, Mount Rainier National Park
Photo taken by Vaccinium. f/2.8, 1/8th sec., ISO 100, Color temperature: 6500, Sigma 105 mm macro lens on a Canon 10D camera body, from tripod under tree canopy and shade, optimized sharpness, color, and contrast using Adobe Photoshop CS2
This photo is much simpler than the previous one, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t as many positives and negatives. Just find at least one positive and negative, and post them.
less
I like that the colors form the secondary triad: orange, green purple, and I also like the shallow depth of field.
However, I believe I see traces of photo manipulation, which are distracting.
So, I got somewhat detailed in my critique and I don’t necessarily expect all of you to see the things I did. For that matter, I have no doubt that I didn’t see all the potential positives and negatives of the photo. We all have different
...
more
So, I got somewhat detailed in my critique and I don’t necessarily expect all of you to see the things I did. For that matter, I have no doubt that I didn’t see all the potential positives and negatives of the photo. We all have different perspectives, and we all have things that draw our eye more so than others. As such, no two critiques are likely to be the same, and no one observation is inherently better than another.
OK, here’s another photo:
Red-orange mycena, Mount Rainier National Park
Photo taken by Vaccinium. f/2.8, 1/8th sec., ISO 100, Color temperature: 6500, Sigma 105 mm macro lens on a Canon 10D camera body, from tripod under tree canopy and shade, optimized sharpness, color, and contrast using Adobe Photoshop CS2
This photo is much simpler than the previous one, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t as many positives and negatives. Just find at least one positive and negative, and post them.
less
I love the subject matter and the colors are AMAZING. The one major problem I am having is the unfocused (blurry) figure in the foreground makes my eyes want to cross. The others that are out of focus don't cause any problems and compliment the picture adding depth. The one in the foreground though makes me feel like there is a smudge on the photo.
The colors are very balanced and draw my eye around the picture in a fluid manner that actually is very soothing.
I could see this hanging on my wall...if the blurry one wasn't...well blurry!
I like that the colors form the secondary triad: orange, green purple, and I also like the shallow depth of field.
However, I believe I see traces of photo manipulation, which are distracting.
What photo manipulation are you talking about? It's been years since I worked up this photo, but I don't recall doing anything too outlandish. That said, I clearly use photoshop, so I'd love to hear about what you feel is over-manipulated.
