Critique please

I was wondering if I could please get some constructive criticism on
my photos and my web site.

Thanks, Chuck

http://www.curtophotography.com/

wrote:

I was wondering if I could please get some constructive criticism on
my photos and my web site.

Thanks, Chuck

http://www.curtophotography.com/

NICE work, Chuck. The only thing I see, and it may be because of the web
pages, is a lack of sharpness. Also, have you tried a Hoya Moose Filter?

Fred

--
"...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)."

IMO:

There are only three photos the water and rocks; animals; broken down shack

I can toggle between gallery 1 and gallery 2 in any subject and can't tell the
difference.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

wrote in message ...
I was wondering if I could please get some constructive criticism on
my photos and my web site.

Thanks, Chuck

http://www.curtophotography.com/

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:27:07 -0700, wrote:

I was wondering if I could please get some constructive criticism on
my photos and my web site.

Thanks, Chuck


I found the images to be nicely done and I did enjoy my visit however
asking for critque is inviting widely differing opinions which mostly
is just that..opinions..

Critique usually causes self doubt..

If you like them, you should be happy..

Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng

Camera manuals and mercury battery fix
http://www.colyngoodson.com

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:27:15 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

IMO:

There are only three photos the water and rocks; animals; broken down shack

Don't you mean catagories?

I can toggle between gallery 1 and gallery 2 in any subject and can't tell the
difference.

You didn't look closely.

I found all the images to be interesting and different.

Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng

Camera manuals and mercury battery fix
http://www.colyngoodson.com

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:27:07 -0700, wrote:

I was wondering if I could please get some constructive criticism on
my photos and my web site.

Thanks, Chuck

http://www.curtophotography.com/


There's some technically proficient stuff here. There's also a few
that are lacking. You definitely should gets some books that talk
about composition.

Nature Gallery 1 best shots: top row, middle and bottom row left. The
worst is bottom row right (the exposure is off on this one, delete it
from the gallery) followed by second row middle (the house is too
bright, which makes it not a technically proficient image).

And though the bottom row left is a good one, from a composition
standpoint it might be better if the boats were closer (less
foreground water) and if the clouds were more visible (since they lend
a mood to the shot).

Nature Gallery two's best shot is top row right (I like the way the
perspective of the ice and the lines formed by the clouds suck you
in). The worst shot is the third row right (what's the subject of this
shot? I don't see a focal point in this composition. Dump this one
from the gallery).

And in nature, gallery two, third row, first image... is that your
shadow in the frame. The shot is only a snap shot to begin with, but
I'm pointing out your shadow (whether yours or not) as a mistake that
a good photog would not make. When you photograph LOOK through your
viewfinder at all the edges of the frame. Really think about the
composition and whether you want all the elements that you see IN the
shot. This pic is a good example to point out that the distant
background (the houses across the water) are not interesting and
detract from the image. The foreground building is burn out (over
exposed) and in the near foreground you have some drift wood. That
foreground building is not very interesting to begin with, but to
perhaps a better shot could have been composed by, removing the
foreground shadows, emphasizing the driftwood and that building and
shooting at an angle to avoid those houses in the distance.

Wildlife 1 and 2. Some technically good stuff, some are mundane, but
I'm definitely not a fan of animal shots so that's all I'll say.

Ghost towns 1 and 2. Eh... these are kind of boring. To make a
comparison, most of the buidings look like vacation shots where the
family is standing looking right at the camera in wooden soldier
poses. For shots of old buildings (and ghost towns) you should compose
them better and have a better handle on how to use lighting (time of
day, weather) to enhance the mood of the shot. I can see where these
pics are a lot like your shots of animals,which is to say, the mere
act of isolating a wild animal and photographing does make it art,
the same goes for buildings. And what the hell is the tombstone in
Gallery 2 bottom row left all about? There's nothing about that shot
that is worthy. The lighting is flat, the stone is not intersting, the
colors are not interesting, and it is tilted in the frame and the
background detracts not adds to the image.

About landscape (and building) photography. The time of day (as well
as the weather conditions) that you take the shot can be more
important that the subject itself.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:32:42 GMT, Colyn
wrote:

If you like them, you should be happy..


While that does seem to be a sound life philosphy, it isn't really
helpful to a photographer that has *asked* for construtive criticism
because they are to improve their skills.

Taking a quick look I liked most of the images only thing that I really
dislike is the overuse of a polarizer. The skies are much too saturated for
my taste. When was the last time anyone looked up and saw a really deep blue
sky?

Don

-xiray- wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:27:07 -0700, wrote:


I was wondering if I could please get some constructive criticism on
my photos and my web site.

Thanks, Chuck

http://www.curtophotography.com/



There's some technically proficient stuff here. There's also a few
that are lacking. You definitely should gets some books that talk
about composition.

Nature Gallery 1 best shots: top row, middle and bottom row left. The
worst is bottom row right

Just to show what's best is in the eye of the beholder, I disagree.
Top row, middle, the tetons Oxbow Bend appears flat to me.
I like the sunsets.



In your wildlife galleries, most of the animals: the eyes are
in shadow, or look flat. The eyes (usually) should be in sharp
focus and show sparkle. Here is an image of the same grey wolf
in your gallery 1 and in a similar pose:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...741.b-600.html

Your image is nice and you have a better background than mine (I need
to do dome dodging). But in your image the eyes are flat, even though
in focus. In mine you can see the pupil and the eyes sparkle with
"catch light." In some of your images, like the owl at the desert
museum, you could dodge and bring out the owl's eye that is in shadow.
Also, when you downsize an image for the web, do a little bit
of sharpening. It seems like all your images could use some
sharpening.

Hoper this helps,
Roger
(I'm still learning too)
http://www.clarkvision.com

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:55:21 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:



Just to show what's best is in the eye of the beholder, I disagree.
Top row, middle, the tetons Oxbow Bend appears flat to me.
I like the sunsets.



Definitely personal preference. Sunsets are relatively easy "dramatic
shots" for a beginner to compose.

I've seen so many of them that they all seem trite.