A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

5 Photos for Critiquing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 5th 06, 04:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
One4All
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing

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

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/david_werner

  #2  
Old August 5th 06, 07:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing


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

  #3  
Old August 5th 06, 08:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
mdsnurse5
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing


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

  #4  
Old August 5th 06, 11:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
One4All
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing


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


  #6  
Old August 6th 06, 01:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing


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

  #7  
Old August 6th 06, 07:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing

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


  #8  
Old August 6th 06, 08:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing

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


  #9  
Old August 6th 06, 09:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,185
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing

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 MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


  #10  
Old August 6th 06, 01:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default 5 Photos for Critiquing




On 8/6/06 3:19 AM, in article cChBg.13042$lv.3537@fed1read12, "MarkČ"
mjmorganlowest even number 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 =----
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High resolution photos from a digital camera. Scott W Digital Photography 77 November 17th 05 04:26 PM
High resolution photos from a digital camera. Scott W 35mm Photo Equipment 78 November 17th 05 04:26 PM
Go look at my photos pls, kthnx. Robert J Batina Digital Photography 9 November 3rd 04 03:14 PM
Extra storage space on Yahoo! Photos Dobedani Digital Photography 1 October 31st 04 12:08 AM
FZ20 v S1 IS Kilroy_Woz_ere Digital Photography 34 October 30th 04 04:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.