PDA

View Full Version : Critique Fest



Ken Lee
15-Jun-2010, 06:21
I deleted the original thread by accident - SORRY !

I'm a fool, and not getting any younger. :o

Let's try again, if you will forgive me.

Here are 2 photos, direct from the scanner. The are proof images. Critique them. Change them. Share your suggestions about how to improve them.

Test 1 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Test1.jpg)

Test 2 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Test2.jpg)

Submit your own photos for critique. It requires some courage.

Vaughn
15-Jun-2010, 06:25
How dare you! Have you been up all night or something!

I just tried to post this just as you deleted the posts, so managed to save it.


=Ken Lee;599396]You are a night-bird !

Sort of...it is just when I can work -- and with the setting up for doing the process, it makes sense to work as long as possible during a session. My efficiency drops greatly by 3 am or so (so does my ability to spell). I just developed a mistake -- I put the carbon tissue over the wrong part of the strip of negatives (old tech pan in a Diana camera) But at least I could get a better exposure time off of the bit that I did actually expose.

I'll be here for another 3 hours or so...unless I hit the wall. What will be interesting will be my bicycle ride home -- about 9 miles. It was forecasted to be windy today -- 22 mph, and fortunately a tailwind for most of the way. But the wind might not come up until I am already home -- we'll see.

But it looks like I might get some decent prints -- working with small negs tonight/morning...4x5, and 120 film. I am also reprinting a neg as someone wants to buy the print -- so I am motivated.

Vaughn

Vaughn
15-Jun-2010, 06:28
Okay -- Cropped to a lovely square, with the very nice narrow dark leaf centered. The tight cropping gives more weight to the 5 large leaves to balance the flower and elevates the impact of the water drops. Image darkened, contrast raised and some sharpening. A little warmth added, too.

Oh -- and some burning in of the edges and cornerrs.

Ken Lee
15-Jun-2010, 06:47
I'll take a step into the cold waters.

Feel free to critique/modify/adjust/correct any of my photos - posted here or on my site.

:eek:

Scott Edwards
15-Jun-2010, 06:50
On Test1 I tilted the image somewhat to make it slightly more lyrical, and then boosted the highlights and dmax, cropped to have the image interact with the frame and then added some tinting to make it look like a warmtone or platinum image.

http://scottedwards.us/images/Test1.jpg

On Test2 I cropped to give the upper left frame more tension and balance the high value of the rose with the depth in the lower right for more dimensionality.

http://scottedwards.us/images/Test2.jpg

Ken Lee
15-Jun-2010, 06:55
On Test1 I tilted the image somewhat to make it slightly more lyrical, and then boosted the highlights and dmax, cropped to have the image interact with the frame and then added some tinting to make it look like a warmtone or platinum image.

http://scottedwards.us/images/Test1.jpg
http://scottedwards.us/images/Test2.jpg


That's very nice. That Platinum look, would have never occurred to me. Thanks for teaching !

Could you tell us how you get the Platinum look ? There seems to be a Yellow ingredient in the high values.

Ezzie
15-Jun-2010, 07:32
What happened to the earlier posts?

Ken Lee
15-Jun-2010, 07:34
What happened to the earlier posts?

I'm very sorry - I deleted the thread and re-created it. Oops ! :o

EdWorkman
15-Jun-2010, 07:34
Far be it for me to critique, but I was thinking why not some real white? before i saw Vaughn and Scott's suggestions- Yes I like the greater overall contrast. You created a negative with an abundance of riches, so that alternative treatments are possible.
Thanks to you all for the lesson

Ezzie
15-Jun-2010, 07:53
Ok, I´ll try again

Test2

http://home.online.no/~drrobert/images/KL-Test/Test2-ERR.jpg

I too found the image to need cropping. I agree that square cropping could be nice, but decided on retaining approx 8x10 ratio. I found the original to be rather flat. So levels (luminosity) and the green channel have been adjusted to add punch. Definition has been increased as it was a tad soft. I would of liked to tint it somewhat, but Aperture (sans plugins) won´t allow me to do this on a BW JPEG (apart from a rather gaudy sepia).

Vaughn
15-Jun-2010, 08:02
Well done, Ezzie. Perhaps my version needs more room to breathe like yours does. To change the color of the file in PhotoShop I had to change the mode from grayscale to RBG (or whatever the initials are).

Brian Ellis
15-Jun-2010, 08:05
Darkened background, cropped, increased contrast, burned some shadows and brightened edges of some petals, toned. I think that's it. Didn't have time to work on the second one. This was fun, thanks.

Ken Lee
15-Jun-2010, 08:15
Darkened background, cropped, increased contrast, burned some shadows and brightened edges of some petals, toned. I think that's it. Didn't have time to work on the second one. This was fun, thanks.

Excellent !

Ezzie
15-Jun-2010, 08:37
Well done, Ezzie. Perhaps my version needs more room to breathe like yours does. To change the color of the file in PhotoShop I had to change the mode from grayscale to RBG (or whatever the initials are).
Thanks

I particularly liked yours, the square crop works well. I use it quite a lot. Maybe I should get myself a Hassie? ;)

Ken: The picture certainly has potential to be quite good, with little or no effort. You´ve got the focus plane spot on.

Vaughn
15-Jun-2010, 08:44
Thanks

I particularly liked yours, the square crop works well. I use it quite a lot. Maybe I should get myself a Hassie? ;)

I am thinking of modifying a darkslide for my 8x10 to expose just an 8x8 area of the neg (I already have one to get two 4x10's on a piece of 8x10 film). I learned to photograph with a Rolleiflex -- the square is sweet!

Peter Mounier
15-Jun-2010, 08:45
Critique them. Change them. Share your suggestions about how to improve them.

Submit your own photos for critique. It requires some courage.

Ken
I'll think I'll take you up on your suggestion to post one of my images for treatment.
I shot this awhile ago, but have never been able to get a good rendition. I am willing to accept the notion that the image is crap, and can't be made to look aesthetically pleasing.

http://www.MorroBayGiclee.com/Hole.jpg

Peter

Ezzie
15-Jun-2010, 08:48
I am thinking of modifying a darkslide for my 8x10 to expose just an 8x8 area of the neg (I already have one to get two 4x10's on a piece of 8x10 film). I learned to photograph with a Rolleiflex -- the square is sweet!

I´ve got a 6x12 roll film back for my 4x5 P+S, and it has masks for 6x9 and 6x7. Wouldn´t be difficult to make a mask for 6x6. What square gives you is the freedom to not having to envision horizontal vs vertical composition. Work with what you´ve got, it´s quite liberating.

Vaughn
15-Jun-2010, 09:00
Peter -- I can't help your image much. I find the problem to be that the viewers' eyes are drawn in two different directions -- to the bright opening and to the sky on the left side. This can work sometimes if the eye is strongly drawn in two or more directions creating tension, but in this case neither are strong enough -- or more likely, strongly to the hole, but distracted by the sky, creating confusion rather than tension.

Cropping down to the top of the hole helps a little (with some burning in on the lower right portion of the image to balance it with the left), but depending what is to the right of the image, a vertical centered more to the right might have worked better. I can't access your image to make the changes.

Vaughn

Peter Mounier
15-Jun-2010, 09:12
Vaughn
Thanks for your comment. Confusion is a good word, and I agree with you.
I was hoping that the confusion was just my own, and someone else might see something in it that I can't.

Btw, you can just click and drag the pic from your browser to the desktop for edits.

Peter

Marko
15-Jun-2010, 09:17
Hey Peter,

This is my attempt:

41866

Cropped, adjusted global contrast, adjusted local contrast, added (slight) dark vignette, some dodging and burning and a little toning.

Marko

Marko
15-Jun-2010, 09:18
And great idea about this sort of thread. I really like it! :)

Vaughn
15-Jun-2010, 09:18
Btw, you can just click and drag the pic from your browser to the desktop for edits.Peter

That was easy -- thanks!

Peter Mounier
15-Jun-2010, 09:45
Marko
Thanks for your excellent post processing. After reading yours and Vaughn's suggestions, I realize that the picture(s) would be better, but still not good, if it were cut in half and presented as two separate images. It's almost as if my left eye wants to go farther to the left, and my right eye needs more to see on the right. Fairly schizophrenic.

Peter

Ken Lee
15-Jun-2010, 10:27
Btw, you can just click and drag the pic from your browser to the desktop for edits.


If you're on a Mac with Safari, you can drag the image off the page, onto the Photoshop icon on your task bar (or whichever editing tool you use), and if Photoshop isn't already open, it will open with that image. If it's open, then it will load the image.

In other words, OS X supports full drag and drop, all the way from the browser to the application. It's great for this sort of thing.

Firefox and other browsers, not written in native code (in order to be cross-platform), won't support that. I can't remember if Chrome does or not. I know they use the same WebKit rendering engine, but I'm not sure how they write the rest of the application.

Jim Michael
15-Jun-2010, 10:31
My version to focus on what's in the hole.http://10squaredcorp.com/images/Hole.jpg

Ken Lee
15-Jun-2010, 10:35
I shot this awhile ago, but have never been able to get a good rendition. I am willing to accept the notion that the image is crap, and can't be made to look aesthetically pleasing.
http://www.MorroBayGiclee.com/Hole.jpg


Did the photo look gorgeous on the ground glass... in color ?

I always use a viewing filter, because I can never adequately "pre-visualize".

h2oman
15-Jun-2010, 10:53
What I didn't like about Ken's second shot is that I found the out of focus root (or whatever it was) in the background to be too distracting. Both Vaughn and Ezzie's edits corrected that.

I liked Vaughn's edit of Peter's shot. The previous similar edit (can't remember whose it was) was in the right direction, but had the distracting little light triangle in the upper left. I like the image, and feel the cave of boulders in the upper left of Vaughn's edit balances the brighter arch nicely.

I'll submit something a bit later when I have it ready. This thread is a great idea. I always assumed people would critique my images when I posted them in other image forums, but realized after a bit that that was not the case. I had thought of suggesting a separate forum for critiquing, but never did.

I'm not sure I see the need for a Hasselblad or fancy darkslides. Lately I have cropped over half of my 4x5 shots to square or 6x12. I made a 4x5 viewing frame with an "adjustable edge" that can give me either of those aspect ratios, along with 4x10. When I find the composition I like I just select the appropriate lens and make sure everything I saw in the viewing frame is on the groundglass, then make a note to crop after developing.

Scott Edwards
15-Jun-2010, 10:57
Could you tell us how you get the Platinum look ? There seems to be a Yellow ingredient in the high values.

http://scottedwards.us/images/Test1.jpg

I used Picasa and the color temperature function, then backed off on the saturation.

I do like a pure white when called for, but decided that I'd like to represent the flowers with a calming retro effect. The Test1 flower looks like it isn't white anyway, pink perhaps?

Marko
15-Jun-2010, 10:57
If you're on a Mac with Safari, you can drag the image off the page, onto the Photoshop icon on your task bar (or whichever editing tool you use), and if Photoshop isn't already open, it will open with that image. If it's open, then it will load the image.

In other words, OS X supports full drag and drop, all the way from the browser to the application. It's great for this sort of thing.

Firefox and other browsers, not written in native code (in order to be cross-platform), won't support that. I can't remember if Chrome does or not. I know they use the same WebKit rendering engine, but I'm not sure how they write the rest of the application.

Chrome does, Firefox doesn't.

Dragging to the desktop and then from there on to Photoshop works for all. It seems it has something to do with internal rendering and interim formats used, but that's just a guess.

Marko
15-Jun-2010, 10:59
I liked Vaughn's edit of Peter's shot. The previous similar edit (can't remember whose it was) was in the right direction, but had the distracting little light triangle in the upper left. I like the image, and feel the cave of boulders in the upper left of Vaughn's edit balances the brighter arch nicely.


It was mine and you are right, Vaughn's crop is indeed better. It also places the hole further off horizontal axis and makes it more dynamic.

Peter Mounier
15-Jun-2010, 11:03
Jim Michael
That's exactly what I had in mind while shooting this. I wanted to show (and highlight) the interesting part, which is the hole in the formation. But it needed some depth and context to see what it actually is in the wild. I like the highlights in the hole rendered to be the brightest part of the image as you've done. I don't think the sky confuses the brain as much like this either. Thanks for the effort.

Peter

h2oman
15-Jun-2010, 11:08
Sorry Marko,

I was too lazy to go back and look while writing my reply. By the way, one of the images I most remember from this forum was I believe yours - some rocks along the beach in a pano ratio, maybe at Laguna Beach?

Gregg Waterman

Peter Mounier
15-Jun-2010, 11:35
If you don't mind one more post, I took the all suggestions and came up with what works best for me. Rather than crop the sky out completely, I cropped it a little, and burned it down for less distraction.
Thanks to everyone who offered a suggestion.

Peter

http://www.MorroBayGiclee.com/Hole2.jpg

Marko
15-Jun-2010, 11:42
Sorry Marko,

I was too lazy to go back and look while writing my reply. By the way, one of the images I most remember from this forum was I believe yours - some rocks along the beach in a pano ratio, maybe at Laguna Beach?

Gregg Waterman

Thanks Gregg, perhaps it was this one?

http://48pixels.com/images/malibu_rocks.jpg

Malibu Beach, a 4x5 crop, film scan.

Vaughn
15-Jun-2010, 11:53
Peter, ultimately you are the one who saw and felt the scene in front of you. Including the sky most likely gives the image the sense of place that you experienced.

Good job!

Vaughn

PS...thanks to everyone for the comments on my version. I had been in the darkroom for about 20 or so hours straight (except for a trip out to get a burrito, and some ice to cool down my carbon transfer bath.) My thinking tends to get very loosely centered on photography in such cases. There are a lot of half hour or so periods that I have to wait for the next step in the process to begin -- so focusing on this and the APUG forum keeps me focused on photography.

Now 24 hours later, I am at home, letting my mind wind down slowly, with a bottle of stout, a sandwich and some Neil Young. But it might take another beer and a shower before I can lay my head down. This thread has been particularly nice -- thanks Ken!

h2oman
15-Jun-2010, 12:54
That's the one, Marko.

Here's the story behind my submission: I had been shooting a little in an old industrial part of town, and saw this big gear box thing that I liked. Unfortunately the most interesting and accessible side was just on the other side of a wire fence. I had met the owner on a previous shoot, and the company is a crane company. Perfect, I'll just ask them to pick it up and move it to a better location for me. :D

Of course I didn't really mean that. Later I struck on the idea of a diptych, with one shot having the fence in focus, and the other the gears. I went back and got the two exposures. It was a bit tedious trying to get the crops the same, as well as the tonal processing. Once I did I wasn't thrilled with the result. I tried a high contrast version and liked it better. It doesn't probably contain enough info for the rest of you to fool with it.

The two real questions: Does the idea behind the diptych have any merit in your opinion? Is the high contrast treatment successful in your opinion?

Give it to me straight - I have plenty of other things to move on to if this needs to be abandoned! I just printed it on 8x10, and it looks a bit better that way than on my monitor.

Marko
15-Jun-2010, 14:09
Personally, I'd try to set up right next to the fence and stick the lens through the wire... :D

h2oman
15-Jun-2010, 19:23
Hopefully my post didn't kill this thread! If the image stinks just say so. Or maybe someone else will post something and we can move on...

Sascha Welter
16-Jun-2010, 01:05
h2oman, I like those gears very much. Unfortunately the thing with the fence doesn't work too much for me... it just makes me miss what you could have done if you had access to the gears!

I don't think you killed this thread, threads go up and down in activity all the time.

For those "what could you do with my picture" posts, I think it's best if people give us some room to move and post "raw" scan data, like Ken has done. I dabbled with Ken's pictures and enjoyed it, but what other people posted was better than what I could do in the little time I had.

Ken Lee
16-Jun-2010, 02:33
"Give it to me straight"

When we first make a photo, what we see is an amalgam of the subject, the pre-visualized photo in our head, and finally, the photo itself. What others see, is merely the photograph.

So it may be helpful to put away our recent work away until we can forget it entirely. When we come back to it, we are no longer trying to prove anything to ourselves, so we can see our photos more objectively.

RickV
16-Jun-2010, 04:05
A bit late with my version but I blame the time zone...
There's a lot that could be pulled out of this shot if you're into rocks.
Edited to suit my printer so the artifacts are a bit gross on a monitor.

Peter Mounier
16-Jun-2010, 07:28
Hopefully my post didn't kill this thread! If the image stinks just say so. Or maybe someone else will post something and we can move on...

Your post didn't kill the thread. I, for one, had to get to work. Also I wanted to think about your image for awhile because it's way different compared to what I shoot.
I like the shot with the fence in focus. I'd like to see more detail in the gears that are the in background though. Not more sharpness, but just a bit more tonality in the highs. Personally, I don't like the look of blown out highlights. I know it was done for for the graphic and gritty look, so it's really just my opinion and sense of aesthetics. Also the one where the fence is out of focus doesn't do anything for me, even in contrast to the other one so I would not do a diptych with it. I would consider adding something to the fence to achieve some tension, like a "Keep Out" sign, or a dead bird hanging in the fence, or just a feather.


Peter

Peter Mounier
16-Jun-2010, 07:41
RickV
Better late than never I say!
Thanks for your comment. I like your version.
I may have to move this image from the "hopeless" bin in my head to the "maybe" bin.

Peter

Marko Trebusak
17-Jun-2010, 02:16
Ken, this is a very good idea. I like the resulting discussion, so let's throw something into the mill: here is a raw scan of one of my soft focus negatives. I'm probably guilty to diminish the effect of the lens by developing quite flat and working my way into the negative in Photoshop. Let's see, what others can come out with, before showing my "final" version.

Cheers,
Marko

nray
17-Jun-2010, 05:00
FWIW,
I thought the vase a distraction.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o131/nray53/Test1A.jpg

Focusing on the hole, otherwise your eye wanders too much.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o131/nray53/HoleA.jpg

Greg Miller
17-Jun-2010, 06:10
Using luminosity to control the viewers eye into and through the scene.

Greg Miller
17-Jun-2010, 06:21
For test 1, I would not change the composition by cropping or tilting. I like the counter balance of the bud and the base of the vase. The original composition has a very nice balance between the two. And I think the negative space around the objects is just right. Cropping in tighter destroys the overall balance IMHO.

Ken Lee
17-Jun-2010, 06:23
Ken, this is a very good idea. I like the resulting discussion, so let's throw something into the mill: here is a raw scan of one of my soft focus negatives. I'm probably guilty to diminish the effect of the lens by developing quite flat and working my way into the negative in Photoshop. Let's see, what others can come out with, before showing my "final" version.

I would like to see more fog. It would make the image more poetic, and further soften the trees in the distance.

Greg Miller
17-Jun-2010, 06:27
Here's a warm tones version using a B&W adjustment layer with tint set to hue of 42 and saturation of 8.

Ken Lee
17-Jun-2010, 06:27
Using luminosity to control the viewers eye into and through the scene.

That's lovely, quite a nice improvement. You have to click on the thumbnail to see it large. Thanks !

Ken Lee
17-Jun-2010, 06:28
Here's a warm tones version using a B&W adjustment layer with tint set to hue of 42 and saturation of 8.

Even nicer !

Greg Miller
17-Jun-2010, 06:57
The crop on this was was difficult. I found the branch in the lower left to be important for continuing the flow from the upper right corner.

GSX4
17-Jun-2010, 08:10
Here's my take. I liked the composition and just lifted contrast, lowered brightness and overlaid a tone that I sampled from one of my sepia/selenium split toned prints.

I also did another version using CS-4's auto contrast control. Again overlaying a tone that was sampled using my own toned prints as a guide.

Peter Mounier
17-Jun-2010, 09:11
... here is a raw scan of one of my soft focus negatives. I'm probably guilty to diminish the effect of the lens by developing quite flat and working my way into the negative in Photoshop. Let's see, what others can come out with, before showing my "final" version.

Cheers,
Marko

I sense a dark and brooding atmosphere when viewing this, and would adjust it accordingly.

Peter

sun of sand
17-Jun-2010, 10:22
With peters image I first cropped it panoramic almost exactly as did Vaughn and the other dude
sorry "other dude" ..I'm on page 4 now and can't remember

Wasn't working for me
The shadow on the left side is the most distracting part of the photo
You really do have two images crammed into one with a line separating the two in the middle


Irfanview job so no burns but this is how'd I crop it

sun of sand
17-Jun-2010, 10:44
This tree you can crop any which way
my first was
I'll just post em both

Scott Schroeder
17-Jun-2010, 13:19
Peter, I grabbed your original post and worked with how I saw it.
It was interested to see how others came up with a similar crop and pano at that.....
Anyway, attached is my view.
Looks like a cool place to be

Ken Lee
17-Jun-2010, 13:28
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/critiques/Test2-KL.jpg

Ken Lee
17-Jun-2010, 13:51
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/critiques/tree.jpg

Jim Michael
17-Jun-2010, 15:00
I gave Ken's rose a try. I like the texture in the leaves and petals and tried to bring that out ...


http://10squaredcorp.com/images/kenLeeRose.jpg

seabird
17-Jun-2010, 15:04
This tree you can crop any which way
my first was
I'll just post em both

I really like both of these. Brings things to the image that would never have occurred to me. Thanks.

Cheers

Patrick Dixon
18-Jun-2010, 10:58
With peters image I first cropped it panoramic almost exactly as did Vaughn and the other dude
sorry "other dude" ..I'm on page 4 now and can't remember

Wasn't working for me
The shadow on the left side is the most distracting part of the photo
You really do have two images crammed into one with a line separating the two in the middle


Irfanview job so no burns but this is how'd I crop it

It works for me.

h2oman
19-Jun-2010, 18:31
I'm not sure whether to give this any more attention or trash it. Does it have any merit? Ideas to improve it? It is cropped from a 4x5, but I didn't feel there was anything above or below what I'm showing that needed to be included. I cropped the bottom just above a brighter swath.

I'll have to get back out there sometime when there are some clouds, or maybe when it is snowing.

sun of sand
19-Jun-2010, 20:44
I really like blank skies
believe clouds could potentially ruin it

h2oman
20-Jun-2010, 06:36
Thanks for the comment, SOS. There was one small cloud lurking around rightonthe horizon, and I purposely waited for it to move on, as it was definitely a distraction. I'm not sure I like the tones as they are in the image presented - maybe I'll fool with it a bit more.

Here are two more. The 6x12 ratio is what I had envisioned when I made the image, but my wife suggested she might like the pile of mossy rocks on the left removed. Any preferencesout there?

Ken Lee
20-Jun-2010, 06:55
I'm not sure whether to give this any more attention or trash it. Does it have any merit?

I think it does. Just explore the innumerable possibilities of composition and tonality. Here are two made in quick time.

Peter Mounier
20-Jun-2010, 08:51
H2oman
I like this shot. I didn't do too much to it except to increase the contrast a little bit for a stronger swath of shadows across the frame.

Peter

Peter Mounier
20-Jun-2010, 09:11
I agree with your wife H2oman. Here's what I did...

Peter

Morca
20-Jun-2010, 09:19
I think it does. Just explore the innumerable possibilities of composition and tonality. Here are two made in quick time.

I like the first crop here, it has the same feel as the original crop but much tighter, giving immediacy to the elements.

Ken Lee
20-Jun-2010, 11:35
Here are two more. The 6x12 ratio is what I had envisioned when I made the image, but my wife suggested she might like the pile of mossy rocks on the left removed. Any preferences out there?

In the same spirit as your wife's polite and astute suggestion: Some of us might have reached for a longer lens. We love the whole scene, but some times, it's better to settle for a stronger emphasis, on fewer elements.

h2oman
20-Jun-2010, 20:13
Thanks for the comments everyone - it has been a valuable learning experience. I appreciate all of you taking the time to look at my images and make suggestions. :)

robertmgray
20-Jun-2010, 20:32
I love that last shot of yours h20man, it's my new wallpaper. I too would appreciate any help with composition, I've cropped it down a bit to get rid of excess shadow area, but if someone would like to give me some new eyes on this I would be grateful. It's my first time posting an image here.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4719167837_2a8f8cf9d6_b.jpg

Marko Trebusak
20-Jun-2010, 23:28
I would like to see more fog. It would make the image more poetic, and further soften the trees in the distance.

Thanks Ken. I too would prefer more fog. As for distant trees, there isn't much I could do about them, as I was wide open already. Probably worth some front swing? Might work, but I found I need more experience with Eidoscope, as even focusing could be tricky. Thanks again.

Cheers,
Marko

Marko Trebusak
20-Jun-2010, 23:32
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/critiques/tree.jpg

It's nice simetric composition. I acually quite like it.

Cheers,
Marko

rdenney
21-Jun-2010, 05:28
I love that last shot of yours h20man, it's my new wallpaper. I too would appreciate any help with composition, I've cropped it down a bit to get rid of excess shadow area, but if someone would like to give me some new eyes on this I would be grateful. It's my first time posting an image here.

I'm on a computer with no editing capability, so I'll just do it in words. I'm feeling a horizontal composition for this one, rather than the vertical. The top of the silo is offset horizontally in the picture. Thus, the expanse of black at the top distracted me a bit. The image was too big for my monitor, but when I hid the top part, I liked it better. I think I would have liked it better still with some of that blackness off to the left.

Rick "always looking for balance, and rarely achieving it" Denney

EdWorkman
21-Jun-2010, 07:03
h20man- Hills
Peter did it.
I'm always a sucker for luminous grass, and his contrast manipulation is just the thing to make your original decisions pop.

Ken Lee
23-Jun-2010, 02:59
I too would appreciate any help with composition, I've cropped it down a bit to get rid of excess shadow area, but if someone would like to give me some new eyes on this I would be grateful.

This may strike the pre-visualization crowd as blasphemous, but it's often helpful to put our photos away - once we have made proofs - long enough to forget them entirely. Once we're no longer emotionally invested in the original, we can proceed freely.

Here's one of many possible variations.

One approach is to to make the viewer a little dizzy, to give the image some mystery.

robertmgray
23-Jun-2010, 15:15
Thanks Rick, I agree, the top is rather distracting. I've clipped off some of the top and taken a little away from right as Ken had done in his version.

Thank you Ken for the insight and edit. I took this photo about 3 or 4 months ago and I'm just now taking the time to edit it because I agree with your theory of distancing yourself from the shot. I've left the bottom portion of the photo in the composition because I like how the ladder compartment leads into the main focus of the shot, but I've take some off the top and right. Let me know what you think of the new crop.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/4728093699_7fbdf57ac9_b.jpg

Ken Lee
23-Jun-2010, 16:19
I agree that the second version is a nice improvement. Mine may have been a little extreme. A slight spiral motion is more interesting to the eye. When the image is too symmetrical, the tunnel appears more like a disk, IE flat rather than deep. Being off-center also makes us feel that we are looking up, rather than down.

This photo is also a fine illustration about the effects of image size and viewing distance. Even on my monitor, it's pretty large, and I see that making is smaller, spoils the sense of presence which a large print offers.

Thanks for agreeing about "post-visualization". When we first make the picture, our head can be cluttered with a mixture of the subject, our pre-visualization, and the print itself. It's best to let the first two drop away on their own, and let the print become the new subject, as it were.

robertmgray
23-Jun-2010, 18:38
Your comment about the image being off-centered is definitely what I needed to hear about this photo. I guess I never thought about it, and I definitely have a lot to learn about really observing the effects of my composition, but you're 100% right. When I set the camera up in the silo I really didn't get to compose as much as I do for landscape, I really just had to put a wide angle on it and make sure it was flat and focused, so I knew I would be doing a lot of editing to get the composition right.

Image size definitely affects this image more so than my other photos, I think it's safe to say that I'll be skipping past the 8x10 print size when I get the scan right. The scan and editing were both done on an uncalibrated monitor too, so I hope what you guys are seeing isn't too far from my view; I will definitely be purchasing some kind of calibrator soon.

Thanks again Ken!

tbeaman
23-Jun-2010, 22:19
Thanks for agreeing about "post-visualization". When we first make the picture, our head can be cluttered with a mixture of the subject, our pre-visualization, and the print itself. It's best to let the first two drop away on their own, and let the print become the new subject, as it were.

It's interesting that you say that, because as I was following this thread, I noticed that it was you who finally nailed your own image submission, and I think that was because you were more willing than anyone else to really start chopping fingers. You'd think strangers to the subject and specific image taking process would be able to be more ruthless, but perhaps it was because our emotional investment in the image had just begun while you had had the time and, especially, discipline to divest yourself of any attachment.

I know I have a hard time cropping because I can always see in my mind the parts that are missing, and it feels wrong somehow (I also tend to frame too tight; comes from being weened on 35mm and minilab prints). In a recent case, though, I found that adding a border really helped with this. Actually, I find borders (or at least, the canvas) in general to be quite important and invaluable. Many of the edits that stood out to me in this thread had a lot to do with this.

I could elaborate more, but my thoughts are getting more nebulous and difficult to unscramble at the moment. Someone else can pick up the ball if they like.

E S
12-Aug-2010, 13:55
First off, thanks for having this thread! I'll post something and then duck for cover... but seriously, I'd appreciate critique of any sort on this one.

My own thoughts, or at least what I would have done differently:

vertical rather than horizontal orientation? Not sure; the terrace is not all that lovely, and using horizontal let me "hide" some stuff. But vertical would have fit better with the wine bottle.
depth of field needs to be better, or at least under better control. I think most of the cheese and all of the bottle is in focus, but I think I should have had the cheese wrapper completely in focus.
I think I could have gotten much closer to the cheese and the bottle.
nitpicky: is the off-kilterness of the stripes in the tablecloth distracting?

If I were to do this again this weekend, I would move the setting closer to the camera, and perhaps tilt the camera down a bit to get just table and tablecloth, bottle, cheese, etc., and none of the background, plus to improve what is and isn't in focus. Low priority, I'd think about using the stripes in the tablecloth at a definite orientation, rather than random.

Any other comments? Still-life is not my strong suit, so I really had no idea what I was doing.

And since re-doing this would involve more wine and more cheese, I have NO objections to trying the set-up again. None at all...

seabird
12-Aug-2010, 15:06
Hi E S

Fell free to ignore the following (after all, what do I know?), but in terms of composition I find the out of focus foreground slightly distracting. If it was me, I'd be tempted to try a tighter crop that looses the foreground up to a point just below the cheese wrapper - sort of turning the image into a horizontal panorama.

You've already identified the DOF issues so no further comment required there.

Its all good fun learning, isn't it?

If you need any help with the setup and are supplying the wine and cheese then just PM me ... :)

Regards

Scott Schroeder
12-Aug-2010, 15:12
ES,
These things are subjective, but I would have gotten tighter on your subject (which I like very much). I'm not so sure about the dappled light as a more even lighting might compliment your focus a bit. I'm a fan of toning so I tossed that in there.....
Anyway, like I said, it's all subjective but if I had to work with it, I'd definitely get rid of the foreground.

Ken Lee
12-Aug-2010, 15:19
I would ask: What are the nicest parts of the photo ? Which parts works best ?

h2oman
17-Sep-2010, 19:10
I know what I think about this one, but I'd like to hear what any of you think. I will say that I'm not that keen on it, so don't hold back, in deference to my feeings, on what would have made it better, or still could, as it was captured. Thanks!

Ken Lee
18-Sep-2010, 03:05
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/corn_lilies_4.jpg

Peter Mounier
18-Sep-2010, 07:57
I liked this as soon as you first posted it, but I recognized the highlight on the rim as the most interesting part. The rest seemed extraneous.

Peter

http://www.morrobaygiclee.com/corn_lilies_4.jpg

h2oman
19-Sep-2010, 13:03
Thanks guys. I'm a bit bothered by the merger of the in-focus edge with the dark leaf in the background, and was wondering if anyone would bring that up. I'm also not sure if I'm a selective-focus guy, but I thought I'd give it a try since I couldn't get everything in focus anyway.

PS I never noticed until now the misspelling in the title of this thread! (Did I misspell misspell? Maybe only one S?)

Ken Lee
19-Sep-2010, 13:09
I never noticed until now the misspelling in the title of this thread!

Me neither - I just corrected it.

Perhaps it's time to join D.A.M. - Mothers Against Dyslexia !

Edward (Halifax,NS)
25-Feb-2012, 07:51
I like the idea of this thread. Sometimes people post in the specific subjects threads and you wonder if it is safe to give an honest opinion. Anyway I am ready to sacrifice an image to the critique gods.

68948

Greg Miller
25-Feb-2012, 09:17
68953
I like the idea of this thread. Sometimes people post in the specific subjects threads and you wonder if it is safe to give an honest opinion. Anyway I am ready to sacrifice an image to the critique gods.

68948

HI Edward. It's a nice image. I think it can be improved with some color correction. I also think the left and bottom of the frame have some distracting elements. Here is is how I interpret your photo (also bringing out he shadow detail a smidge).

68954

mike rosenlof
25-Feb-2012, 11:52
[lighthouse photo]
My first thought was to crop all of the foreground footprints. Maybe to just below that bare rock in the foreground.

Ken Lee
25-Feb-2012, 12:41
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/tower.jpg

I'd go for something less objective, with a greater sense of distance and drama. An imposing tower looking over a wind-swept rocky landscape.

Edward (Halifax,NS)
25-Feb-2012, 14:31
How abut a bit of panorama?

68967

edit: The colours look much better in Photoshop.

Peter De Smidt
25-Feb-2012, 17:32
Here's a quick version.

h2oman
26-Feb-2012, 08:22
The pano does it for me. I didn't care for the footprints at all, so getting rid of the bottom was a must, But I like the way that the pano keeps the best of the clouds.

DarkroomDan
26-Feb-2012, 08:48
Me neither - I just corrected it.

Perhaps it's time to join D.A.M. - Mothers Against Dyslexia !

Tish Happens

Ken Lee
26-Feb-2012, 09:08
Allowing people to explore and present alternate versions of photos (whether or not they provide any verbal explanation) can be a very effective way to grow artistically - not only for the original photographer, but for anyone who cares to view the exchange.

jp
26-Feb-2012, 09:20
I like the lighthouse image, but prefer not to have so many footprints in the foreground. It's an element of the photo's foreground, accident, preventable, or not. If it's nearby, keep going back especially right after a snow.

When I shoot in the snow, I carefully circle the perimeter of the area, like a fox scoping out a chicken pen. Staying on the perimeter lets me figure out photos I can do without getting footprints in the snow. Then, as I shoot, I can get closer. Still I like to hide my footprints behind rocks where I can or use a particular path rather than crisscross a potentially photogenic scene, knowing my foot prints will be there till it either snows again or melts. If it's someone elses's footprints, not much you can do about that, but keep them in mind when photographing.

My crop was a little different. I also removed some blue.

Edward (Halifax,NS)
26-Feb-2012, 11:27
Allowing people to explore and present alternate versions of photos (whether or not they provide any verbal explanation) can be a very effective way to grow artistically - not only for the original photographer, but for anyone who cares to view the exchange.
I find it very useful.