Photography Critique

ApparentlyNothing · 10-05-2005, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PontiusPirate

And....here are the photos.
Please do not take into account the graniness. These were taken on a small vivatar snappy camera. I will try to post some new ones later.

Basically, I agree with Brandon. There's really minor things, but overall, they are really great photos, and I don't really count those minor issues against them. They're just really great photos. The borders really help them too.

Cadence · 10-05-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I just didn't bring it with me because I didn't want to carry it around and I didn't expect needing it.

haha that's how it always works...and then the shots you want turn up.

Quote:

It was originally taken in color and then cropped a little in Photoshop. I also desaturated it and upped the contrast just a little.

I'm impressed. Good job.

Did you use the Channel Mixer or just Desaturate?

Quote:

As for the larger aperature, I was actually going for the smaller depth of field so the background would blur, but I guess it just didn't come out like I was hoping.

I think you might be getting confused (as is expected...i know i was for a long time) but the larger the aperture - the smaller the number - bigger the hole. 1.4 to 5.6 are larger apertures. 8 to 32 are smaller ones.

So the bigger the whole the blurrier the parts not focused on will be.

Or maybe I'm confused about you being confused...haha.

Quote:

The aperature was at 6.3 and the shutter speed was 1/15. So yeah, I probably should have set a bigger aperature.

Yes definitely....usually for portraits you want to use the largest aperture possible (as a general rule), plus you would've gotten a faster shutter speed.

Quote:

Of course, I could always try and fake it in photoshop, but that's not the same.

Done right it could look great.

We can go over those sorts of techniques too.

Quote:

I tried silouhetting on a few of the other shots, and it didn't really work as well. She kinda just looked like she was a dead body or something.

haha yeah i could imagine so.

So do you know much about spot metering and exposure compensation?

Quote:

I don't know the biggest aperature, though I'm sure someone else might know what it is for the Rebel XT. I think it might go up to 30-34, but I could be wrong.

I meant largest aperture as in the smallest number. (i know it's confusing)

girlXwithXaXgun · 10-05-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PontiusPirate

And....here are the photos.
Please do not take into account the graniness. These were taken on a small vivatar snappy camera. I will try to post some new ones later.

i love trees..i like those pictures

PontiusPirate · 10-05-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

I would've just composed it to where the bench was closer to the bottom of the frame - showing more of the top of the tree. And to keep the leaves in there it would've been good to get closer to the ground and have those leaves fill the foreground.

Yess...well, I was a weenie when I took it, and did not want to get wet.
I totally agree though.

Quote:

I'm not sure everyone would agree - it's just my opinion.

*EDIT* now that I look at it more I like it the way it is. It could go either way though.

Lovely photos Chelsea.

Hmm...I like how you cropped it--though it gave it a different feel, not what I was going for, but I like it.
I like it both ways.
Thanks for your comments and suggestions kid.

Quote:

Basically, I agree with Brandon. There's really minor things, but overall, they are really great photos, and I don't really count those minor issues against them. They're just really great photos. The borders really help them too.

Thank you Jon.

Quote:

i love trees..i like those pictures

Haha...I do too. Thanks.
This thread was a good idea. Good job Brandon. (*crosses fingers and hopes it doesn't go down the stinkyhole*)

ApparentlyNothing · 10-06-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadence

I'm impressed. Good job.

Did you use the Channel Mixer or just Desaturate?

I just desaturated.

Quote:

I think you might be getting confused (as is expected...i know i was for a long time) but the larger the aperture - the smaller the number - bigger the hole. 1.4 to 5.6 are larger apertures. 8 to 32 are smaller ones.

So the bigger the whole the blurrier the parts not focused on will be.

Or maybe I'm confused about you being confused...haha.

Well, I'm not confused in that I know the bigger the number, the smaller the hole, and that the smaller the hole, the bigger depth of field. What I may be confused about is when you refer to "aperature" if you mean the hole or the number. So I know how to use the camera, just maybe not how exactly to talk about it

Quote:

Yes definitely....usually for portraits you want to use the largest aperture possible (as a general rule), plus you would've gotten a faster shutter speed.

I talked to my photography prof last night about that pic, and she liked it better with the background still focused a bit. She basically said that it gives her a space to interact with. The picture is about her, but not only about her and how she looks. It then becomes not a fashion photo but more of a photo about this woman, where she is, and her interacting with her environment. You think more about her and who she is instead of just thinking, "Ooo, pretty girl." I might try photoshopping a background blur to see what it looks like in comparison, but I kinda like her point about keeping it focused.

Quote:

Done right it could look great.

We can go over those sorts of techniques too.

Photomanipulation should definitly be something we could talk about. Maybe we could make a new thread about that? I've got some manipulations of a photo that I did recently for a project.

Quote:

haha yeah i could imagine so.

So do you know much about spot metering and exposure compensation?

A bit, maybe not enough. I'm not sure. When taking photos with the XT, I would hold the button down halfway to get a meter to tell me how much it was getting exposed. I tried keeping it relatively in the middle when taking all these pics, but when I silouhetted her, I tried to get it a little lower so she would be darker. I don't know if this is what you're talking about though.

Quote:

I meant largest aperture as in the smallest number. (i know it's confusing)

Haha, yeah, I think the smallest I was getting it (though it changed sometimes) was around 4 or so. I think I might have gotten it smaller, but I don't really remember.

I have some more photos to post soon that I used for my motion project and my depth of field project. Not as interesting as my last photos probably, but I'll post them anyways once I get them resized.

Cadence · 10-06-2005, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I just desaturated.

It looks really good.

Quote:

Well, I'm not confused in that I know the bigger the number, the smaller the hole, and that the smaller the hole, the bigger depth of field. What I may be confused about is when you refer to "aperature" if you mean the hole or the number. So I know how to use the camera, just maybe not how exactly to talk about it

Yeah i mean the smaller the number when I say a larger aperture.

Quote:

I talked to my photography prof last night about that pic, and she liked it better with the background still focused a bit. She basically said that it gives her a space to interact with. The picture is about her, but not only about her and how she looks. It then becomes not a fashion photo but more of a photo about this woman, where she is, and her interacting with her environment. You think more about her and who she is instead of just thinking, "Ooo, pretty girl." I might try photoshopping a background blur to see what it looks like in comparison, but I kinda like her point about keeping it focused.

I had said: "What would make this picture perfect would to have used a larger aperture (around 2.8 or so) to thrown the background out of focus....perhaps not too much, though."

I agree not to defocus the whole background entirely, as I like the environmental aspect, but to me, the fact that it's all so sharp - the cars - the man walking by - it all distracts. Now if the backdrop was less distracting I would say go for having it all in focus.

Quote:

A bit, maybe not enough. I'm not sure. When taking photos with the XT, I would hold the button down halfway to get a meter to tell me how much it was getting exposed. I tried keeping it relatively in the middle when taking all these pics, but when I silouhetted her, I tried to get it a little lower so she would be darker. I don't know if this is what you're talking about though.

Exposure compensation is where you take the suggested meter reading for a scene and based upon that you either make the shutter slower or faster (depending on what you're wanting to do). Same thing with the aperture - make the hole bigger or smaller.

In a scene where that birght light is blasting into your camera - your meter is going to suggest a really high shutter speed to expose for the light (which is good for silouhettes - but if you want your subject to be exposed properly - either get a spot meter reading off of her or just take the regular suggested exposure and overexpose by a stop or so.

I hope that made sense. haha.

ApparentlyNothing · 10-06-2005, 03:49 PM

Ok, here's some more. Remember, these were taken for class projects. While the subject was important, what was more important was getting the right techique. The first project was depth of field. 3 objects, 4 pictures: one with the foreground in focus, one with the middleground, background, and then one with all in focus.

Foreground

Middleground

Background

This one didn't turn out as well as I'd like. The middle cup is a little too in focus and the background isn't as sharp as I'd like.

All

Second project was to demonstrate motion 4 ways. Still frame, motion blur, panning with the movement, and a fourth experimental way that somehow demonstrates motion.

Still

Motion blur

Panning

Dancing

Taken of a couple friends dancing. 4 shots in series that shows Jacob dipping Katie.

ApparentlyNothing · 10-06-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadence

It looks really good.

Yeah i mean the smaller the number when I say a larger aperture.

I had said: "What would make this picture perfect would to have used a larger aperture (around 2.8 or so) to thrown the background out of focus....perhaps not too much, though."

I agree not to defocus the whole background entirely, as I like the environmental aspect, but to me, the fact that it's all so sharp - the cars - the man walking by - it all distracts. Now if the backdrop was less distracting I would say go for having it all in focus.

Exposure compensation is where you take the suggested meter reading for a scene and based upon that you either make the shutter slower or faster (depending on what you're wanting to do). Same thing with the aperture - make the hole bigger or smaller.

In a scene where that birght light is blasting into your camera - your meter is going to suggest a really high shutter speed to expose for the light (which is good for silouhettes - but if you want your subject to be exposed properly - either get a spot meter reading off of her or just take the regular suggested exposure and overexpose by a stop or so.

I hope that made sense. haha.

Ya, I understand. About the picture and the spot metering. I'll keep that in mind next time I go out with the camera.

tryingmybest · 10-06-2005, 04:09 PM

I am really unexperienced when it comes to photography, so be as mean as you like. Please ignore the captions, they are from a photoblog that I have, and my originals are on my other computer.

**H.M. Murdock** · 10-06-2005, 04:32 PM

The idea of a phrase about heroes coupled with an ash tray and cigarette butts is good, to me at least. But there are a few things I would have done differently...
1) Setting. Potted plant? Table? Not exactly a match. Perhaps a sidewalk, or grass?
2) No text on the actual picture. It's all good and well to have a title or a catch phrase for a picture, but to actually have the text on the picture is distracting.

Aaaand. I would especially like Brandon to work on mine, but anybody can have at me.
All taken last year. The only ones I like are the second and third ones. I could have done a lot better on the third by giving it a deepr focus...
The fourth is kind of lame, becaust I just stuck my camera out of the window and snapped a shot- it would have been better if I had gotten out and got a straight shot up the center of the tunnel, I think.

In case you miss it, the focus/point of it is it is an ugly bush with a sign sticking out that says "Beautification"

SmileAndFollow · 10-06-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryingmybest

I am really unexperienced when it comes to photography, so be as mean as you like. Please ignore the captions, they are from a photoblog that I have, and my originals are on my other computer.

On the first one I would like it more if the background were not in focus. I have no idea how to do this really... But I think it would add a lot to the picture if only the ash tray was in focus. The second one is pretty good. I like how the speed limit sign is kind of blurred, but thats just me. I dont know much about the technical aspects of photography, I just know what I like in a picture.

stringsamateur · 10-07-2005, 11:57 AM

I'm finally a member at BP, so I have my gallery in which all my photos are copyrighted. I have a photo that's the only one on there so far; here's the link:

photo

***Art*** · 10-07-2005, 12:11 PM

Okay. I am a complete novice with a total piece of crap for a camara. I love taking pictures. I love when someone looks at a picture I've taken, and gasps with delight. I am including two that have caused this reaction, and one that is just plain sexy. Have at it. I could use the critique.