Photography Critique

ApparentlyNothing · 04-30-2008, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainer.

I'll just move anything that's not pictars to the critique thread anyway.

And my name is also Jon D. Though you may refer to me as Jon Do. as opposed to Du.

That's good too, but then there are those like Chelsea who might put a photo in this thread and were purposely seeking to avoid ruthless critique. I'm just saying we need to discourage any sort of critique in this thread because that's not the purpose of it. This needs to be a safe haven from people ripping into photos. It can be especially discouraging when you're not even looking for critique.

***Art*** · 04-30-2008, 01:19 AM

I agree. There are definitely some photos that I want to post without being critiqued for it.

ApparentlyNothing · 05-04-2008, 12:44 PM

Have at it.

**Rainer.** · 05-04-2008, 01:20 PM

I think the lighting, colors, and the feel of the image were all completely superb.

I'm not so sure about the composition and framing, like the awkwardness of the arm, and how the image doesn't really have anything showing how she is seated. Somewhat snapshoty to me.

PontiusPirate · 05-04-2008, 01:24 PM

As far as composition, the only thing that bothers me is the arm being cut-off.
Pulling back just a bit to fix that woul have also fixed the "seating" problem.
I also would have liked more equal lighting on her face.

It's a lovely shot....I'm just being picky.

canguru2 · 05-06-2008, 08:05 PM

Typical dandelion shots? Critique away.

**jump5fan** · 05-09-2008, 07:08 AM

got this picture at a local park.

it is a little dark and i think i should have had the bike to the left of the tree, but other than that and the fact that the picture is kind of blurry i think it is a good picture. what does everyone else think?

:Edit. maybe i should have moved the bike so it was in the middle of the tree, that way both the tree and the bike would follow the rule of thirds

xSomeday · 05-09-2008, 05:05 PM

kanguru2:
I definitely like the first dandelion shot best, as the lighting is great. However, I'd say that the white spot above it is a bit distracting and takes the focus off the dandelion, so you might want to consider cropping it out. :]
Second shot - you used your DOF pretty creatively. The outside of the dandelion looks like snow, almost.

jump5fan: I think cropping out the bottom [the ground] would be a bit beneficial to the whole mood of the picture. The trees in the background set a sort of mood of darkness and mysteriousness, but the ground sort of takes away from that mood - it makes it seem more barren or urban. :]

RainCatcher · 05-14-2008, 06:52 PM

I don't think I should critique, because honestly, my answer would be pretty amatuer, as I don't know much about photography other than the rule of thirds and from there I go with what I know naturally.. as I catch on prety quick. I am learning though

_maranatha · 05-16-2008, 03:17 PM

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

RainCatcher · 05-18-2008, 10:10 PM

Rhonda Schofield:
Honestly.
1,2 & 4.. I find are too centered for me.. it makes me lose interest very quickly.

Number 5 really stands out I love the flower against the background, there's no distractions.

Number 2 is really making me curious, as I would really like to have seen more of the log in the picture. Perhaps if you had moved your shot a little more to the right? Not sure about that.. but I would've really liked to see more of that log.. without losing the lighting.

That was my 2 cents worth.. feel free to throw it in the wind. lol. That's totally MY OPINION... no schooling or rules behind it.. FYI.. lol!

la di da.

guitarguy90 · 05-22-2008, 12:58 PM

ApparentlyNothing · 05-22-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guitarguy90

Attachment 85303

I could be wrong, but it looks like you could have used just a little more depth of field. It looks like you have the closest part of the ball in focus but it goes out the further back it goes. I could be wrong though since it's kinda hard to tell. Either way, it's not that bad. Looks like something that could be in an NBA advertisement of some sort (or Spalding of course). It's well composed, and the way the ball is positioned looks nice. You could have been tempted to make it straight, or not paid enough attention to have the logo facing the camera. It looks intentional. Might work well as a stock photo.

guitarguy90 · 05-23-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I could be wrong, but it looks like you could have used just a little more depth of field. It looks like you have the closest part of the ball in focus but it goes out the further back it goes. I could be wrong though since it's kinda hard to tell.

You're right, it could have used more depth of field. I was using f1.8 since it was fairly dark outside.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

You could have been tempted to make it straight, or not paid enough attention to have the logo facing the camera. It looks intentional.

It was only semi-intentional....the ball was out of round, and that was the only way it would stay in place.

RipVanWinkle · 05-23-2008, 09:57 AM

1.8 is the widest depth of field you can get (and most other people here...they make down to 1.0, but those are THOUSANDS of dollars), so you did good there...

I would think that you were too far away from the ball (or better put, at 1.8, the only way to get 'better' DOF is to get closer to the ball)...did you crop this from a bigger image?