Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

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.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Art & Graphic Design > Photo Critique Thread - [JPEG]

Photo Critique Thread - [JPEG] (Page 21)
Thread Tools
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 05:30 PM
 
I have OCD and ADD. It's deadly for a photographer.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 05:43 PM
 
These shots were taken at the White River Gardens and the Hilbert Conservatory in Indianapolis, IN.

Currently they are having a butterfly exhibit in the conservatory, which made my job easier.

(click for larger version)


And a stream of water form a fountain in the gardens.

(click for larger version)
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 05:44 PM
 
Oh, and the chromatic aberration on the left side of the butterfly bugs me too.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 06:25 PM
 
I want their DOFs to merge a bit, somehow. I’d love a narrower DOF on the butterfly shot, having even parts of the plant partly blurred; and in the second one, I want to have more of the stream of water in focus and a smaller part of it blurred.

I also want to add a touch of blue to the water pic, but if you look through my flickr photostream, you’ll soon find that that’s a general character flaw of mine.

Apart from that, I like them. (And don’t see any chromatic aberration that I wouldn’t just have taken to be ‘the other side’ of the ‘flare’.)
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 06:58 PM
 
I am a DOF and bokeh junky. I also like green as you can tell in the two shots.

I probably should have stopped down the aperture in the water shot a stop or two. You don't want to see how many shots I took of that particular water spout.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 07:04 PM
 
Ummm... oops.

I actually take that shot you are asking for. But the focus point is different, and from a different angle.

This one at 1/180s f/16.0



The other shot was 1/4000s f/2.8
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 07:21 PM
 
That’s a completely different picture to my eyes. In the first one, I thought you were talking about one of those little birdie fountains and the stream of water was maybe a foot or two all in all. In the second one, I can see it’s a much larger fountain, which utterly alters the way I see the picture.

A combination of the two (DOF of the second one with focus, zoom, and angle of the first) would be an absolute winner. Especially if you still managed to get that one drop (well, big drop, blob or whatever you’d call it) with the sun reflection in perfect focus, as in the first one.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 09:53 PM
 
Unfortunately, that shot wasn't taken.

Here are two shots of the fountain. I was playing with some shots that demonstrated shutter speed. the first was at 1/4000s f/4.5 and the second at 1/10s and f/32


     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 10:23 PM
 
I like water too


[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 04:27 PM
 
Some quick shots of my car and one with my friends using his DSLR (my first time using one), and a shot in the dark at an HDR
comments?
suggestions?



     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 04:32 PM
 
Last one doesn’t speak to me. The composition isn’t really anything at all, and the HDR is doing nothing for the shot.

I like the composition in the first one, though I’d like some more horizontal space somewhere (not sure where, though); and I don’t like the HDR on the earthy-orange colours. It makes parts of the cars appear unnaturally dark and disappear completely, and it makes the sky look like it’s made from sand paper (not, generally, an attractive trait in skies).

I love both the composition and the HDR effect in the second and third pictures. Could both use a bit less darkness (not necessarily more light, just less darkness/obscurity), though. Otherwise very nice shots.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 04:58 PM
 
thanks for the feedback! the third shot is by far my favorite
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 06:06 PM
 
I like the second one the best. I do wish the lampposts were removed though. The lighting is very dramatic in that shot.

I like the third as well.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 06:13 PM
 
Most all I've had time for lately is portrait work...



     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 07:06 PM
 
^ Is that last one Matthew Fox?

I like the first one, despite the fact that it’s classic(al) almost to the point of being clichéd.

I’m not crazy about the crop in the second one. Either show me more of his eyes or cut them out altogether. Seeing vague hints of something where the eyes are supposed to be is kind of creepy. I do love how you can almost feel the texture of the jacket, and I like the blue thingamajig (whatever it actually is) in the background.

Not directly relevant, since this is a photo critique thread, but the new logo. No. No, no, no. I loved the old one. Classic, elegant, yet simplistic and timelessly contemporary, too. This new one looks jagged, too rough for the pictures (your pictures tend to be rather ‘gentle’, for lack of a better word), too in-your-face, takes too much attention away from the picture. And also, I just plain don’t like that font for this kind of purpose. If you’re by any chance a Tori Amos fan, you can see it being used well in the sleeve for To Venus and Back: futuristic, surreal, and deliberately so. For this logo, it’s all wrong.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 07:59 PM
 
^ I don't know much about photography, but what he said is exactly what I thought (except the Tori Amos reference, as I don't know that particular album - I stopped following her after "Boys for Pele").
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
^ Is that last one Matthew Fox?
Ha...my wife wishes that was Matthew Fox. It's my cousin, who's putting out a new independent CD soon and needed new promotional materials and cover art.

I like the first one, despite the fact that it’s classic(al) almost to the point of being clichéd.
Not almost. It is clichéd.

Clients dig clichés when they're the ones in the shot, becoming a living, breathing cliché.

I’m not crazy about the crop in the second one. Either show me more of his eyes or cut them out altogether. Seeing vague hints of something where the eyes are supposed to be is kind of creepy. I do love how you can almost feel the texture of the jacket, and I like the blue thingamajig (whatever it actually is) in the background.
You know, I nearly cropped the under-eye circles before I posted, but that would've required going back to the original file, cropping, resizing, adding to logo templates, and re-uploading. Definitely going to do it for the final before I deliver the photo. You're totally right on this one (and I expect others to agree very soon).

Not directly relevant, since this is a photo critique thread, but the new logo. No. No, no, no. I loved the old one. Classic, elegant, yet simplistic and timelessly contemporary, too. This new one looks jagged, too rough for the pictures (your pictures tend to be rather ‘gentle’, for lack of a better word), too in-your-face, takes too much attention away from the picture. And also, I just plain don’t like that font for this kind of purpose. If you’re by any chance a Tori Amos fan, you can see it being used well in the sleeve for To Venus and Back: futuristic, surreal, and deliberately so. For this logo, it’s all wrong.
Perfectly relevant, as far as I'm concerned. I'm more than willing to listen to others about this. I want a bit more feedback on it before I consider changing anything, but I'm looking to change my style, and the new logo was kind of part of that. I'm hoping to get out of the portraits business by the middle of next year (I've already declined a few weddings).

I want to get back to what I was doing beforehand: a lot more scenic urban and experimental work. I might get into stock photography in order to afford more equipment. I just don't know how much longer I can do portraits.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2008, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
^ I don't know much about photography, but what he said is exactly what I thought (except the Tori Amos reference, as I don't know that particular album - I stopped following her after "Boys for Pele").
The logo, the eyes, or both?
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 12:13 AM
 
On the beach during T.S. Fay

ice
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 12:56 AM
 
Uhhh... good use of flash?
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 01:01 AM
 
I'm not tryin to force a favorable critique out of anyone. I like her hair and the open mouth.
ice
     
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 01:52 AM
 
it's a great expression. the hair in the way gives it a nice sense of motion.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 05:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
The logo, the eyes, or both?
Both.

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure View Post
On the beach during T.S. Fay

I *really* like this one.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 05:59 AM
 
@Ice
That's one sexy shot
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 10:12 AM
 
Thanks duders!
ice
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post

Clients dig clichés when they're the ones in the shot, becoming a living, breathing cliché.
I am going to put on my Creative Director/teacher hat here.

I am not sure if you're aware of this, but that sentence put you, as a person, as an artist and as a photographer at a crossroads. And it's a serious decision, so think about this carefully. The questions is simply:

What kind of photographer do you want to be/become?

1. You can do what the clients expect. Photograph the cliché. Make it cute, take the money, go home and then concentrate on the creation of the stuff that makes you tick, that fulfils you - always assuming that you won't be too tired, too busy creating stuff that's essentially fluff. If you're lucky you'll make a decent living as a wedding and portrait photographer, and if you're really lucky you'll even take a picture ever now and then that you'll be proud of.

2. You can start looking for the truth. You can start creating portraits that show who and what your clients really are. You can start looking for the soul behind the face, for the important stuff. You can start giving your clients what they need, not what they expect. You can start being somebody who creates a vision, a personal way of looking at the world.

The choice is entirely yours.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by IceEnclosure View Post
Great shot. See my post above.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap View Post
I am going to put on my Creative Director/teacher hat here.

I am not sure if you're aware of this, but that sentence put you, as a person, as an artist and as a photographer at a crossroads. And it's a serious decision, so think about this carefully. The questions is simply:

What kind of photographer do you want to be/become?

1. You can do what the clients expect. Photograph the cliché. Make it cute, take the money, go home and then concentrate on the creation of the stuff that makes you tick, that fulfils you - always assuming that you won't be too tired, too busy creating stuff that's essentially fluff. If you're lucky you'll make a decent living as a wedding and portrait photographer, and if you're really lucky you'll even take a picture ever now and then that you'll be proud of.

2. You can start looking for the truth. You can start creating portraits that show who and what your clients really are. You can start looking for the soul behind the face, for the important stuff. You can start giving your clients what they need, not what they expect. You can start being somebody who creates a vision, a personal way of looking at the world.

The choice is entirely yours.
Thoughtful post.


Mas, do you do photo work for money? I'd imagine you might sell some prints of your work. I know you have a different source of main income, just wondering if you take up photo jobs or sell your vision at all. I've been selling a few prints to friends lately. I keep the price low, just considering ink, paper, and a bit of my time. It's nice to know they like my work!

I wrote out a giant post, but it lacked any semblance of cohesion.
ice
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by IceEnclosure View Post
Mas, do you do photo work for money? I'd imagine you might sell some prints of your work. I know you have a different source of main income, just wondering if you take up photo jobs or sell your vision at all. I've been selling a few prints to friends lately. I keep the price low, just considering ink, paper, and a bit of my time. It's nice to know they like my work!
.
I've just got invited to take part in a group show. There's a gallery here in Toronto specializing in photographic art and they are interested in showing some of my work.

I don't think I'd like to move into the realm of commercial photography. I had the chance to do that some time ago, and decided against it. I am having more fun being the guy commissioning the photographer, so that we can bring my vision to life together.

Having said that, I had some flattering feedback from photographers I very much admire recently, so that's all good. The images I'll be showing in the group show are these two:





Theme of the show is: To have and to have not.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by IceEnclosure View Post
I'm not tryin to force a favorable critique out of anyone. I like her hair and the open mouth.
It is a good shot. A teeny bit more of her in the shot, I mean a not so tight crop, and it would be an excellent photo.

Oh, and don't get me wrong, I was just avoiding any direct discussion of the obvious erotic overtones in the shot. Oops.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2008, 12:05 PM
 
Mas, that's what I pictured you doing. Love the second shot there.

Thanks for clarifying RR!
ice
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2008, 04:45 PM
 
Okay, how about these three?





     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The midwest...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2008, 08:26 PM
 
Airshow pics from a couple of weeks back..









Joe
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2008, 12:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Okay, how about these three?
Much better.

1. I like the perspective. The color and saturation is well done. A wider perspective on the crop would enhance it quite a bit. The yellow line is distracting, but you could easily PS it out.

2. A little bit more of the car in the shot would make this a very good shot. It does look a little crooked too. Perhaps turn the front wheels a little more to the right and show more of the wheels.

3. Not doing anything for me.

1 & 2. the front license plate is distracting. I'd PS it out, as well as the readability of the numbers, make it look more like a car ad.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2008, 12:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by powerbook867 View Post
Airshow pics from a couple of weeks back..

[IMG]http://www.josefstuartphotography.com/08_airshow/IMG_1228.jpg[/I MG]

[IMG]http://www.josefstuartphotography.com/08_airshow/IMG_1707.jpg[/I MG]

[IMG]http://www.josefstuartphotography.com/08_airshow/IMG_1810.jpg[/I MG]

[IMG]http://www.josefstuartphotography.com/08_airshow/IMG_1949.jpg[/I MG]

[IMG]http://www.josefstuartphotography.com/08_airshow/IMG_1969.jpg[/I MG]
Please don't dump so many pictures here. This is a thread asking people to critique photos, not a gallery for your work.

EDIT: and buy a polarizer
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2008, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Much better.

1. I like the perspective. The color and saturation is well done. A wider perspective on the crop would enhance it quite a bit. The yellow line is distracting, but you could easily PS it out.

2. A little bit more of the car in the shot would make this a very good shot. It does look a little crooked too. Perhaps turn the front wheels a little more to the right and show more of the wheels.

3. Not doing anything for me.

1 & 2. the front license plate is distracting. I'd PS it out, as well as the readability of the numbers, make it look more like a car ad.
Thanks for the suggestions. I looked into pulling the front license plate off, but I think I have to go at it from behind the bumper, so I decided it'd just be easier to photoshop it after the fact.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2008, 06:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Thanks for the suggestions. I looked into pulling the front license plate off, but I think I have to go at it from behind the bumper, so I decided it'd just be easier to photoshop it after the fact.
Completely off-topic, but when I was walking home from my team’s team-building day-activity-thingy last night (at about 1:45 AM), I passed two police officers pulling the licence plate off a car parked almost right outside where I live (no sign of an owner anywhere). Odd time to be doing that.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2008, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
my team’s team-building day-activity-thingy last night (at about 1:45 AM)
I believe that belongs here.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2008, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I believe that belongs here.
Oh, come on. There were only 20 of us, that hardly counts as ‘kinky’.
( Last edited by Oisín; Sep 12, 2008 at 11:18 PM. Reason: Fumblefingers)
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2008, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Oh, come one. There were only 20 of us, that hardly counts as ‘kinky’.
Did I just catch two mistakes? Are you drunk?
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2008, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Did I just catch two mistakes? Are you drunk?
Two? I see only one …

(It’s 4:15 AM. I’m using that as my excuse for my typo. Bugger.)
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2008, 12:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Two? I see only one …

(It’s 4:15 AM. I’m using that as my excuse for my typo. Bugger.)
1. "one"
2. I thought it should be "'kinky.'"
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2008, 07:48 AM
 
Ah, well, no—not in British English.


This thread needs more photos. Sadly, I don’t really have any at the moment. Too much work, too little snapping.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2008, 10:40 AM
 
Here are a couple more from that same set:



     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2008, 02:07 PM
 
#1. There's a pole sticking out of the sunroof. Sign is distracting.

#2. Much better, but slightly crooked and cropped too much off the bottom.

#1 & #2. I think the depth of field is too great. There's too much in focus distracting from the object of interest.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2008, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
#1. There's a pole sticking out of the sunroof. Sign is distracting.

#2. Much better, but slightly crooked and cropped too much off the bottom.

#1 & #2. I think the depth of field is too great. There's too much in focus distracting from the object of interest.
Okay, I un-cropped it and straighted it.

     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2008, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Okay, I un-cropped it and straighted it.
MUCH better.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2008, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Oh, come on. There were only 20 of us, that hardly counts as ‘kinky’.
You're missing a semicolon, laddie.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2008, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
You're missing a semicolon, laddie.
Semicolons tend to go missing in the night ’round these parts.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2008, 08:56 AM
 
No way I'm gonna make the joke about you going off and finding colons in the middle of the night.

No way.










Nope.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2