Photo Critique Thread

[Chutes]

I think framing it off center would have increased interest a bit. As is, you're kinda following the rule of thirds, but at the same time, the center of the foreground object is smack dab in the middle. I also did a little color editing for increased drama:

I see what you mean. I was immediately concerned with not putting the skull exactly in the middle but by being so concerned I framed the skull and the post in the middle.

With the photo that you edited, the skull is in the "middle" of the frame, but since it is offset by the post I think it works better. I also like how you warmed up the colors a bit. The bleach white skull in the original looks unnatural, whereas the edited image has an off-white characteristic to it. Well done.

Thanks Rory. Funny thing, that photo was taken in the dark (about 40 minutes after sunset). Amazing the colors that a long exposure can pick up, even in the dark!

I was wondering how you did that. Interesting technique.

[Chutes]

I like all the river/waterfall pictures being uploaded.

I shot this a long time ago in the Smokey Mountains outside Gatlinburg with my old Canon PAS.

[fire_fighter4215]

Independence pass

[RICHIET]

Keeping this alive... (common... I can't be the only person out there taking pictures!)

I was about to enter this one into a contest, but found another one that I thought made a better statement. I shot this using the rule of 3rds, but ended up cropping a bit off the bottom, and I think it made it a bit more pleasant.

Really nice picture James. You have a good leading line with the shoreline that takes you to the trees. You made the best of what nature offered there. The only drawback is the picture is a bit unbalanced. You have a lot of good detail on the right but the left side is basically empty. If there were some rocks or weeds or even a family of ducks in the lower left water, about a third of the way up, I think the picture would be great. As an experiment, you could try photoshopping in some objects just to see if or how it changes the feel of the picture. One other thing, you have no information listed on exposure or lens. I think information on such a good twilight long exposure would be really helpful to others.

[RICHIET]

Please shoot all your critics ...

Nice macro. You didn't list exposure or lens though.

[RICHIET]

Since I commented on a couple of pictures I better post one and open myself up to comments
Nikon D300
Sigma 17-50 2.8
F 9.3 1/1000s


This is Glacier Bay in Alaska. Fairly typical cruise ship photo.

[Trail X]

Wow, glad to see this thread getting used!!


Very nice shot of the dragonfly. Good background blur. Not sure what aperture you used, but f/3 or 4 could have blurred out the background even more. Sometimes that makes a nice aesthetic look. I also think it could be offset (left or right) a bit from center, which would add a little more interest.


Kinda going with what I said to Randy, a little motion blur could go a long way here. For some reason (IMO) moving water tends to look more natural when it's shot with a little motion blur. This same shot with maybe 1/2 or 1 sec exposure would be killer!


This is a very tricky image to expose properly. Shot into the sun (right?) on a very cloudy day. So the landscape comes out dark, and the sky gets a little over exposed. This is the perfect place to use either a graduated ND filter, or HDR tactics. I also notice it's a bit blurry and grainy... maybe too high of an ISO was used? A different crop helps too. Taking off about 1/6 of the bottom of this image helps balance it a bit more.


Nice landscape! To me, looks like it needs a touch of color editing. I'm not getting deep blacks out of the rocks on the left. Maybe frame it a bit higher or lower next time to add "visual interest"?

Really nice picture James. You have a good leading line with the shoreline that takes you to the trees. You made the best of what nature offered there. The only drawback is the picture is a bit unbalanced. You have a lot of good detail on the right but the left side is basically empty. If there were some rocks or weeds or even a family of ducks in the lower left water, about a third of the way up, I think the picture would be great. As an experiment, you could try photoshopping in some objects just to see if or how it changes the feel of the picture. One other thing, you have no information listed on exposure or lens. I think information on such a good twilight long exposure would be really helpful to others.

Thanks! Good point about the negative space on the left. There were some ducks hanging around me while I was shooting, but due to the long exposures I was doing, they would always end up as shadows. So I ended up framing them out for most shots.

Speaking of exposure, here's the data: 30 sec shutter, f/8, ISO 100, 26mm focal length

[RICHIET]

Wow, glad to see this thread getting used!!


Very nice shot of the dragonfly. Good background blur. Not sure what aperture you used, but f/3 or 4 could have blurred out the background even more. Sometimes that makes a nice aesthetic look. I also think it could be offset (left or right) a bit from center, which would add a little more interest.

I don't think I would step up the aperture on this one. While that would increase the background blur, the tail of the dragonfly is already slightly out of focus. I don't know what the lens or exposure was, but it looks like a medium tele which coupled with the close up would have very limited depth of field. F/3 or 4 would probably limit the focus to the head and lose the detail in the wing.

Nice landscape! To me, looks like it needs a touch of color editing. I'm not getting deep blacks out of the rocks on the left. Maybe frame it a bit higher or lower next time to add "visual interest"?


ngth

Good eye. I never set the black point on this. I generally don't like cool light, but when I tried warming this one up a little I felt it detracted from the image. As for the framing, a little cropping might help but I generally try not to alter the original picture too much, maybe a nod to the days of film when you had to get it right. Besides, I have several shots of this scene at different focal lengths and angles, who could look at this view and take just one or two pictures?

Your points are valid and I welcome the comments. That's how we all can improve.

[RICHIET]

Trying out my new nikon 105 macro lens.

Nikon D300
Nikon 105 2.8 macro
F/26 1/60s
2 SB R200 flashes
1 SB 800 flash
creative lights light dome



size 18 pheasant tail (about 3/4")

[Trail X]

Nice clarity. The blue background is nice. Gotta ask, what is the reason for so many flashes?

[Skindiggers]

The flashes give you the light from different angles and you can set different timing so you can make shadows or darken and lighten spots of the object , specially when you make an indoor photo like that one .
This one was made with 3 flashes ..

The dragonfly was made with an old Canon EOS 350D with 18-55mm lenses , no flash this time !

[RICHIET]

Nice clarity. The blue background is nice. Gotta ask, what is the reason for so many flashes?

One of the reasons for the flashes is the small aperture needed to increase the depth of field. At this distance depth is measured in mm's. Before the 105 macro lens the best lens was a 85MM 1.4 with three kenko extension tubes. The problem was this lens had a minimum aperture of F/16 which left the far side legs out of focus.



The sides of the tent I used has diffusion panels similar to a softbox which helps soften and spread the light so I mounted the r-200's on either side of the tent. The problem was there was little detail in the peacock thorax. When I increased the flash compensation I started to get highlights in the hook bend and eyelet. So I pieced together parts from three different stands and made a mini boom for the sb-800. I wound up positioning the sb-800 high front with a diffusion dome and backed off the compensation 2 steps for fill.





This was a bit of trial and error, repositioning lights and changing comps. I also think I needed more distance for the side flashes but the table was too narrow, maybe clamping a 12" wide piece of plywood to extend an extra foot on both sides next time would help.

[RICHIET]

The flashes give you the light from different angles and you can set different timing so you can make shadows or darken and lighten spots of the object , specially when you make an indoor photo like that one .
This one was made with 3 flashes ..

Skindiggers tattoo machine.jpg

The dragonfly was made with an old Canon EOS 350D with 18-55mm lenses , no flash this time !

nice picture of the tatoo machine.

[Skindiggers]

Thank you.. but that photo was not made by me .. That one was made by a friend of mine who invested 30.000 euro in photo equipment , i made the one with the dragonfly with 200 euro investment in equipment !

[RICHIET]

Thank you.. but that photo was not made by me .. That one was made by a friend of mine who invested 30.000 euro in photo equipment , i made the one with the dragonfly with 200 euro investment in equipment !

I know what you mean. When I used to work out of a van in mid town Manhattan I used to joke that B & H Photo had the most expensive bathrooms around because it would cost me a couple of hundred every time I used them.

[Skindiggers]

[Trail X]

Nice clarity. The blue background is nice. Gotta ask, what is the reason for so many flashes?

One of the reasons for the flashes is the small aperture needed to increase the depth of field. At this distance depth is measured in mm's. Before the 105 macro lens the best lens was a 85MM 1.4 with three kenko extension tubes. The problem was this lens had a minimum aperture of F/16 which left the far side legs out of focus.

Ok, I am following better. But why are you worried about the shudder time? You've got a tripod... just open the lens for 30 seconds, you'll get all the light you need, even at f/30.

[RICHIET]

Ok, I am following better. But why are you worried about the shudder time? You've got a tripod... just open the lens for 30 seconds, you'll get all the light you need, even at f/30.[/quote]


Valid point, but the other reason for the multi light setup is that I got the Nikon R1 macro set for Christmas, which is where the R-200's came from, and... gotta play with the new toys.

[Trail X]

Ok, I need some input on this one... how could this be improved?

[RICHIET]

Ok, I need some input on this one... how could this be improved?

Your eyes get drawn immediately to the overexposed highlights in the sky. I feel I have to pull my eyes away in order to see the rest of the picture. The trees have the most interesting structure but they are too small in the picture. I think a crop around the trees would improve the picture.





I felt that cropping the whole stand either centered the trees too much in the middle or made them too small by cropping less, so I opted to crop out the tree on the far right.