[séamuis]

I would really like anyones honest C&C for these photos, I was attempting to be a bit artistic not take prefect (technique wise) photos. I know you should only post one photo for C&C but I would really like to know what people think on all four of these. Thank you for your time.

Keep in mind I have never taken a photography course and Ive only been shooting seriously for about a year or so.


Tybee Island, Georgia
K110D + SMC PENTAX-M 1:1.7 50mm
No post processing other than B&W Film conversion using Exposure2 (ILFORD HP5 Plus 400)

1/4000 - ISO200 - f/1.7

1/4000 - ISO200 - f/4

1/4000 - ISO200 - f/4

1/4000 - ISO200 - f/1.7

[Gooshin]

colours are nice

but the abstract composition is nice HOWEVER i am a very big fan of stuff thats in focus.

#1 and #2 have no focus.. at all, blurry from start to finish, lack of any real edges turns me off.

#3 is in focus, but i guess you'd have to tell me a backstory as to why you fotographed a rusty C beam

#4 would be cool if it something was razor sharp, but again nothing in it is sharp, its all very soft, did you have shaky hands?


thats my C&C...

[gawan]

Fuzziness is a hard thing to do in purpose. In the first photo, which I like btw because of the light atmosphere, there are sharp'ish areas in the bottom, which is a little distracting, would be better if the blurriness appeared more clearly as intentional.

But the over exposed light some how works for me, it creates a certain feeling and attracts my interest.

The last two are sharp enough, but not so interesting, more like composition exercises.

Just MHO of course!

[weatherwise2]

I have mixed opinions on these photos. I don't like 1 because of the lack of a central theme and all out of focus. The second I kinda of like with and tunnel effect and strips of color ; the blurred adds to some of the intrigue of the scene. the 3rd I like the best because of the texture and swirls in the metal. The 4th has a good lack of cohesiveness and the best thing going for it is the grain in the wood. the lack of cohesiveness might be because the angles are all different and the distances between the swing objects don't add any geometric underpinning. Kinda of stretching my ability to describe why I don't like the picture besides the soft focus.

---

Last edited by weatherwise2; 03-05-2008 at 06:42 AM.

[séamuis]

Thank you for all the replies so far. everything has been taken into consideration.

its all very soft, did you have shaky hands?

no my hands are just fine, the softness was intentional.

[Keith]

Hi seamuis,

it is great to see you post these photos and I will give you my honest opinion - I don't claim to be a good photo critic.

1+2 do not have enough focus for my liking and photo 2 seemed to have a lot of potential if there was more focused area.

I like photo 3 but again it is doing something to my left eye - maybe a little more depth of field for this one.

Photo 4 does not do much for me although my eyes keep getting drawn to the shadows...

Although my comments sound a bit negative I do like the way you have worked with the B+W - it has worked very well in all of these photos.

cheers
Keith

[séamuis]

Thank you for the honest crituqe, very much appreciated.

[spyglass]

I applaud your confidence to explore different photo options. I swear if I see one more fluffy kitty or perky puppy picture...... (just kidding).

IMHO (overall enjoyed you shots)

I love locations like #2. The tunnel effect ican be very powerful.

I liked #3. I think you nailed the critical line of focus / unfocused. The shots seems to keep ones eye on the sharp detailed edge. There is plenty to explore in the infocus area with interesting detail in the metal land bolts.

#4 feels to me to be one of those shots that is close but did not get the hook in so to speak. You just know that the home run shots is somewhere there, and that the site/location has a lot to offer. I have a few similar shots that I promised myself that I would revisit and try again. Try some different angles (get in low and shoot with an upward angle, try it when the sun is at a different point in the sky and might encourage a long cast or different shadow, etc.

[séamuis]

Thank you for the critique, and encouraging words, it is very much appreciated. I will take your advice as well.

[mfc]

one and four ring my bells{although one may have benifited by a little more focus in a peice of grass} i like this type of imagery{one} to mutch emphasis is placed on pictorialism imho now number four{who took that lol...joke} totaly different but way cool
first to me is best/most interesting...if youre not happy with ficus reshoot cause the angle/crop&idea are sound visualy

[séamuis]

Thank you very much for the honest critique it is appreciated more than you know.