 |
 | Search this Thread |
| 05-22-2009, 12:59 PM | #1 |
| Import request, please ISO: ---
I had miss-posted the following item - correction now made. Thanks, Dave  .Last edited by Geronimo; 05-22-2009 at 01:34 PM. Reason: UPDATE | |
| 05-22-2009, 01:25 PM | #2 |
| First Shot [semi-blown] | |
| 05-22-2009, 02:09 PM | #3 |
| 05-22-2009, 02:20 PM | #4 |
|
Right on Dave - good lesson you already learned to check your ISO and all your settings when you turn on your camera... Better yet, I have a personal standard configuration, which I try to remember to set my camera to before putting it away - I use Av, Auto ISO through my prefered range, and a fairly wide open aperture, to help ensure that should I need a quick snapshot in low light (usually 'cause my 1 y.o. boy is doing something cute), the camera should be ready to rock. None the less, I still forget to reset my defaults once in a while, with usually bad results ("I was only shooting 6mp jpegs??? Damn!") I'll critique your photos somewhat too  . Take what I say with a grain of salt though - I'm opinionated, but not really trained ("I may not know about art, but I know what I like" )...#1 - really does nothing for me... there's no real subject other than, "there's a river here". When the subject of a photo is the river itself, I think you need to capture some of what makes a river a river... the flow of the water, or the reflection in a calm pool, or a graceful curve of the riverbank. This shot is very static and uninteresting to me - oh well... #2 - Seems underexposed. Compositionally, again, it doesn't really have any dynamic to it - just a flower dead center with a jumble of vegetation around it (remember (or learn about) the "rule of thirds" and similar compositional elements) . In flower closeup shots, often it's the non-flower elements of the shot which really make or break it, especially the blurred areas, and the look of the blur (bokeh) and the sense of depth that a photo conveys - this is quite flat. #3 is pretty cool - it has a lot of potential... for instance, I love how the viewpoint is almost level with the water's surface behind the dam, allowing us to see the waters surface, but only barely. The dam is dead center again, and the foreground really doesn't add to the scene for me, so I'd elevate the view a bit, puting the dam along the lower 1/3 line across the scene, and providing those buildings a little breathing room on the top of the frame, which brings me to... The buildings - I want to see more of 'em (though I realize that this might be impossible without walking into the river :P) - if you can step right a couple meters, the buildings will be visible, but framed by the tree which is currently obscuring them... I think that this would make for a more interesting view. #4 - well, not too exciting, but I have several of the shot saved which look almost identical - dandelions are just too cool to look at up close (zoomed in on the photo) aren't they? #5 - Cool. Very green. In this case, the very centered framing works because of the symmetrical nature of the trees on either side of the path. This shot has a feeling of depth to it that some of the others lack (in my eyes at least)... | |
| 05-22-2009, 03:11 PM | #5 |
| 05-22-2009, 03:35 PM | #6 |
| Exactly what i need!  Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers  I think what could improve your photo's alot is deciding what your subject is, and second, deciding where to place your subject to create an interesting photo. Usually central composition lack tension, one of many ways to introduce 'tension' is the Rule of Thirds, have a look here: Rule of Thirds Originally posted by heliphoto Right on Dave - good lesson you already learned to check your ISO and all your settings when you turn on your camera... Better yet, I have a personal standard configuration, which I try to remember to set my camera to before putting it away - I use Av, Auto ISO through my prefered range, and a fairly wide open aperture, to help ensure that should I need a quick snapshot in low light (usually 'cause my 1 y.o. boy is doing something cute), the camera should be ready to rock. None the less, I still forget to reset my defaults once in a while, with usually bad results ("I was only shooting 6mp jpegs??? Damn!") I'll critique your photos somewhat too . Take what I say with a grain of salt though - I'm opinionated, but not really trained ("I may not know about art, but I know what I like") . . . . . .] - I wonder how many rules I broke in my initial intro pics [ https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photo-critique/w...y-toronto.html ]??? So this feedback starts the process of pointing me towards the path ahead! BTW - heliphoto, what do you mean: "Only" 6mp?  Cheers, Dave. | |
| 05-22-2009, 03:40 PM | #7 |
| Originally posted by axl last two are easily the best of the bunch, there is nothing to catch the eye in first, second is underexposed and I don't like the composition, third is OK. Now fourt is classic but quite well executed, just shame of that bright blob to the upper left, and I really like the last one, maybe a tad more contrast would do... BR ATB, Dave. | |
| 05-22-2009, 06:35 PM | #8 |
| 05-22-2009, 07:46 PM | #9 |
| More Work [Fun!] Needed! Originally posted by Wombat It's pretty well all been said. I'd just add that some of the shots seem a bit out of focus - certainly not sharp. This may be your camera technique or just insufficient post processing. It would be worth your while really working on that aspect for a while. I like the last shot, with the track inviting the viewer to go for a stroll in the woods. It's a bit over-exposed, with insufficient contrast to make it jump out of the screen. Again some post-processing would help turn it into a more dynamic shot. Nearly all the close-up shots were MF'd! Some of them were really drastic crops, too - possibly with the original 'point' of focus located in the 'next-world'! I'd try to learn how to "Let go and let AF"; but I'm really into MF [I will look at my options more closely though - I have never really used AF before  ].I'm also wondering if the 800 ISO setting is taking much away from 'full-sharpness'??? As for PP, it still feels like 'cheating', to me! So when I learn how to manipulate everything satisfactorily, I'll definitely know that it IS cheating! Cheers mate! Last edited by Geronimo; 05-22-2009 at 08:00 PM. | |
| 05-22-2009, 09:00 PM | #10 |
| Originally posted by Geronimo Thanks guys! This is the part when I 'really-know' that I know nothing [which I knew anyway! ] - I wonder how many rules I broke in my initial intro pics [ https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photo-critique/w...y-toronto.html ]??? So this feedback starts the process of pointing me towards the path ahead! BTW - heliphoto, what do you mean: "Only" 6mp? Cheers, Dave. Well, if you're expecting 15mp when you load the files onto your computer, and they're only 6, it's kinda shocking - I see your point though  ...
| |
| 05-22-2009, 10:13 PM | #11 |
| Originally posted by heliphoto Don't get me wrong on the "rules"... They're good guidelines, but I don't hesitate to break a rule if that's what looks good to me at the time. Well, if you're expecting 15mp when you load the files onto your computer, and they're only 6, it's kinda shocking - I see your point though ....ATB, Dave. | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
| critique, photography |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Camera Kings Import model? | ncrecordkeeper | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 3 | 02-16-2010 03:32 PM |
| A beautiful Japanese Import | séamuis | Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras | 33 | 04-06-2009 05:54 PM |
| Import taxes on trade items | BPT | General Talk | 4 | 02-24-2009 09:57 PM |
| import model shoots | magicman | Post Your Photos! | 9 | 03-24-2008 09:06 PM |
| Duties - charges to import to US? | Duh_Vinci | General Talk | 4 | 03-13-2008 05:21 PM |
