Image critique requested

<p>Hello everyone,</p>

<p>I would love a critique of an image taken last Saturday. Thank you so much! <3</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3964770752_4203baf005_o.jpg" alt="" width="703" height="467" /></p>

<p>Good for you. :-)</p>

<p>Good exposure and focus. I like the image but would like a tighter crop to bring in the couple more and place the groom's left shoulder in the upper left intersection for the "rule of thirds". I like the burning on the edges and top but would also like to see some burning along the bottom. The guy's expression seems feminine to me......I'd prefer to have him looking at his bride with a strong grip on the umbrella handle, perhaps adding his umbrella to shade both him and his bride. After I get home from my day job I'll likely do a little PS version to illustrate some of my comments. Good job and thanks for sharing the image for critique</p>

<p>Great shot - very interesting. I definitely like it a lot. Personally, I would have rather seen a complete straight on shot of this, (it seems you were slightly left of them shooting at an angle). Also, I would have also have rather seen her not smiling, to match the groom. I would like to see the crop at the left and right tree- but yeah, great shot all in all.</p>

<p>from the picture i see that it is a bit soft for me. it seems to me that the red wall is in focus rather than their faces... at 100% view is it sharp? or is it just me?</p>

<p>I like the idea of shooting it straight on! Too me the image actually looks over-sharpened and yes, that draws my attention to all the over-sharpened edges of the leaves and trees. I would have liked to have seen just a bit more distance between the couple and the background. On a personal note, I don't care for the burned edges. It give me a cave/dark impression. And then I wonder why they need a parasol if the area is so dark? And then they are looking up into the darkness. It's a nice shot but it gives me more of an editorial feeling than that of a wedding, which may have been what you wanted.</p>

<p>What about these? (please note they are not edited)<br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2640/3967374266_c98813cd41_o.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2640/3967374266_c98813cd41_o.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2661/3966596095_0bc224d0a1_o.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2661/3966596095_0bc224d0a1_o.jpg</a></p>

<p><em><strong>"it seems to me that the red wall is in focus rather than their faces... at 100% view is it sharp? or is it just me?"</strong></em><br>

and<br>

<strong><em>"What about these? (please note they are not edited)"<br /></em></strong>

<p>On my monitor, and as best I can tell at the resolution provided all three images appear sharper at the wall (red brick area) to camera right of the Bride, than the Bride and Groom.<br>

<br>

Also I see the vines behind the B&G sharper than the grass at their feet in all three images.<br>

<br>

I haven’t got Focus Magic loaded on the computer I am using, but my guess is using it to test sample areas will confirm my eyesight.<br>

<br>

<em >What were the shooting specs of the three images? </em><br>

<em > </em><br>

<em >And what focusing method and AF point did you use? </em><br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

</p>

<p><strong><em>"I would love a critique of an image taken last Saturday"</em></strong></p>

<p><em><strong>Artistic:</strong></em></p>

<p>I like the richness of colour used to frame the B&G in the "Storybook" Setting and Pose.</p>

<p>The slightlty left of centre position of the B&G irritates; esepcially as they are both looking to camer left and into the smaller negative space.</p>

<p>Keeping the same camera viewpoint, if the B&G were positioned just in front of the larger Red Brick area, not only would better balance be achieved using the rule of thirds, but there would have been more space into which the B&G could look. Also there would have been more sense to the slightly upward glance, the tree being further away from them – not that they necessarily were looking up at the tree – but where the tree is placed at present, relative to their gaze, is meaningless and perhaps distracting – so, it is best to use the props, for a reason.</p>

<p>Also, if they were in front of the large Red Brick area, it would not be jostling for the viewer's eye, which is at the moment – a slight distraction form the B&G.</p>

<p><em><strong>*** </strong></em><br>

<em><strong></strong></em><br>

<em><strong>Technical:</strong></em></p>

<p>Technical critique revolves around the comments made and more technical critique may follow pending answers to the two questions asked.</p>

<p>FYI: Whilst I was away - I just had another squiz (at this posted image only), on a larger monitor and I ran FM over it - the Plane of Sharp Focus appears to be <strong><em>at the Red Wall bottom and camera left of the Groom.</em></strong></p>

<p>WW<br>

<br />

 

</p>

<p>Well, what do <em>you</em> see when you look at the images? What, if anything, separates your image from a simple snapshot. If someone on my crew had shot this, I would want to know why the couple was framed in the center and from so far away? </p>

<p>Here's what I had in mind from my post above for an alternate crop........also added a little vignette and minor tweaks. With this small an image I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the PoF is but I suspect that some sharpening will give an acceptable print.</p><div></div>

<p>Kay, I love the juxtaposition and the colors. Kind of a refined couple in an overgrown, jungle like garden.</p>

<p>I don't like how deep the shadows are and find the use of vignette a little too much in this case. I prefer the shot you posted for critique versus the others, and I love the original composition.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, I love it too. I like the tighter crop. Is there any way you could get the blue color cast out of her dress?</p>

I like this idea, Kay :) I am also curious as to what the point of focus was. That wall does look pretty sharp ;-)

<p>I hope you don't mind me trying something out on it. I like the gnarled tree camera left, so I cloned it before doing my crop.<div></div>

<p>100% crop<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2510/3968874632_73328007de_o.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="807" /></p>

<p>original image-<br>

f6.3, 1/40sec, iso-160<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3489/3968101025_f2d7fbe7da_o.jpg" alt="" width="699" height="466" /></p>

<p>Here's the image with a little better detail in the dress and eliminated the blue color cast in the dress as well.</p><div></div>

<p>After a second look, the bottom of the dress now appears to be a dingy gray.........oops. But, with a little effort in PS, I think the details can be salvaged and the blue cast eliminated. I also think that a closeup, vertical treatment (with a little more space around the couple) like the 100% crop posted above could be a good image as well, (if we can salvage the details and avoid blowing-out the dress).</p>

<p>What about this one... Also, I think I have a bad eye for blown out highlights bc I thought her dress looked ok with the details of the wrinkles in it?<br>

<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JyC7pVbPZqE/SsEnoD6CRnI/AAAAAAAABF4/EGcERvkIHvE/s800/iriswedding2.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="552" /></p>

<p>Thank you for the shooting specs and the 100% crop.</p>

<p>Re the softness: The 100% crop on my monitor to my eye shows the lower LH brick are in sharp focus and progressively the green ivy type plant cover loosing focus under the couple's feet. So I think the plane of focus is behind the Subjects.<br>

<br>

That said, I would term the couple in acceptable focus, though there appears some Chromatic Aberration on the Bride's Gown, and that (in the smaller image) could seem to be a soft edge – and seen as more OoF.<br>

<br>

The shooting specs given do not concur with the EXIF DATA. <br>

The specs also do not concur with my expectations, either: <br>

</p>

<p >- the Av = F/6.3. I would have thought around wide open (F/2.8) at a quite a wide FL, considering (as best I can judge) the DoF and what appears to be <em>lens vignette</em> in the original. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >- the Tv = 1/40s. I'd expected a faster Tv. At 1/40s I would expect to see some slight Subject Movements somewhere, especially in the hands or in Her head in that pose if the image were taken at 1/40s. I can only see a very minor flicker of the little finger in His Left hand - but it does not appear enough, as what we would expected for 1/40s. Maybe they were really super still it is possible - just unexpected.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p>I like it - the different expressions only add to the character of the image. I agree that a tighter crop might suit the image a little better. Aside from critiquing the detail, it says a lot that they had the confidence in you to stand in a flower bed and be photographed. Very well done.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Marc</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your comments!! For some reason, on my blog the colors look different than when they are added to this forum. It looks very over saturated to me. I took a ton of pictures by this wall with a tighter crop but for some reason the above one was my favorite. I like the wider look but I should have used the rule of thirds.</p>

<p>color calibrated monitor?</p>

<p>I think its a great shot and a great location! My version would be more natural in appearance with saturation and my cropping here is my personal taste.</p><div></div>

<p>Is it safe to post my images without a copyright tag on here?</p>

<p>"Is it safe to post my images without a copyright tag on here?" -Missy K</p>

<p>Anytime you publish images anywhere on the net you'll risk someone doing a right-click save or screen capture and taking an image. I've had at least one image that I know of that was taken without permission by a fellow P-netter that they used on their website to display an album product. I've also known instances where a photographer's website was lifted image for image and word for word and posted elsewhere as their own. I don't lose any sleep over the issue.</p>