Requesting critique of this image.

Thanks in advance for your input.

If you feel compelled to show the same image four-times, then you must not think it's very strong. It looks over sharpened (see halo on tree to our left). Seems like it was taken during a Golden Hour and then muted in processing for some reason, resulting in an unnaturally flat look to my eye. If you wanted extra contrast and sharpness, it might have been best interpreted in B&W. As a composition, I think that it would have been better in B&W and the details of the woods across the river obscured. If each images was meant to look slightly different, I think that the differences are too small to have an easily understood impact. Can't imagine it hanging on my wall.

Not sure why the image was repeated. I'm new to this site. I'm not I'm not concerned whether you would have it on your wall or not. Please keep your critique constructive.

Not sure why the image was repeated. I'm new to this site. I'm not I'm not concerned whether you would have it on your wall or not. Please keep your critique constructive.

 

Multiple images can be a problem at times. I had it happen to me once. I removed the excess images in the "Edit" panel, but that panel is accessible for only a short time after the clicking "Post Reply"

 

My critique is that your photo appears to be well exposed with plenty of detail in both highlights and shadows, The very course texture of the tree bark is of some interest and that shows well on the nearest tree. If that's what you wanted to show, then you've done it adequately. Apart from that, it doesn't hold much more interest, it's just tree trunks against a river and more trees on the other side of the river. Someone fishing by the river would catch the eye, or some wildlife perhaps. There's no mood or drama in the shot, and that's what it really needs in order to hold a viewers attention for longer than a few seconds

Technically well done, but what you are trying to express is not clear at all. Why did he take that photo - is that enough?

Please keep your critique constructive.

 

hmmm....

Well taken picture where you separated the trees so they don't overlap into to one another. But it's rather boring. Need something to jazz it up. Better lighting, contrast, a bird, something. There's seems to be too much white or shadow fill which kind of washes it out. This shot fits into the BW form kind of shot. I looked at it in BW with lots more contrast and I think it looks better. Post more. Good luck.

If you feel compelled to show the same image four-times, then you must not think it's very strong. It looks over sharpened (see halo on tree to our left). Seems like it was taken during a Golden Hour and then muted in processing for some reason, resulting in an unnaturally flat look to my eye. If you wanted extra contrast and sharpness, it might have been best interpreted in B&W. As a composition, I think that it would have been better in B&W and the details of the woods across the river obscured. If each images was meant to look slightly different, I think that the differences are too small to have an easily understood impact. Can't imagine it hanging on my wall.

Thanks for your input. I do appreciate it. Particularly the suggestion about converting it to Black and White.

Technically well done, but what you are trying to express is not clear at all. Why did he take that photo - is that enough?

Thanks for your comments Sandy. I think I was attracted to the early morning side light bringing out the texture of the bark. The repetition of the forms of the tree trunks ending with the tree in the background with the two trunks. So maybe something like repetition with variation perhaps.

Well taken picture where you separated the trees so they don't overlap into to one another. But it's rather boring. Need something to jazz it up. Better lighting, contrast, a bird, something. There's seems to be too much white or shadow fill which kind of washes it out. This shot fits into the BW form kind of shot. I looked at it in BW with lots more contrast and I think it looks better. Post more. Good luck.

[ATTACH]1392119[/ATTACH]

Thank you Alan. It is interesting to see it in the black and white version you provided. That's something I may explore.

I think there is too much foreground and the debris at the bottom is distracting and unnecessary. By cropping it to a square format, I think a simpler, stronger and more balanced composition is achieved.

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by John Seaman

I think there is too much foreground and the debris at the bottom is distracting and unnecessary. By cropping it to a square format, I think a simpler, stronger and more balanced composition is achieved.

 

[ATTACH=full]1392298[/ATTACH]

Initially, I felt the the tree roots in the foreground just provided additional interest, but didn't distract. I think you make a strong case that they do distract with the crop you have provided.

Thanks John

Not sure why the image was repeated. I'm new to this site. I'm not I'm not concerned whether you would have it on your wall or not. Please keep your critique constructive.

 

 

Would you hang it on your wall? Maybe you should start asking that question of your work. Would anyone put it on their wall? Those are valid questions.

Would you hang it on your wall? Maybe you should start asking that question of your work. Would anyone put it on their wall? Those are valid questions.

While I get what you’re asking and it’s a reasonable question, I want to add that there’s plenty of great art and documentary photographs I appreciate and love seeing in museums or books that I wouldn’t necessarily want hanging on my wall. It’s not an ideal way of determining what’s a good photo, though it may be a way to determine what’s a pleasing one.

Would you hang it on your wall? I've heard plenty of camera club judges ask this question, when they couldn't think of anything else to say.

Would you hang it on your wall? I've heard plenty of camera club judges ask this question, when they couldn't think of anything else to say.

Hi John are you still listening to camera club judges? David's question was valid in this case but I take your point.

Would you hang it on your wall? I've heard plenty of camera club judges ask this question, when they couldn't think of anything else to say.

My wife is the judge of what gets hung on our walls. It ain't much. :confused:

Hi John are you still listening to camera club judges?

 

Yes at least when our club gets back to live meetings. listening to them doesn't mean accepting all they say, but they often see things in my pictures that I had missed.

 

The problem with club photography is that it only values the sort of image which people might want to hang on the wall - a very small subset of the totality of photography.

Michael, I think what loses me in this pic are the two bands of background, One the dark featureless trees and the equally featureless band of blue water.

Would you hang it on your wall? Maybe you should start asking that question of your work. Would anyone put it on their wall? Those are valid questions.

I would agree that it is a valid question that one could ask in evaluating their own work. When critiquing another photographer's work, the 'not on my wall' response could be construed as a little mean-spirited. It is sufficient for the viewer to comment in a constructive manner as to whether an image works or not based on technical and compositional aspects and leave it at that.

I would agree that it is a valid question that one could ask in evaluating their own work. When critiquing another photographer's work, the 'not on my wall' response could be construed as a little mean-spirited. It is sufficient for the viewer to comment in a constructive manner as to whether an image works or not based on technical and compositional aspects and leave it at that.

 

You might not have thought that the rest of my critique was "constructive", but I was trying to be constructive.

 

Do you really think it's a strong enough image to ask for critique? You must think that it has some usefulness. If not hanging on a wall, how is it best used? I sold an image for use as wallpaper, which I don't see working here. As a post on Flickr, or Facebook, I don't see a context where it'll be useful. On Photo.net, in the "No Words" Forum, if someone said, "Bark", it might fit. Would you share it with friends and family? What's happening here, what's the point of this image?

 

Almost all of us take aimless images. I certainly do. I don't see the aim of this image. I might have thought of it as capturing Golden Hour light, but you flattened that. If we're going for "bark textures", it feels to distant to me.

 

Of the proposals, I'm drawn to Alan's B&W interpretation the most, showing high contrast and emphasizing texture more.

You might not have thought that the rest of my critique was "constructive", but I was trying to be constructive.

 

Do you really think it's a strong enough image to ask for critique? You must think that it has some usefulness. If not hanging on a wall, how is it best used? I sold an image for use as wallpaper, which I don't see working here. As a post on Flickr, or Facebook, I don't see a context where it'll be useful. On Photo.net, in the "No Words" Forum, if someone said, "Bark", it might fit. Would you share it with friends and family? What's happening here, what's the point of this image?

 

Almost all of us take aimless images. I certainly do. I don't see the aim of this image. I might have thought of it as capturing Golden Hour light, but you flattened that. If we're going for "bark textures", it feels to distant to me.

 

Of the proposals, I'm drawn to Alan's B&W interpretation the most, showing high contrast and emphasizing texture more.

 

Thanks for your response. As I stated in a previous reply, I did appreciate portions of your crtique, particularly the suggestion to convert to B&W. Of the proposals, I like John Seamans best, as it simplifies the composition to emphasize the texture of the side-lit tree trunks, which is what drew me to capture it. Taking his crop and converting to B&W may be best.

I like the depth in this image. You used the right f-stop so that everything in the foreground and background are sharp, yet they do not blend into each other like a flat 2 dimensional image. The roots on the ground look like snakes and give this otherwise peaceful and quiet scene, a somewhat foreboding tone that might be missed by the unawares.

I like the depth in this image. You used the right f-stop so that everything in the foreground and background are sharp, yet they do not blend into each other like a flat 2 dimensional image. The roots on the ground look like snakes and give this otherwise peaceful and quiet scene, a somewhat foreboding tone that might be missed by the unawares.

Thank you hjoseph for your thoughts.

I felt the same way about the roots on the ground, that they are not a distraction, but rather add another layer of interest to the scene due to their snake like appearance. Sort of a subplot.

To the OP, unfortunately the photo is too static in the sense that the various elements don't really interact visually. The lighting isn't there to really create a mood and the shapes don't seem to have any interplay. It's like there's the river, there's some trees and a foreground. So for me it basically lacks interest. Technically it's shot well, but the the way elements interact or in this case lack interaction, I think you should try again. Sorry.