Critique my image please

Took this in Loch Lomond, Scotland last month. Thanks.

Good comp! Road leading the eye into the scene. Wall and tree on the left and wall in back keeping it on track. That left wall and tree along with the right side of the road and the overhanging branches forms a natural frame for the church (think it's a church) on the other side of that back wall. The mix of colors and tangle of branches also adds to the scene and provides a feeling of being there. Nudging the brightness up a bit might not hurt but contrast and color looks right on. I'd probably try to clone out that garbage can and the pole next to it, as well as the traffic light looking thing on the other side of that back wall. The can and pole would probably not be much of a problem but the traffic light would likely be another story. No matter though, it's still a good image.

I agree with the Izzys - it's a really good shot. The only thing I would do differently is lower the camera position so that more of the door frame and building are clearly visible. Also, cloning out the "garbage can" (?) without affecting the surrounding foliage might be a problem. You could try selecting out that device and lowering the red brightness of the item so that it's less distracting. But, overall, nice work!

Beautiful. Don’t change a thing.

I really like the scene and the fall colors too. This is not meant as criticism, I'm just highlighting an alternative crop to this one. Not necessarily better, just an alternative.

 

My first impression was that I liked the scene and the colors. My second impression was that what made the photo so attractive is essentially contained in the middle 1/3 of the photo: the lamppost, the Church, the sweep of golden lower branches, the curve of the road. So being deliberately critical here, 'more road' at the bottom doesn't add much (for me) to the leading line of the road or the curve of the road in the distance. Similarly, having 'more tree' at the top doesn't add much to the visual information that the branches lower down convey.

 

So you could IMHO make a 3/4 landscape crop that contains all the essential visual information and brings the Church , the road, the lamppost, the lower branches, etc, just that much "closer". It might be a more focused photo on the leading road to the Church with the frame of the lower branches. A landscape crop would emphasize the broad sweep of the lower branches and the curve of the road even more.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting you do this, but just consider it.

 

Mike

Nice shot. I'd brighten it a bit. Make the lamppost plumb. It's making me a little dizzy. Crop out a little of the asphalt at the bottom. It's out of focus and does nothing for the scene even if it was. When you shoot landscapes in particular, consider Depth of Field DOF. You want to get near to far in focus. Out of focus portions, Especially nearest the camera, tend to pull your eye away from the scene's main subject. So DOF and aperture/focal point become issues. Nice work.

1.

 

The contrasting colours and tones, and the meandering path within a basic one third / one third / one third vertical composition make for a pleasing and interesting scene.

 

The post production of the hues, tones, and vibrancy are very good as they appear on my Studio Monitor.

 

Overall Tonal Gradation is noted to have little at the right hand side of the Histogram and the image's dynamic range could certainly extend into brighter areas - (i.e. make it 'brighter') however as an artistic element you may have intended to compress the bright tones to create a more sombre feel: if not then you should at the least compare and contrast that option.

 

*****

 

2.

 

There are some whose Viewer's eye can become terribly disturbed when elements are skewed for no apparent reason: my eye is one.

 

It appears that you made the image with the camera angled slightly upwards and also rotated from the vertical slightly counter-clockwise: these factors render the verticals skewed, (not only the foreground lamp-post - all the verticals).

 

Adding more confusion to an eye which nit-picks at these details is the hedge and the fence are not horizontal - which indeed they might not be, but the two combined create a mental architectural chaos.

 

Hyperbole aside, the skewed verticals are especially annoying in images that are generally meant (or interpreted) as 'architectural' in flavour, which this is.

 

Minor skews can be 'corrected' in post production, but this will create a loss of some of the image palette: it is far better to get the camera and lens axis square on, in the first instance - or - (at a guess) you probably were pointing the camera upwards to frame more of the tree - in this situation it is usually a good idea to frame the shot a bit wider so you have more image palette to work with, when you correct the converging verticals in post production. Although beware with some wide lenses you can get barrel distortion, and there was a tad present in your shot.

 

In regard to only this second section of the critique I have made an A/B correction for your interest; the original is on the left -

 

 

WW

Good comp! Road leading the eye into the scene. Wall and tree on the left and wall in back keeping it on track. That left wall and tree along with the right side of the road and the overhanging branches forms a natural frame for the church (think it's a church) on the other side of that back wall. The mix of colors and tangle of branches also adds to the scene and provides a feeling of being there. Nudging the brightness up a bit might not hurt but contrast and color looks right on. I'd probably try to clone out that garbage can and the pole next to it, as well as the traffic light looking thing on the other side of that back wall. The can and pole would probably not be much of a problem but the traffic light would likely be another story. No matter though, it's still a good image.

 

Hey thanks for your feedback, yes I really need to clean up the image somewhat, could say that for most of my images.

 

Thanks again.

Edited November 19, 2020 by William Michael

I agree with the Izzys - it's a really good shot. The only thing I would do differently is lower the camera position so that more of the door frame and building are clearly visible. Also, cloning out the "garbage can" (?) without affecting the surrounding foliage might be a problem. You could try selecting out that device and lowering the red brightness of the item so that it's less distracting. But, overall, nice work!

 

Thanks William, Cloning out the bin shouldnt be a problem given that theres a wall behind it. The distracting red item.. I think thats the back of a grave stone full of lycan! Its an old church indeed.

I really like the scene and the fall colors too. This is not meant as criticism, I'm just highlighting an alternative crop to this one. Not necessarily better, just an alternative.

 

My first impression was that I liked the scene and the colors. My second impression was that what made the photo so attractive is essentially contained in the middle 1/3 of the photo: the lamppost, the Church, the sweep of golden lower branches, the curve of the road. So being deliberately critical here, 'more road' at the bottom doesn't add much (for me) to the leading line of the road or the curve of the road in the distance. Similarly, having 'more tree' at the top doesn't add much to the visual information that the branches lower down convey.

 

So you could IMHO make a 3/4 landscape crop that contains all the essential visual information and brings the Church , the road, the lamppost, the lower branches, etc, just that much "closer". It might be a more focused photo on the leading road to the Church with the frame of the lower branches. A landscape crop would emphasize the broad sweep of the lower branches and the curve of the road even more.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting you do this, but just consider it.

 

Mike

Thanks Mike, your feedback is much appreciated. I think when I go back there I will consider your alternative crop. To be honest though, this was a really busy little lane and I was having to wait for pedestrians walking by to get my shot. So was a matter of swoop in when nobody was there and get the shot before another person walked by.

Nice shot. I'd brighten it a bit. Make the lamppost plumb. It's making me a little dizzy. Crop out a little of the asphalt at the bottom. It's out of focus and does nothing for the scene even if it was. When you shoot landscapes in particular, consider Depth of Field DOF. You want to get near to far in focus. Out of focus portions, Especially nearest the camera, tend to pull your eye away from the scene's main subject. So DOF and aperture/focal point become issues. Nice work.

 

Thanks Alan Consider the bottom part of the path cropped :) Those lamp posts were actually leaning a little.

1.

 

The contrasting colours and tones, and the meandering path within a basic one third / one third / one third vertical composition make for a pleasing and interesting scene.

 

The post production of the hues, tones, and vibrancy are very good as they appear on my Studio Monitor.

 

Overall Tonal Gradation is noted to have little at the right hand side of the Histogram and the image's dynamic range could certainly extend into brighter areas - (i.e. make it 'brighter') however as an artistic element you may have intended to compress the bright tones to create a more sombre feel: if not then you should at the least compare and contrast that option.

 

*****

 

2.

 

There are some whose Viewer's eye can become terribly disturbed when elements are skewed for no apparent reason: my eye is one.

 

It appears that you made the image with the camera angled slightly upwards and also rotated from the vertical slightly counter-clockwise: these factors render the verticals skewed, (not only the foreground lamp-post - all the verticals).

 

Adding more confusion to an eye which nit-picks at these details is the hedge and the fence are not horizontal - which indeed they might not be, but the two combined create a mental architectural chaos.

 

Hyperbole aside, the skewed verticals are especially annoying in images that are generally meant (or interpreted) as 'architectural' in flavour, which this is.

 

Minor skews can be 'corrected' in post production, but this will create a loss of some of the image palette: it is far better to get the camera and lens axis square on, in the first instance - or - (at a guess) you probably were pointing the camera upwards to frame more of the tree - in this situation it is usually a good idea to frame the shot a bit wider so you have more image palette to work with, when you correct the converging verticals in post production. Although beware with some wide lenses you can get barrel distortion, and there was a tad present in your shot.

 

In regard to only this second section of the critique I have made an A/B correction for your interest; the original is on the left -

 

 

WW

Hi William Thanks for your input. When I initially straightened this image I used the church as a reference. I remember the lamp posts being wonky when I was there so didn't bother trying to change that. The walls there are that old (Church dates back to 1870 odds, so the walls havent been plumb for a long time. I know what you mean all the same :)

Hi Craig, just to clear, my suggestion was to experiment with a different digital crop (not a new photo).

 

Mike

Thanks Mike, your feedback is much appreciated. I think when I go back there I will consider your alternative crop. To be honest though, this was a really busy little lane and I was having to wait for pedestrians walking by to get my shot. So was a matter of swoop in when nobody was there and get the shot before another person walked by.

Thanks Mike, your feedback is much appreciated. I think when I go back there I will consider your alternative crop. To be honest though, this was a really busy little lane and I was having to wait for pedestrians walking by to get my shot. So was a matter of swoop in when nobody was there and get the shot before another person walked by.

Please don't take this the wrong way. But the viewer doesn't care what problems you had getting the shot. Either it works or it doesn't. Either there are problems with it or there aren't. Don't make excuses. Learn from them.

 

The viewer doesn't;t care if I trekked up a mountain in an ice storm for three days to get the picture. If it wasn't exposed right because I was blinded by the ice, he could care less. The picture failed. I try to always keep that thought in my mind. It forces me to go the extra mile to get it right, or come back and shoot again, or whatever. It's often the difference between success and failure.

 

Again, I apologize if this sounds stern. But when someone told me this once, it made a lot of sense to me and I try to remember it when I shoot.

the viewer doesn't care what problems you had getting the shot

Maybe not, but fellow photographers might find interesting various background stories of how shots get taken and how circumstances may influence approaches and results. I don't see what Craig said in response to these critiques as excuses. *That may be in the eye of the beholder.* He's engaged in a dialogue here, and I applaud that.

The viewer doesn't care if I trekked up a mountain in an ice storm for three days to get the picture.

I recommend the film Salt of the Earth, detailing Salgado's processes and journeys, among many other documentaries about photographers, which appeal to at least some viewers who are quite interested in the lengths photographers go to in order to get photos, as well as the photos themselves that result.

Please don't take this the wrong way. But the viewer doesn't care what problems you had getting the shot. Either it works or it doesn't. Either there are problems with it or there aren't. Don't make excuses. Learn from them. . .

 

My view is that it is usually always dangerous making a blanket statement to imply that everyone agrees with oneself, if the actual meaning is merely to convey one's own and personal opinion. It's hyperbole, obviously. But this style of hyperbole also runs the risk of objection, of which this comment is one.

 

As a 'viewer' I am now more interested in this particular shot knowing that the lane was populated. I bring my 'viewing' of any image with all the biases of being a Photographer, both amateur and professional, for many years and one of those biases is often the interest in the making of the shot.

 

I am further interested in discussing a particular facet, that is, that the lamp-post was wonky - and indeed - what do we do with a wonky element in this type of scene: I have had a similar discussion before, it was to do with concerning a Student's Photo-series of Old Bridges (think of Robert Kincaid's efforts in Bridges of Madison County).

 

There was one shot where the bridge was naturally skewed because of its rundown state; the land was irregular in another aspect; the river bank was skewed in another aspect; and the horizon was not naturally horizontal because of the distant hill's slope.

 

Every three of the camera's 'best vantage point' rendered an image which was grating on the Viewer's Eye, very irritating indeed.

 

A salient point to note, and one that my Student learned, is that the brain, when on location, does much interpreting of what the eye sees on location: but when the image is made and the Photo is viewed as a print or on screen, the Brain is much harder and much more difficult to please.

 

In this regard, I would encourage the OP to do a re-shoot, and when so doing consider all that we have discussed here.

 

WW

Please don't take this the wrong way. But the viewer doesn't care what problems you had getting the shot. Either it works or it doesn't. Either there are problems with it or there aren't. Don't make excuses. Learn from them.

 

The viewer doesn't;t care if I trekked up a mountain in an ice storm for three days to get the picture. If it wasn't exposed right because I was blinded by the ice, he could care less. The picture failed. I try to always keep that thought in my mind. It forces me to go the extra mile to get it right, or come back and shoot again, or whatever. It's often the difference between success and failure.

 

Again, I apologize if this sounds stern. But when someone told me this once, it made a lot of sense to me and I try to remember it when I shoot.

 

 

Cheers Alan, food for thought

I knew I'd get some negative reactions. But, it's like telling a joke. If you have to explain the punchline, it's no longer funny. :)

I knew I'd get some negative reactions. But, it's like telling a joke. If you have to explain the punchline, it's no longer funny. :)

It’s not like explaining a joke. It’s like a photographer giving background info about a photo. We don’t have to keep secrets here or play the kinds of games comedians do. This critique forum is for sharing. That sharing is not limited to photos. The latter is what No Words is for.

As mentioned - hyperbole, obviously, there was no punch line to explain - I think hyperbole was obvious to everyone.

 

Anyway: ... the OP has accepted the comment as food for thought so probably best we accept that the topic has been digested.