CRIT- does this image work for you?

[david_chong2]

It's very bright in winter down under<div></div>

[john_myers4]

I'm not sure how much good my critique will do, but there's something about it that doesn't QUITE work and I can't quite put my finger on it. I think maybe the railing seems too dominant to my eye, and I'd like a little more of the sky.<br><br>

Still, a nice shot.

[arthuryeo]

Would running thru a grain-remover help?

[arthuryeo]

Sorry for the TIFF, let's try JPG ...<div></div>

[arthuryeo]

Other that, I like the pict. It's casual but interesting.

[Alex_Es]

If anything does on specifically work it is the foreground which tends to distract from the focus of interest, the opera house.

 

There is a general problem with photographing landmarks. This is that they have been photographed thousands of times. No matter how good your composition is, the chances are that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of images that are better. Unfortunately, this state of affairs is militating against the photograph here.

 

But this aside, a quick fix would simply be to crop out the foreground. You would be left with a nice rectangular image that would bring out the dynamics of the opera house's design.

 

You would not have a photographic masterpiece. You would have an image that would please you better. There is nothing wrong with that.

[sprouty]

Funny how we all see things differently. I actually <I>like</I> the foreground. It's what elevates it this above a "tourist snap".

<P>

I also like the filtered image better than the first one posted.

[Alex_Es]

Let's see how this works. I cropped a tad from the top and the sides and a bit from the bottom. Also rotated about 0.6 degrees c.w. Added a quick n' dirty frame for fun.<div></div>

[Alex_Es]

Opps! Been a while since I made this mistake. Here it is in glorious 511:<div></div>

[roger_smith4]

I think that crop is a little too much but generally better. I don't see why the water became blurry, though.

[sergio_ortega7]

I think the image would work better as a vertical, not horizontal, composition. Place the snaking, curving wall in the bottom left foreground area, have it in sharp focus from foreground to infinity (try a tripod, small aperture and hyperfocal focus setting) and let it lead your eye into the background opera house at the top center of the frame. That way you could take advantage of the interesting vertical curve, and remove the extraneous city line to the left of the main building. Just my opinion.

[david_chong2]

Is the grain filter in Photoshop? Point taken about phtographing famous landmarks Alex.<div></div>

[Troll]

Ordinary tourist picture, and BORING. If you want criticism, why not post it on one of the Gallery Forums?

[ronald_moravec1]

Never run a line out directly thru a corner. And never say never, say almost never and this is not almost.

 

One of many different views and I like it a lot, `cept for the line.

 

If I lived there, I would come back and explore this woth many differnt kinds of lighting, such as sunset with the lights coming on but the sky still bright.

[david_chong2]

Which one's boring? I thought it was legitimate to post a CRIT

[paul_neuthaler]

I think what's bothersome is the big rear patch of dull roof color --for lack of a more sophisticated term. I love the composition, though.

[summitar]

Photos serve to provide documentation, and also to evoke emotional responses (and probably a million other purposes). This photo, to me, is perfectly fine as documentation of the configuration of the Opera House, but doesn't have much emotional impact.

[sprouty]

I think I misunderstood Alex's crop suggestion. I think it improves on the original.

 

As far as posting it here, is there really a problem? Come on, lighten up.

[gabrielma]

David, it's a good picture, but I find it a bit unbalanced; it's something I'd do for myself as a souvenir, and other comments, while crude, do suggest that it may need something else. You can never please everybody; there's the flower crowd, the zoo animal crowd, the blurred crowd, the "I've done that already" crowd, and the most dangerous one, the antithesis of the "snob": the one that is pleased by most anything. You should find your style first, then work with it while trying new things. When you hear things like "boring" it usually means that it's static and nothing seems to be going on, and it doesn't imply that the picture itself is bad. The problem is that many people's solution to the "boring" problem is to put people in it or to do the empty clothes thing and have a blur of shadows and shapes to suggest a picture, as to "engage" the viewer.<BR><BR>IMO, in general, you should do with your photography what <i>you</i> want to present, not what you want others to tell you what they see. If you are concerned about what you want to present, you should then be concerned whether you have presented it the way you wanted to. Whether it is the way "they" or "you" want to is one's choice.

[michael s.]

Posting a photo for "critique" here is absolutely allowed. Those who think otherwise should have a look at the <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/policy?topic_id=1548>"About" page</a>. <p><p>

 

Moreover, Tony Rowlett has suggested a useful way of <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007qcH>seeking criticism </a>.<p><p>

 

The same Tony Rowlett has also provided suggestions in the form of examples of how, and how *not*, to participate in "CRIT" threads. (I've deleted names other than Tony's to protect the innocent, the virtuous, the guilty, and all those in between.) Here's what Tony wrote: <p><p>

 

************************<p><p>

 

Tony Rowlett dec 18, 2002; 04:50 p.m.<p><p>

 

Example of a useless, bad, just plain dumb critique:<p><p>

 

'"Please Critique" Okay! It is a well below average, average family, touristy photo. And you need a Leica for this? Sorry.'<p><p>

 

-- xyxyxy , December 18, 2002; 01:37 P.M. Eastern<p><p>

 

 

Example of a useful, good, effective critique:<p><p>

 

"Dear aaaaa,

This picture is missing a focal point and isolation of subject matter. My eyes keeping flicking at the boys in the foreground and the adults in the back. If you had isolated the boys with a wide f-stop, or longer focal length like a 90mm, it would have been more effective. My 2 cents worth, and keep learning.<p><p>

 

Best," <p><p>

 

-- xmxmxm , December 18, 2002; 01:43 P.M. Eastern<p><p>

 

Why isn't this obvious to more people here?<p><p>

*******************************<p><p>

 

Personally, I'm interested in Sergio's comment above proposing a vertical version of this photo.

[henricus]

Gabriel,

<p>Well said!

<p>David,<p>I am more distracted by the glare than the rail leading to the subject. I think the rail perspective was a good idea. My only suggestion would be to watch the highligths and keep them from being too bright. As you said it is bright in winter down under. Maybe wait for the evening or morning and try again. Keep shooting!

[brunom]

David

 

Having just seen this thread [tucked away at the page bottom !] I think Alex's crop improves it somewhat, but the fact that the Sydney Opera House is 'white' in reality and your [underexposed ?] picture shows it as various shades of orangy brown spoils it for me. Apart from that I think it's a good shot of a 'done to death' building.

 

Did you take any bracketed shots, that might improve on the building's colour?

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[douglas k.]

"Ordinary tourist picture, and BORING."

 

Yup. This photo has the most common features of boring tourist photos: static composition and lousy lighting.