Critiques

[tony_santella]

<p>I have posted several pics in the critique forum<br>

a few get a comment most go unnoticed<br>

I try and express that I am interested in honest critique and that negative critique is welcome and in some ways more welcome that praise<br>

I am new at photograpy and not really interested in post processing at this time<br>

My focus is on taking quality shots not inventing quality shots<br>

Am I doing something improper<br>

Am I lookin for something that doesnt exist here<br>

are there so many photos that many get lost in the mix</p>

<p>guess the question is what am I missing in that forum</p>

<p>Thanks Tony</p>

[richterjw]

<p>You're not really missing anything. Critiques are hard to come by. It's often easier to find you people you can trust and rely on to give you good sound advise. JR</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Anthony, Critiquing is a two way street. Visit & comment (express your true feelings) on other's photos and then it is more likely they will reciprocate. You can learn a lot about critiquing simply by doing it. People will agree\disagree with you and thus give you something to ponder. Read & think about the critiques that other viewers have left. Either way a lesson is learned. Don't dismiss post processing out of hand. Sure, it's best to get as close as you can right in camera but even Ansel Adams didn't get it right in camera every (any?) time. And it's the final image that you present to screen that matters. You don't have to 'invent quality shots', rather, just polish the rough image you took in the beginning. I don't think I've posted ANY images which haven't been touched up a tad. The trick is to keep manipulation to a minimum so it's transparent, unnoticeable to the casual viewer. Use a light hand. My thoughts! Best, LM.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>In regards to Ansel Adam's, he writes in his book <em>The Camera: "Why would I want to shoot the world as it is?"</em> Adam's would indeed have a vision for how he wanted the shot to look, know how to expose his film, and then spend hours in the darkroom to make the print match his vision. So when you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>not really interested in post processing at this time</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are leaving out half the equation. I agree that it is a very good idea to get it right in the camera, but sometimes the camera only gets you so far. And even then, you can't cover all that is possible. Most cameras give you all sorts of post-processing parameters over sharpness, contrast, saturation and so on. How does one <em>know</em> what combination will be best for a particular shot? So the shot as taken is merely one interpretation of the scene.</p>

<p>As far as critiques go, be careful what you wish for! The best thing you can do is learn how to critique yourself. Learn as much as you can about photography. I took a quick glance at your gallery and my first thought was "snapshots". Overall, perhaps a tad bit under-exposed (depending on the shot). I pulled up one wave shot (3802) and it was shot at f/18 and 1/80th of a second. Those settings make no sense. I mean sure, you can use them, but why would you? This simply confirms my conclusion these are snapshots, or perhaps another way to say it is that these are shots simply taken on the spur of a moment without thought to <em>how</em> to take the shot; so why spend more time critiquing the shot then was spent actually considering how to take the shot? Again, using 3802, what is my subject? Why is the scene framed this way? At f/18, depending on the lens, you might be risking diffraction. And what is in the frame that needs that kind of DoF? Add to that a <em>very </em>slow shutter of 1/80th (considering the subject matter), I am confused as to what you were trying to achieve? A much faster shutter would have frozen the wave and splashes and at the same time allowed for a wider f/stop.</p>

<p>Bryan Perterson has a book called "Understanding Exposure". That might be a good place to start. Ansel Adam's "The Camera" is a good read. The de-facto standard for leaning about light would be "Light: the Science and Magic", but this is a bit more of a text book explanation of how photographic lighting works. Anyway, that's all my .02.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"guess the question is what am I missing in that forum"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What Len wrote - he hit the nail on the head.</p>

<p>Your stats indicate that you’ve been a member since 18 Jan this year; posted 21 images for critique and commented on only two images, other than your own.</p>

<p>Get out and comment on more of other's images and many of those folk will in turn have a peek at your work - it is like conversation in any social setting - it ain't one way.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>My focus is on taking quality shots not inventing quality shots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It just doesn't work that way. Darkroom work has been necessary since Fox Talbot in the 1840s. Yes, it is possible to get good images straight out of a digital camera IF the scene has the right contrast, you have made an accurate white balance, and your in-camera 'darkroom' is correctly set. I suggest not limiting yourself this way. I also suggest you be a little more careful with the attitude you express--saying at once. "I don't want to do darkroom work" and "Tell me how to improve" is self-defeating in the extreme.</p>

<p>Here is one of your images.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12713293-md.jpg" alt="" width="594" height="680" /></p>

<p>It is muddy, flat, soft and has a bit too much depth-of-field. I corrected this. Did I "invent" the image? No.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>That's co-incidental Les - I just did almost the same at the picture itself.<br>

WW</p>

[wogears]

<p>I'd certainly love to hear from the OP about now!</p>

[William Michael]

<p>:)</p>

<p>I am sure Tony will come back . . . he is probably out shooting at this very moment!</p>

<p>Also - I am going to pinch your "Fox Talbot" reference - I think that is a very nice quip to have up my sleeve.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[joewhite]

<p>Hi,<br>

Since the OP is MIA (temporarily, I hope), may I jump in? I am also very new to digital and have zero experience at PP, that's how new my camera is. Anyway, I really appreciate your comments and especially the editing of Tony's photo. It took me a while to see what the differences were (partially because I couldn't look at both photos simultaneously on my monitor), but when I did see them I got an "aha" moment.<br>

It's very difficult for this newbie to see what's wrong with a photo, which I hope experience will cure, I'm going to look for other examples.<br>

Thanks, guys!</p>

 

[jimmckinnon]

<p>Anthony, after reading your thoughts here, I've gone back and given some thoughts on one of your images. Not that my thoughts are that valuable. One of the great things i've discovered about critiquing is how much I learn by giving the effort to think about someone else's image.</p>

<p>I appreciate that you've taken the time to write a short note in your critique request. You might consider getting even more specific about what you wish to learn about any specific image you post. One of my personal pet peeves is when someone simply writes "Critique Please." If others are expected to take the time to offer up their thoughts, I think some effort at the request - whether an intro to the image or the gist of what the poster wishes to learn - is the least that can be offered up by the person making the request.</p>

[tony_santella]

<p>Sorry for the late response<br>

I had a bad day Someone forged one of my business checks and I spent the day opening and closing accounts and filing poice reports</p>

<p>I thank everyone for their responses<br>

they are all spot on<br>

I will explain the wave shot as that one was done with a little thought (wrong thought but thought)<br>

I was attempting to get the piling sharp and show the motion of the waves<br>

also looking to get the entire row of waves down the beach hence the f stop and slow ss<br>

I thought the recrop was ok you guys made it look better and showed me how and why</p>

<p> William yes thats my wife and niece taken before I started to try and really use the camera</p>

<p>while im not shy with advice I am with critique . I would hate to have a negative view on something that someone thought was a great work and me being a rank amature make a foolish comment</p>

<p>like the POW I think its over done , but many think its pleasing<br>

In the future I will engage more</p>

<p>In general its hard to carry and set up a tripod but in the end its necesary<br>

Most of those beach shots were taken enroute to my objective the light house so I guess they constitute snap shots. There were some good subjects that someone else would have spent time on<br>

the walk down the beach with a camera was a killer so in the end even the light house shots were rushed<br>

I leaned something from the pics I took on this trip and the trip I took to the aquarium and now from your critique<br>

if you want good photos plan good photos</p>

<p>take less shots and plan each shot<br>

you cant just go out and take a lot of shots and hope for a good one or 2 you have to plan your shots and not get distracted<br>

There is a pelican shot on the critique board in birds I think it came out nice<br>

the wings are cliped but the water and face are good any one want to take a look<br>

Thanks again everyones opinions are most helpful and will all be put to ,hopefully good use<br>

remember with me you cant be to kind or to harsh Tony</p>

 

[tony_santella]

<p>Les<br>

I never said I didnt want to do dark room work</p>

<p>I said" I am new at photograpy and not really interested in post processing at this time"</p>

<p>to clarify its hard learnng to take decent Photographs let alone learning how to use light room and photoshop at the same time<br>

I do feel at the end of the day I will most likely learn some post processing but feel that "my Style" wil be to use a minimal amount</p>

<p>right now I make minor adjustments in either the cannon software , lightroom and mostly picasa because I find it the easiest and most functional of the three<br>

I think lightroom maybe be the most powerfull of the three but im having a tough time figuring it out</p>

<p>Your comments are and will continue to be well recieved and appriciated the best comments are those that are accurate and truthfull and your were both</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"while im not shy with advice I am with critique. I would hate to have a negative view on something that someone thought was a great work and me being a rank amature make a foolish comment"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I always seek critique from people who are not Photographers - there are a great source of learning - I seek critique from people, who are photographers also, but I go out of my way to ask people who never use a camera to critique my work . . . the key is ask "Why?"</p>

<p>So, I invite you to play along with me here and pretend that you come across this in the critique section,<br />So I ask - "Please critique" <br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12766432-lg.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="1008" /></p>

<p>You think -<br />'Crikey this guy has a zillion posts here and I have read a few of his critiques where he has pulled some pictures to pieces on the Wedding thread - this picture of his must be good'</p>

<p>So you write:<br /><em>"Nice Photo - and thanks for commenting on my photo of the fisherman I will look up how to use Flash Fill"</em></p>

<p>Now whilst that is a nice comment for you to write - it is absolutely no use to me whatsoever and will not help me make a better picture next time.</p>

<p>BUT what if I were having a beer with you and I asked –<br />“Hey Tony – take a look at this picture and tell me two things you like about it and tell me two things you don’t like about it”<br />“oh and by the way if you could just give me one sentence as a reason for each like and each dislike.”<br />“Tony . . . those four reasons of yours will absolutely and definitely assist me be a better Photographer and make a better portrait tomorrow”</p>

<p>So - how would you answer that?<br />You would have no problem finding a couple of reasons as to WHY you like and dislike 2 bits of the photograph no matter how small or big those bits were.</p>

<p>That would be a valid and a most useful critique.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[tony_santella]

<p>I hear what you are saying and agree<br>

I will say that It would be easier had I never picked up a camera not that its impossible now just that perspective changes<br>

I will also say that in a bar one guy talking to another ,when one is a dentist and the other is a plumber its one thing here on a site called Photo.net its another matter<br>

At least in my mind<br>

I ask people unassociated with my business question about it all the time I take their answers one way<br>

I ask the same question to some one "inside" and take it another<br>

I think your points are valid<br>

views from others are valable on some level<br>

even mine</p>

<p>now on to the critique</p>

<p>love that you left it a bit slanded it adds to the whimsey of the picture</p>

<p>The over all composition is nice and I like that it dosent look worked</p>

<p>the bottle on the floor is a bit distracting<br>

and I do wish the guy was a little more to the right</p>

<p>over all a nice piece of work</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks for the critique.<br>

The bottle has come up a few times as distracting.<br>

Now what I learnt:</p>

<p><em>love that you left it </em><strong><em>a bit slanded </em></strong><em>it adds to the whimsey of the picture & The over all composition is nice and I like that </em><strong><em>it dosent look worked- </em></strong></p>

<p>I was happy that I captured the whimsical sense, which was the tone of the Portrait and used the natural light - this was picked up easily and noted by you - your comment confirmed that two main aims of the Portrait was completed at least for your viewing<br>

Adds to the consolidation of my view that Portraits can be taken with lenses of various Focal Lengths and I should continue making logical and informed argument against those “teachers” who tell newbies ”to get a ‘Portrait Lens’ like the ’nifty fifty’ - if they want to do portrait photography</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><em>And I do wish </em><strong><em>the guy was a little more to the right </em></strong><strong>–</strong> <br>

I learnt that my camera vantage point could have been improved – and I'll think about that. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[tony_santella]

<p>Guess that in this setting it doesnt come natural to me<br>

I will in the coming days and weeks do some critiques and hopefully be of value to somebody<br>

I my field and in my circle of friends it would be a little difficult to get more than 1 or 2 critiques of value without a little ribbing ,ok more than a little . Live feed back is a little harder for me<br>

So I hoped to reley on the net and mostly photo.net that section was what originaly drew me to the site. I will have to put some additional effort into building a circle of critiquers here<br>

As allways William your post and lessons are greatly appriciated , you are a natural born teacher<br>

Les your post was also most helpfull and I will refer to it often in the comming months<br>

Blunt honest critique is a very good teacher as well . Actually I have already taken some of your advice to heart The part about the pics being flat and muddy , I have always prefered darker more under exposed images but after seeing that in writting I noticed how flat they seemed I took a few portraits that I had taken and brightened them up they are not perfect but neither are they flat or muddy It made a huge difference</p>

<p> Actually every post made here and all the advice given was excellent and will be refered to often.<br>

I will be out today taking care of some business but will check on this thread over the next several days before fades away down the list<br>

So any additional thought projects or ideas will not go unnoticed<br>

Thanks Tony</p>

<div></div>

[tony_santella]

<p>Opps that large file is not the one I wanted to add</p>

<p>the hands block the face and it looks to me too cluttered<br>

This one is the one I wanted</p>

[dawnheath]

<p>As someone new to photography and definitely new to critiquing on photo.net, I really value this thread. William, I love your suggestion of providing two things that you like and two things that you'd like to see done differently. I've been trying to critique, and I find myself in a similar frame of mind as Anthony. Your suggestion will make it easier to critique others' photos and will hopefully help me learn more about photography at the same time. Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. It's very helpful to us newcomers...</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Yes, that is good.<br>

It is wrong to assume that one needs to be an expert to offer a "critique". <br>

A critique by an expert in the field will be a different manner of critique: but often will miss points which, for example, a child just grasps so readily.<br>

So I don't limit asking opinions of my work, to adults only, either.<br>

I stress I find it very important to ask "why?"</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[hjoseph7]

<p>If you could get your picture on the fron page of PN you are guaranteed a critique, otherwise your picture will probably be lost amongst alll the others. </p>

[tony_santella]

<p>Well heres the plan going fwd<br>

Everyones suggestions were so very helpfull its only fair that I take the advice that you folks took the time to write up and put it into practice.</p>

<p>Im going to try and do atleast one or 2 critique for others everyday<br>

and more over im not going to do the popular photos getting plenty of play</p>

<p>Im going to take Williams suggestions about picking a exercise every week and when possible posting 1st the xercise and then the results it here on PN</p>

<p>Im going to shoot longer and take less shots of fewer subjects in any given outing<br>

concentrating more on exposure and composition<br>

Im going to use light room a little more for PP</p>

<p>Im only going to limit my own request for critiqe to one or at most 2 photos per week</p>

<p>The only thing Im a little sad about is Les was asking if I was ever going to come back to this thread and when I did he disappeared. Shame hes critique gave me an interesting perspective on my shots and his manner was refreshing at least to me.</p>

<p> </p>

[tony_santella]

<p>I really dislike the fact that you cant go back and edit a post OH Well nothings perfect</p>

<p>Dawn If you are still following may I suggest that if its permissable on PN the we start a "circle" of members that critique each others work on a regular basis<br>

no rules or commitments</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Great discussion. I'd like to add something. Some of the most helpful critiques to me are ones that bypass the need to tell me what they like or dislike or how to "improve" my photo. What I try to do in critiquing and what I tend to appreciate is to talk about what I see and what I feel. Sometimes, hearing someone's genuine reaction (as opposed to their taste) is extremely helpful to help me know what I am putting out there. So, "this looks sad and ominous to me" can be a lot more helpful to me as a photographer than "I don't like this because it's too dark."</p>

<p>I think, especially for people relatively new to photography, it is hard to "critique" the work of others. But maybe it is more genuine and helpful to look carefully and talking in depth about what you are actually seeing. Also, a critique can ask questions: Why did you do this? How did you get this? I tend to see "critiquing" here on PN more as a dialogue than a review.</p>

<p>And, by the way, critique groups have been started in the past and they are perfectly OK.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Tony , . . . all of what Fred wrote: plus - <br>

Les might be on Holiday . . . who knows.<br>

People often just read here and do not necessarily comment, to everything. <br>

Also don't forget to critique your own work - that skill should be beginning to bud, just about now.<br>

<br>

WW</p>