Request critique

[satya_v_rao]

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Nice scene, looks good, but I would lose the framing or at least the inside edge.

[dcstep]

Over sharpened and over saturated.

Nice action and decent composition. I'd crop out some of the right side stuff, unrelated to the action.

[samstevens]

16 minutes ago, dcstep said:

Over sharpened and over saturated.

+1. Turns a very natural, sweet scene into a very unnatural, almost comic book, illustration.

[mikemorrellNL]

I really like your composition and timing as it is. There are three people (a triangle) who interact with each other to accomplish a common task (casting a net). I like the easy and friendly way in the way these people interact with each other. There's obviously a good personal relationship between them.

Photographically (to me) the way you've captured the net is two things at once. The fine, flowing structure of the (white) supports and the almost transparent flowing structure of the net create (for me) a 'magical' structure. At the same time, the lower edge of the net where it hits the water, suggests 'action, dynamic, real-time'.

I personally think that this is a truly wonderful photo in that it combines both the well-composed 'human interaction' with the 'magical' and 'action' qualities of the net.

It's colorful so that both the boats and the people stand out well against the yellow/brown background.

I agree with @httpwww.photo.netbarry that the inside (blue/purple) inside edge to the frame doesn't add anything to the photo and IMHO detracts from it.

There have been some comments on sharpness and saturation but IMHO these are entirely up to you. Just play around with the levels of sharpness and saturation to see whether you prefer a different balance to this one or not. IHMO, the qualities of this photo in terms of composition and timing are well worth the time and effort of further 'tinkering'! I'm aware of some (past?) geographical and cultural differences regarding the 'presentation' of photos. Including saturation and sharpness levels. Some cultures seem to prefer 'bold (saturated) colors', others more subdued/natural (less saturated) colors. Your choice.

Leaving aside the questions of sharpness/saturation in post-processing, I really love this photo for all the reasons given above. Congratulations!

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

I've read that there are 'geographical and cultural preferences' for how 'good photos' should look. I have a vage mem

Edited February 23, 2023 by mikemorrellNL

[dcstep]

2 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

...

I agree with @httpwww.photo.netbarry that the inside (blue/purple) inside edge to the frame doesn't add anything to the photo and IMHO detracts from it.

There have been some comments on sharpness and saturation but IMHO these are entirely up to you. Just play around with the levels of sharpness and saturation to see whether you prefer a different balance to this one or not. IHMO, the qualities of this photo in terms of composition and timing are well worth the time and effort of further 'tinkering'! I'm aware of some (past?) geographical and cultural differences regarding the 'presentation' of photos. Including saturation and sharpness levels. Some cultures seem to prefer 'bold (saturated) colors', others more subdued/natural (less saturated) colors. Your choice.

Leaving aside the questions of sharpness/saturation in post-processing, I really love this photo for all the reasons given above. Congratulations!

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

I've read that there are 'geographical and cultural preferences' for how 'good photos' should look. I have a vage mem

When I clearly see artifacts in an image that are due to processing "errors" I think that the person that processed the image is not aware that they've gone too far and their image has faults that will clearly show to everyone if the image were printed large. I think it's probably happening because the photographer is going through a "phase" and doesn't realize the damage that's done. It's not unlike a horizon be off by 10-degrees, which often happens to newbies that don't realize that they've made an error. We DO have a couple of guys that habitually ruin (IMO) their images with over sharpening and over saturation.

I used to go too far the other way, trying to make my images totally "realistic". After printing and trying to sell a few prints and comparing my images to those that we selling, I realized that some degree of extra saturation is applauded by the print buying public, so I started saturating my stuff more than I used to. I do a lot of feathers and fur shooting, so I want details to show, BUT I know that I have to stop short of artifacts showing in the finished product, of creating a cartoon.

I'm guessing that our OP was oblivious to these issues, as are many photographers as they slog through the journey of developing their "look." If not, then that's his choice and I'll just say that I don't like it and it ruined an otherwise wonderful, high potential shot.

[samstevens]

9 minutes ago, dcstep said:

I used to go too far the other way, trying to make my images totally "realistic". After printing and trying to sell a few prints and comparing my images to those that we selling, I realized that some degree of extra saturation is applauded by the print buying public, so I started saturating my stuff more than I used to.

Thanks for this post. Each of us will find our own balance (or imbalance). You've done a good job of describing that state of too much / not enough. I don't sell prints so don't gear myself toward a buying public but I do try to be aware that viewers will be seeing my work and try to adopt a viewer's eye as well as a photographer's when processing my photos. 

Early on, a mentor I trusted helped me find my own way toward weighing what's not enough and what's too much. My early tendency was toward too much but, in moderating and modulating that tendency, I sometimes didn't push myself enough to commit to the way I was processing. Committing to my vision became an important guiding light to me and was something very different from overdoing it or screaming it at the top of my lungs. The alternative to overdoing isn't necessarily even subtlety. It can be boldness. But boldness is different from harshness. Sometimes even harsh is appropriate. But the harshness will usually have a visual and an emotional component and a contextual and often content-driven reason for being appropriate.

[mikemorrellNL]

My thanks for this post too. And for @samstevens's reply. I see what you mean. I tend not to notice artifacts but I found this 15 minute Youtube video on 'over-editing' (and artifacts) helpful.

13 hours ago, dcstep said:

When I clearly see artifacts in an image that are due to processing "errors" I think that the person that processed the image is not aware that they've gone too far and their image has faults that will clearly show to everyone if the image were printed large. I think it's probably happening because the photographer is going through a "phase" and doesn't realize the damage that's done. It's not unlike a horizon be off by 10-degrees, which often happens to newbies that don't realize that they've made an error. We DO have a couple of guys that habitually ruin (IMO) their images with over sharpening and over saturation.

...

 

[michael_kucinich]

Well composed. Captures the decisive moment. Good work!

[AlanKlein]

Nice shot.  Very interesting,  Not something we see around here in New Jersey.  The black like outside border is OK but I find the colored inside border distracting. 

[dcstep]

On 2/23/2023 at 2:23 PM, samstevens said:

Thanks for this post. Each of us will find our own balance (or imbalance). You've done a good job of describing that state of too much / not enough. I don't sell prints so don't gear myself toward a buying public but I do try to be aware that viewers will be seeing my work and try to adopt a viewer's eye as well as a photographer's when processing my photos. 

Early on, a mentor I trusted helped me find my own way toward weighing what's not enough and what's too much. My early tendency was toward too much but, in moderating and modulating that tendency, I sometimes didn't push myself enough to commit to the way I was processing. Committing to my vision became an important guiding light to me and was something very different from overdoing it or screaming it at the top of my lungs. The alternative to overdoing isn't necessarily even subtlety. It can be boldness. But boldness is different from harshness. Sometimes even harsh is appropriate. But the harshness will usually have a visual and an emotional component and a contextual and often content-driven reason for being appropriate.

Great post. Finding our voice is hard. Sam was lucky to have a mentor. My mentor was seeing prints in galleries, talking to professional photographer/printers, etc. Most newbies are not as lucky as Sam and me. I think that this Forum is here for just exactly that reason. I'm wondering what our OP thinks. I hope he knows that the critique has been in the spirit of mentoring less experienced photographers.

Edited February 25, 2023 by dcstep