jersey_emt

The lighthouse in Cape May, NJ

Cape May Point Lighthouse in Cape May, NJ

 

Canon Digital Rebel and Canon 28mm f/2.8 lens. Handheld late in the

afternoon. Slightly cropped to match aspect ratio for an 8x10" print.

Would have been much better without the distracting shadows/whatever those black lines are. Other than that it's an excellent photograph.

Cape May Point Lighthouse in Cape May, NJ.

 

Canon Digital Rebel, Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 lens, handheld. RAW file

converted to black & white via Photoshop, cropped to 8x10 friendly

dimensions

Hmm...looked at this photo on my monitor at home (was at work before) and now it looks like haze is the problem rather than overexposure. I still believe that shooting on an overcast day would improve the balance between close and far objects.

 

Sorry if my previous post caused confusion.

Wonderful composition. The trees frame the waterfall perfectly. Good use of a slow shutter speed to blur the waterfall.

 

But...

 

The waterfall and the area around it is slightly overexposed and looks washed out. Look at the difference in color and contrast between the foliage framing the waterfall, and the waterfall itself.

 

To fix this, wait until there's an overcast day. This will compress the contrast of the entire scene and allow you to get a perfect exposure on both the foliage and the waterfall. Don't change the composition one bit though.

Wonderful composition and color.

Great lighting, great exposure. Something just seems missing. There really isn't anything in the foreground to catch the viewer's attention. The road on the left hand side doesn't lead to anything.

 

To improve, I would add a foreground object, and/or bring the road in the left corner closer to the center, so the viewer's eye is drawn into the scene by the winding road.

 

5/6

It really is amazing how dead NJ shore towns are during the off-season. Two months from now this shot would be impossible without hundreds of people milling around.

 

About the photo, exposure is good. But I'm not too sure what you were trying to do with the composition. If you were trying to show just how deserted this place can be, I would suggest waiting for some more dramatic lighting, (sunrise or sunset is almost always great) reshooting in black and white, and making sure more of the boardwalk is visible. Step back some, and move a little to the left. This way you'd still get the entire "Seaside Heights NJ" painted mural, and you'd also get a good view of the empty boardwalk.

The star effect seen is the result of using a small aperture (f/22) for a long exposure (60 sec). I'm pretty sure that diffraction causes this, but don't hold me to it.

 

You can sort of see this effect if you squint your eyes while looking at a bright light at night. While you won't get a perfect, symmetrical halo, you will see some of the same effect.

Here's a cropped version:

http://www.tcnj.edu/~franks2/cropped.jpg

I think it works a lot better this way.

I like the composition, but there's a few things I would change.

 

First, I think some more contrast would make this shot more dramatic. There's not too much black in the image (only directly underneath the lip on each step).

 

Second, the upper right corner is too bright. Burning in would probably help a lot.

Any comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

The picture is tilted quite a bit. If you look at the buildings on the right-hand side, they are clearly not parallel with the vertical edge of the photo.

 

The star-like moon is a result of using a small aperture combined with a long exposure. For some reason unknown to me, point light sources get this effect under those conditions. Even though the moon is a very large object, its distance from earth makes it effectively a point light source.

 

If you want to get rid of this, and have a normal moon, the easiest way to do so would be a double exposure. Retake the same shot on a moonless night (or when the moon is in another part of the sky), and then make a second exposure of the moon alone.

 

Another way to minimize this (probably won't completely get rid of it) is to use a larger aperture, and hence, a shorter shutter speed. You don't have to be all that concerned about depth of field, since everything is effectively at infinity. Be aware that lens sharpness wide open is not as good as stopped down a bit. For your lens, f/4 or f/5.6 would probably give satisfactory results.

Interesting take on a simple object. The strange angle makes for a dynamic composition. Exposure is great.

 

My only problem is the vignetting on the top. I'm guessing you were at the 24mm end of your zoom...and the polarizer was too thick. Maybe getting a slim polarizer would help.

 

All in all, great job :)

Wonderful, wonderful photo. Exposure is great, colors are vivid. The horizon is tilted just slightly. Also, it looks as if the branches in the very foreground are out of focus...however this is probably due to JPEG compression, or maybe wind (nothing you can do about it). Personally, I don't think the branches add any to the composition...I would crop them out next time.

I agree with the advice of the previous poster: Use a slow-sync flash. This way the background will be properly exposed. Or maybe not even use flash at all...the reflective decals on the side of emergency vehicles work very well, and that is why the lettering is so bright.

 

Of course, you really need a tripod to do this shot correctly (shutter speed would definitely be below hand-holdable unless using ultra-high speed film).

 

I'm guessing that you didn't have a tripod handy at the moment. I rarely do when in NYC either (don't need any unnecessary attention).

Great composition, great angle.

 

But the lighting is flat. If you ever go back to that same spot, try shooting it closer to sunrise/sunset...it would help a lot :)

It does look like a painting.

 

I agree with the last comment about the contrast. The photo looks a little washed out...upping the contrast might help a bit.

The colors here are simply amazing. Waiting for the "Golden Hour" here surely paid off. The fact that the flowers are cut off at the bottom is a mere technical detail that can (and should) be easily overlooked. The beauty of the subject, plus the interesting angle, makes this a wonderful piece.

Taken at Philadelphia State Hospital at Byberry.

 

Nikon FE, 50mm f/1.8 lens, Tri-X, tripod.

 

Printed on Ilford Multigrade paper @ 3.0 contrast.

This is in response to the previous critic's comment on photo manipulation.

 

1. This photo is not a Photograph of the Week. It is a photo placed under the "Critique" section.

 

2. Since when is photo manipulation not photography?

 

3. Graphic design and photo manipulation are two completely different types of art.

 

Digital manipulation of conventional photographs is indeed photography, and it is indeed art. You start with an already note-worthy photograph, and manipulate and "tweak" it even more to get the effect you desired. If you bothered to read the details on the photo, you would see it was taken with color negative film. It isn't even a digital original! And even if it was taken with a digital camera, it still would be photography. Times have changed, and I hope you will be able to broaden your horizons in the future. Don't be afraid of something simply because it is different.

 

By the way, just for the record, I shoot with manual camera: a Nikon FE.

Almost looks a bit fake. Where is the shadow of the horse and rider?

 

Was this photo doctored in any way?

Wonderful! Just one improvement I can think of. Have the white stripe go directly over her left (viewer's right) eye instead of on top of it.