amy_hoy

These tulips were one of my first macro shots using my "new" Tamron SP 90. I

shot this in natural light from my 9th floor bedroom, and the blue background

is a pillow from my sofa. I am very pleased with the lens' technical qualities,

but whether my pictures appeal to others aesthetically is a different matter.

Please let me know if you like this picture, and/or what I can do to improve.

Is greater than two in the bush? :) This picture is of David, of the

large hands, holding a small redbellied newt that we found while

on a hike. Mr. Newt has been featured in another, lesser

photograph in my gallery. This is a picture from one of the first

rolls I ever shot through a manual camera (Pentax K1000,

Pentax 50mm 2.8 lens). Comments appreciated!

This shot could use some cropping or "focusing" of the subject. Obviously the center of interest is the beautifully lit arch and the awesome contrast of its gold color vs the blue sky. A lot of the stuff in the right half is just distracting and moves the eye away because it's dark. I think either this pic needs to be cropped to more of a vertical or the stuff on the right dodged significantly so it's no longer so distracting to the eye. Then the picture will be perfect. :)

Move your baby close to a window or other source of natural light; if it's harsh and very bright, put a white curtain or sheet in front of it. Natural light that is soft or diffused by a sheet is beautiful and much more flattering to anyone, including little babies.

 

I think that you will find that your camera will limit your ability to get artistic, as you can't really control much. But just axing the flash can improve your photos significantly. If you are still interested in learning more, you might want to pick up some books from the library and an old all-manual camera like a Nikon. (The good thing about old Nikons is lens compatibility with almost all of their new lenses, and vice versa with new bodies; old Canons are not compatible with the new models, so the bodies and lenses can be cheaper, on the other hand.)

... and the color now becomes the main aspect of this picture, distracting us from the little boy. I think you either need to color the whole thing or at least his whole body, or use a single tone (maybe blue) for the clothing you will color. Otherwise it's just too distracting.

It takes a long time for the eye to drag down to the center of interest. I would crop halfway between the horizontal beam (or whatever it is) and the top. Or maybe crop at the beam. Cropping is a good thing if you can bring yourself to do it.

It seems to me that this picture has an abbreviated tonal range. I'm not seeing nay real highlights and the shade of the rose seems muddy - 18% gray in fact. Did you meter it with your in-camera meter? If so, then it is no surprise. Overexposing a bit would probably help.

Yes there is something wrong with you. But it still makes a good picture. Just remember: stick with the things that have exoskeletons.

We can't all have feminine hands. I think the location you picked was great; without the statue, it would have been "just another pair of hands" picture.

I would classify this photo as "over-exposed," "awkward," and "amateurish." Rule #1 of portrait photography is do not pose the model so a roll of fat appears that is not normally visible. Rule #2 is don't overexpose unless you're skilled in high-key portraits. And rule #3 is don't let the clothing be so distractingly different in terms of the shades it is rendered in.

I think this picture is a great departure from the norm. The only thing I would do to improve this portrait is to remove the little dots around his eyes and on his cheek. I can't tell if these were added during scanning or if they're on his face/the photo, but they're very distracting. There are tons of places that can offer inexpensive negative retouching which will be permanent, that's something you may wish to look into if those dots are on the original.

Thanks, I will be taking your advice(s) and cropping the pic next time. :)

The look on the little girl's face is great. I think that the kids could've used some sort of fill light though, they're sort of 18% grey like everything else. You can adjust the brightness and contrast in Photoshop if you don't have a darkroom to do it by hand in.

A very nice departure from the norm. The light's great and so is her expression. The only thing I'd do to change it is lighten her lower arm a bit, it seems odd that it's so dark next to the bright highlights on the shirt it's touching.

I think the whole burnt-out-face thing is actually very artistic. It also hides any unfortunate blemishes, flattering just about anyone. The only negative thing I have to say about this is that because of the shadow between her lips, she appears to be pouting. A smile would have fixed that though.

"Other than the distracting background, poor cropping, and less than perfect focus...are there any comments to this?" Yes... it's "preying" mantis. And even an interesting subject cannot conquer all of those flaws.

None of it appears to be in focus, not even the water highlights. You probably moved the camera when it was exposing its CCD, introducing blur.

Lovely! I don't think I'd change a thing.

What's missing? In a word, visual contrast. This would have been an excellent place to use a graduated filter to make either the sky or the water a somewhat different color. The long exposure is what lets you get everything in the shot but the motion-blurred water makes it hard to figure out what exactly it is, what is going on, and so forth. I think it's attractive and has a lot of potential but the lack of visual contrast dooms this one to the "Almost Made It" folder.

Michael, this looks like your regular house fly and not a dragonfly. Regardless their eyes are multi-faceted so I don't think you could get what we generally consider a reflection.

 

I personally think this is a gorgeous picture. I mean, I hate flies, but I don't find this picture gross at all. I love the color contrast, it makes t cheery.

Pikachu is far too dark. I tend to agree this image doesn't have a wide appeal but no one says it has to. :)

I think the girl's pose is great. She does indeed look like she is waiting for her love. I don't know if it's good or bad that the guy looks like he's fooling around as opposed to riding that way on a white horse! It maybe turns her pose of longing into something that might be closer to exasperation. In any event, whether you prefer the guy there or not (even I can't decide), both people need to be lightened (or everything else darkened) because they really don't stand out from the background.

Shannon, no one "incorporated" the tree into the fence. It grew around it. Silly.

 

I think this is a really neat picture. The only thing I would change is, if possible, reduce the depth of field a bit more to blur the houses more. I think now they're a bit too well-defined, at least they distract me.

I have to say that I think a sharper lens would have improved this shot immensely, because it is not what I'd call sharp. It could be scanning but I think that the problem at least begins with your Vivitar lens. Unfortunately good lenses are expensive. Such is life. (On the flip side, I love the angle & composition though a little tighter crop would make it better in my mind.)

I like the concept of this picture a lot, and it's obviously very high quality... BUT I really think the nose of the beast has to be shown for it to be immediately clear what animal it is. You didn't take a vertical shot by any chance, did you?