marc_rochkind

Given that you can't do anything about the hand at this point, you can at least prevent the eye from going there as quickly by toning down the white of the pages on the music stand. Same for the white under his left arm, and the white at the extreme right.

Considering this one in two ways: 1. For its meaning: Can't say much, as its meaning isn't clear. But, high marks for weirdness! 2. As a photograph: Out of focus chair, totally blank sky, distracting car. However, perhaps all three are essential for #1. Don't know!

You couldn't be more right! Next trip maybe. Someone else asked where the photo was taken. Frederiksborg Castle in Denmark.

I don't agree with hjoseph7 on the title, which I never consider when critiquing a photo. But, anyway:It makes no sense to leave a scooter where this one is. Too remote! 😉

This really works! All I could suggest is to bring out the contrast in the sky a bit more, since the sky takes up so much space. You can't crop the top at all, because of the important element of the second pole from the left, which echoes the scooter. One more very minor thing: There are a few white elements in the buildings in the background that could be toned down so as not to attract the eye. Great shot!

You've captured the subject well enough (funny, ironic, etc.), but as a photograph I don't see much here. Irony could be the subject of a worthwhile photograph, but I think it would have to be visual, not verbal.

I didn't say too much sky!

The foreground works. However, the sky is 2/3 of the shot and, while the clouds are interesting, they are not show-stopping interesting, which is needed, in my view, to make this an outstanding photo. As it is, it's good, not great. There might be more in the sky... I'd explore some of the post-processing options to see what. (I'd take it into Topaz Studio, for example, just to experiment.)

The question I would ask myself were this one mine is: What is this photograph about, or what do I want it to be about? My answer would be the shape of the branch, and the way it surrounds the rock, which has its own interesting pattern. With B&W, you can make the photo about THAT, which you have done. Great job accenting the branch and the pattern on the rock with contrast, and making everything else recede! THAT is why we go to B&W (unless the shot was visualized that way from the start). (An equally correct, but different answer is: This photograph is about the colorful rocks. In that case, the path I would take in processing would be completely different.) Marc

In a way, I suppose this image works -- along the lines suggested by the previous posters. But, for me, the potentially interesting wall with vines is so dark and so lacking in contrast that I can't really appreciate it. Also, I think there might be more going on in the sky that I can see with this processing. I'm not suggesting an extreme change -- the moodiness still should be there. And I can't say for sure that another way of processing the image would lead to good results. One could tell only by actually doing it.

A fine shot! Experimentally, crop out the guy at the right, and a corresponding amount on the left. The first is distracting, and the second is irrelevant. Maybe also from the bottom if you need that to maintain a less vertical dimension. But not too much from the bottom.

Yeah! Like that. Tough call where to place the crop on the top. Yours certainly works. Can you lighten the part under the canopy, especially the person (mail carrier?)?

I think #2 has promise with the right cropping. Maybe to the right of the No Parking sign at the left, and then open up the shadows. It then is probably too vertical, so I'm not sure what then. Experiment!

The subject here is military, not fashion, family, wedding, etc.

By the early 1970s, medium format would have been unnecessary because 35mm film was very good, either Tri-X or Ektachrome. (Maybe Kodachrome wouldn't have been a good choice because it couldn't have been processed in the field.) There were no suitable medium format cameras. A Nikon F would have been the most rugged camera available, save maybe a Leica. But what worked for photojournalists surely would have worked for military purposes.

A few things, not all of which you can change at this point: 1. Unfortunate that the branches hang so low at the top. Would have been better if the light and top of the arch were more visible. 2. Bright opening at the left is distracting. Experiment with cropping just to the left of the drainpipe. 3. If the image data can support it (that is, if you shot in raw), do some work in post to bring out the pattern and texture of the stones on the ground. 4. The drainpipe is an unfortunate element. Not too bad, though. Maybe it could be toned down a little. 5. Make the structure brighter, and tone down the bright background that you can see through the arch. I think the giraffe stonework is the most interesting element here.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, @William Michael! I did as a teenager work in a wet darkroom, but nothing there informed my current post processing. I have put a lot of effort into learning digital B&W. The best book on the subject I've found is Creative Black & White by Harold Davis. The image was shot in raw, processed some in Lightroom, then in Silver Efex Pro, then a bit in Photoshop. A lot is lost in the PN reproduction. I was disappointed to see the image here compared to on my monitor at home. That structure is a WWII bunker. Those still dot the beach at Skagen. I wish I could say I set up the shot. In fact, it was a quick snap as we were driving our car a bit on the beach (which is allowed). This is why I always shoot raw and always with what I call a "real camera," not a phone. I might experiment with lopping off the top of the bunker and replacing it with water and sky.

Absolutely go with what you see as the image you want! Anything I say is just an idea. An alternative that also de-emphasizes the house is to tone it down. I don't know what you use in post, but I do this very often in Lightroom, which makes it very easy to put a mask on an object such as this.

@pavel_l.: What composition rule?

The question here is what to do about the lion in post. What I'm showing is in the middle of the range. I emphasized it a little. I could leave it as is (same tonality as the rest of the structure). Or, I could color it. How far would you go? The 1st image is what I went with a few weeks ago when I worked on this. The 2nd and 3rd are with less and more emphasis. (This sort of modification is extremely to do non-destructively in Lightroom, as I have a mask on the lion.)

Ask yourself, "What is this image about?" For me, it's about the rods and the shiny couplings. You can do a lot in post. Get rid of the extraneous stuff on the right and really bring up the couplings. The brightness of the brick in the center is a serious problem. With a lot of work, you can isolate it and tone it down. With the couplings emphasized, you also have to tone down the bright leaves at the top.

I'd take the first one, not the other two. Take it to B&W (the leaves aren't big or bright enough). Then process it for max dramatic effect. This is actually a very promising shot!

The image doesn't have enough going for it. The sky is blank and the foreground is uninteresting. The mountains are a little interesting, but no different really than a zillion other shots of mountains. I should add that making a landscape such as this work is very, very difficult, because of the complete lack of drama in the scene.

As a memory (vacation snapshot) or documentation of a stage set, it probably does what you want, but as a photo the problem is that there are two photos here. There are two pairs of people, but I can't see how the pairs are connected other than being in the same scene and in clothing of a similar era. The women don't quite work because we don't see both faces, so we aren't privy to their conversation. The men are less interesting, but much better composed.

Really promising. The pattern of the windows at the upper right is interesting, if abbreviated. This image is really about the oval of the stairs framing the plaza below. So, I'd crop the top out. I tried this with a card and it really made for a much stronger image. @Marv Thompsonhas a crop along these lines, but I wouldn't go as far as he did. You still, I think, want the outer outline of the stairs.