amul

After spending entirely too many years in the studio, I actually brought my

camera outdoors again.

 

I would like critique on both shooting choices and my post-processing. I

encourage you to talk about what choices you would make instead of

mine.

Your composition is good, and the lighting is fine, although I would have put a reflector beneath the camera to reflect a little more light into the shadows.

 

I also think your contrast is a bit soft.

Nice Work!

Nice work! I might have dodged her face a little more to even out the skin tone balance.

A fairly well-produced image, but the facial expression conveys little. Wait for your shot!

I like it.

Candid shot between poses during an informal sitting. I feel that

there is a larger sense of story in this image than in most of my

work, that I would like to emphasis in the future. Particularly

interested in comments regarding what contributes to the sense of time

in this image.

background needs to be darker, although the foreground image is well balanced.

I have a hard time critiquing these nature shots, but I guess the composition is good. The color and lighting is certainly effective.

nice effect, but I wish there was more to the background.

interesting lighting choices. I think they work quite well. The choice to crop out part of the tool on the right seems questionable.

Nice composition, but you've lost all shadow detail.

please restrict your image sizes to the photo net guidelines (http://www.photo.net/frequent-questions#size), because I cannot properly view your entire picture when it is so large, much less properly critique it.

nice candid. if you could push the exposure open a little more, it'd separate the two central back figures more distinctly. Right now you've got a "bunny ears" effect going with this guy's entire head.

choice of cropping is unusual, and I can find no readily apparent reason for it. Lack of details in background. Maybe my monitor is just dim?

While I understand that there are certain effects that can be achieved by including text in a traditionally text-less medium, I think that photographing words is kind of a cop out. Especially when there's no visual elements besides the words and background, nothing to interact with the words.

 

Even ignoring all that, your use of depth of field fails to be appropriately selective. If only one whole word, or the entire message had been in focus, then it could be viewed as a choice. The message here seems to be one entirely of accident and distraction.

very nice. I can't imagine how you'd be able to get this any better without scaring the bird away.

nice capture, but I wish you could have isolated the critter a little more, maybe with DoF

good compensation and exposure. Coloration is weird, but I guess that's the point, huh?

 

I'm not particularly good at these unmanipulated photo critiques. How can I give you criticism that will help you improve?

Please limit yourself to 800 pixels in the long dimension as requested by photonet, it is difficult for me to judge the picture when I cannot look at all of it.

 

Needs more contrast.

I have difficulty believing you photographed this. I think it more likely this is a photoshopping of other people's works. If not, please tell me and I will change my rating.

could use more contrast. What's up with the bottom of the image?

flat lighting, needs slight cropping on the left, background distracting. Also, the face could be air brushed a little.

as far as basic composition goes, this is decent. you're obeying the rule of thirds, but the lines lead the eye away from the focus of the picture, which does create a nice sense of infinity. I'd like to see more black, or more color in general. Instead of shooting in the dead of night, try sunrise or sunset. For great examples of what a prolonged exposure during sunrise can do, check out Richard van Hoesel , http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=59907

transformation into a B&W image is not simply a matter of removing the color data. Your contrast range remains unedited, leaving this picture bland and 2-dimensional.