r_johnston

Really like your BW in this image.  Contrast of the smooth lines of the car set off the rough harder lines in the barn along with the combination of textures.  Like the cropping, in close to emphasize the subject eliminating things which might compete for attention. Very good full tonal range from zone 1-10. 

You might try cropping this a bit.  Maybe a half inch or more off the top and as much as just about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch above the barn.... cutting out all of the sky.   It really make is POP then.  The line of the fence, the slope of the hill add a triangular shape complimentary to the triangle created by the roofs in the barn. It also brings out the flag on the barn, without all the distracting lines of the trees leading to the blah sky. That sky does not add anything important to the image but feel the barn on the center line reduces the impact. 

Just because there are standard frames, we do not have to stick to them.  One main reason for Mats, is to allow any shape image, to fit into the standard size frames.  This allows for any cropping which improves the image.

Nice colors, however a bit of increase in contrast and a little darker believe would for make richer in colors.  Photography is a "representation" of the scene in landscapes. Journalists must represent images as close as possible to reality.  As it is not possible to show scenes exactly, we can use artistic creativity to show them at their best or the way we see them in our mind.  And bring out the very best or potential of the scene.  Ansel Adams said, "Over 85% of my images are created in the darkroom."  Photoshop and/or Lightroom are the Modern equivalents of the darkroom.  But, are easier or faster and less expensive.

With them, we can emphasize what we feel are the most important elements of an image.  With composition, placing the most important elements in the place where it will put maximum attention on that element.  You have done this with several areas of the image.  But as the lighting is flat across the image, without emphasis on any particular area it does not have the punch it could have.  There is no place to attract the eye or hold it.

Good opportunity, just wish the nose was in focus.  Stopping down the lens may be possible, as turtles move so slowly a fast shutter speed is not needed.

 

Due to short depth of field, it really does not look like a "couple" more like a street photo, where the woman was a passerby.  Cant see any link that would make them a "Couple."

Good portrait of a cat, with a nice sharp focus upon the eyes.  Only suggestion would be a crop, especially of the left side, and a bit on the right.  Though cameras today seem to be framed more for landscapes, or to fit a TV or Computer screen, there is no need to leave the entire frame.   One eye is almost in the center of the image, cropping it so the center line is between the eyes would give it a bit more punch so it would really POP... and taking maybe a half inch or slightly less off the right side would really make this stand out...  Good work with a subject that is often difficult to capture.

Looked at larger version and the same things bother me.   First, no real center of focus in the image. Second a lack of detail in areas of snow or ice which could contain detail.  The leaves appear out of focus or blurred when one of them could be a focus point.  It could be this is handheld at too low a shutter speed, so it has a lack of sharpness that could hold the eye.  Too much of interest, so my eye keeps looking for a stopping point to focus upon.  In the area which seems to catch the eye, is a black void without anything to look at.  Cropping could create an image with more interest, getting in close to make one point you wish people to notice more than all else.  Just because cameras have a certain shape to the field, is no reason we have to print the entire image.  Many times Ive cropped horizontals into verticals or squares and other shapes to focus attention.  Other times darkening boarders or all but a circle or oval, etc to call attention to a point of interest.

Good display of a blossom, darkening the background to eliminate distractions.  Planning the lead in of green to lead the eye to the flower and the lines of the flower draw the eye into the center.

 

Like the range of zones included in this image.  Since most cameras now included automatic metering, have been seeing a lot of color and black and white with blah ranges in dark tones.  Either many do not know how to use a meter to control zones or they rely too much on them and include too much detail in blacks... Losing all the impact of a real black in the image.

A beautiful shot, which can be improved.  Understanding that opinions are based upon personal taste, so they may or not be what you are looking for.   Personally love "Red Rock Country" and the subtle background which puts the plant in perspective.  However growing up before and during the age of direct positives, my personal taste tends to like strong colors and contrast more.  So feel that the plant with flowers would be enhanced by capturing it, and adjusting contrast for more POP...  That would separate it a bit more from the rest of the image, making for a stronger composition or impact.

Many who have grown up during the age of automatic metering on all camera's, tend to have images that all have the "same" contrast or look and are missing zone 0 or even 1 and zone 10, which make a world of difference.  If not familiar with the zones, you can do a search on the Internet.  There is free instruction about using the zone system with digital cameras.

When shooting landscapes using film, have always used a polarizing filter and even sometimes added a UV filter with heavy haze. (Especially in the Grand Canyon)  It really brings out the Red Rock Country images and cuts through the haze.  With the advent of digital and Photoshop post processing, many feel filters are no longer needed.  But, many are missing better images,  by not using filters to get the best image possible _before_ post processing.  This results in a better image after processing.

 

Not a critique, like all kinds of sunsets and will go way outta my way to catch them.  You wished you had caught him going into the photo, well, many times it happens to me.  In Photoshop have made two copies of the original. Flipped one of them over horizontally.  Then, used the Healing brush to capture the subject, in the other, and pasted it into the one which Id flipped.  Then, flipped it again and had it facing the other way.   In an image such as this, think it would work with the water hiding or blended with the edges.  If you plan ahead, the lines in the water could match close enough so it would not be noticeable.

 

Perfection, is a fools errand at best, so is not my goal. My goal is to do the best that its possible for me on any given day. What was perfect for me in the 30's, is far from what is perfect for me today. Next week, month, year, decade will be different then, but, what I did today is still perfect for that moment in time.... Likewise, have never looked for perfection in the work of others.
Psychologists say, "denigrating the work of others is done only to make us feel better about our own abilities." Pointing out things which could be better, in my opinion is only justified if we _teach_ others at the same time HOW to make those changes.
Otherwise we waste their time or ours and that of others.... Experience in 74 years of photography, has shown me that lifting others up to our levels, is a very self satisfying act.
My only comment, is that I enjoyed the first example more than the second one.

 

Actually like it quite a bit.  If you have Lightroom,Brightening up the water a bit, could make more reflections stand out and add detail to the water. That would make some of the lights too bright, but then using the Recovery slider can bring them back. It would also show more of the John Hancock Building reflection in the water.

Now, you are really making me homesick for Boston...

Havent been here for too many years. 

This could definitely be helped a bit, by playing with a copy of this image.  Using Lightroom, Fill In, brightness/contrast, etc Sliders or in PS by adjusting the Histogram, Highlight, Midtone, and shadow Levels.  You could play with it to see what changes you like.  Now living in CA for decades, even though a lot of the Buildings are new to me, it brings back memories of Sailing on the Charles River.  Belonged to the Community Sailing Assn for many years.... 

Love this, it proves what Ive always said, that the "Rule of thirds" is really only a suggestion. And the subject should be what controls composition.

Your work is very interesting... Reminds me of Photos my Great Aunt used to take when teaching me photography in the early 1930's... BW, but then she used to color them a bit, with soft pastel colors. Also of pen and ink drawings my Aunt in California used to make.

 

Realizing with a slow exposure it would be difficult to get the horses sharper. However there is a program called Focus Magic on the Internet, which could sharpen them a little if you wish. If I remember correctly there is a demo available at: http://www.focusmagic.com/

 

You could try it to see if you like it. Believe you can control the amount of change, so could leave some blurring to show motion, like in the legs...

Overall this seem soft or out of focus, and it could be the lens you are using or camera movement. Lacking in contrast it has no sparkle, due to flat lighting but it could be imoroved in an editor.

 

It also may be made more interesting if flipped horizontally as lines leading from left to right have more impact in an image.

Beautiful. . . . .

 

Excellent composition, just the scene my wife would love to paint.

 

The dock and lights lead your eye into the image. The line of the horizon is not exactly centered, and the light in the sky is dramatic. The clouds on the right dark enough so the light does not lead the eye out of the image. You have just enough highlight reflection in the water, to lead the eye back to the shoreline, then waited for the wave to break just right so it leads the eye back to the dock. The composition keeps my eye going around, and around, and around, each time noticing more of the details. The water looks fluid, and moving, with subtle highlights from the sky.

Another person commented they would like to see less land, and more sky. Realizing you could not get the flowers in, and the rainbow, without including the land. But I agree. This could make two separate pictures, and I believe both would benefit. Copping in close on the flowers, covering the grass above the top ones, it makes them jump right out at you in a horizontal composition. They almost look like "carrots" growing upside down. :)

 

Covering the bottom half of the picture, just at the bottom of the slope at the right makes the rainbow jump right out dramatically. When taking pictures usually I grab every combination of composition and angles possible. Sometimes we can make many variations at home, when we have more time to think or experiment.

Ive seen a lot of pictures of the Golden Gate, and created a few myself. Because there are so many, it takes a bit of thinking to create something different. Though this is close to some Ive done, it lacks interest for me. Personally I'd show a bit more detail and color. This is quite flat, lacking contrast, that is actually available in the shot. There are a lot of subtle colors in the clouds which have been lost. You may have been attempting to emphasize the fog or mist, but you can get both.

 

Even with an auto levels adjustment in Photoshop, it improves, the color in the clouds. Adds a little color to the bridge, and more detail under the bridge, improves the water, and gives a broader range in blacks, without losing the effect.

 

With a professional, under deadline who has to get the shot, it is acceptable. With Advanced Amateurs who have all the time in the world to wait for light to change, etc, I look for more. Moving a bit to the left to get the shot, would also show more of the cables, and the tower in the distance. It dramatically increases the distance shown.

 

 

Personally I really like this image. The composition appeals to me, with the S created by whatever it is in the image. Because it is unknown, you can imagine it as many different things. Something on a beach, on the ground after a rainstorm, a sprinkler which has just been shut off, leaving the ground so wet. If it were my own, probably would hand it on the wall for a time for friends to see, etc. I also like the broad range of shades of gray from white to black.

 

There is probably only one thing that Id have done with it, which in my _opinion_ may have improved it. Id have cropped the sky out of the image, it draws my eye out of the areas most important to me.

The close cropping also bothers me as a fine artist, if painting this picture, might use the composition of the eyes, but the beaks lead your eye right out of the picture without anything to stop that. Ideally a photo should lead your eye from one element to another, and back around again, keeping it in the image. If the blue and red in the beaks were more subtle, the feathers might possibly lead your eye back in. Many mention abstract art, well many painters dislike abstract art strongly.

 

"Those who can paint realistically do. Those who can't, paint abstract images with no meaning or purpose other than to make a buck. Art is a modality of communication, if it communicates it is a piece of art. Otherwise, it is just another pretty picture."

If cropped to take out the bag ladies face, say in line with her heel, the bag itself would still be very distracting because of its contrast it would pull your eye. Perhaps this would work, if in photoshop we used the magic want to capture the stripes, and muted or blended the together to reduce the distraction. But then the boys sleeve would grab your eye, so that would need to be muted also.

It bothers me because the image is cropped across the chin, it leads the eye out of the frame. A vertical framing could have got in this close, and not cut off her face. We would not cut off someones head in a full body picture, why the chin?

 

That said I like the relaxed thoughtful image, and skin tone. The loss of detail in the hair is ok, it creates a frame for the face. A nice range of gray tones from black without detail, to the specular highlight is just right for me.