think27

MODERATOR NOTE: Posts claiming this is not a photo have been edited or deleted.

Please note that this photo was chosen for discussion. On photo.net we have manipulated and unmanipulated photos and they are all acceptable as a pick for the POW which is not a contest but - as stated - chosen for discussion. The discussion should take the form of a critique.

The critique can be - what you like and why and what you don't like - and why. We don't discuss if you 'like' that a photo was manipulated. We do discuss "if" it was manipulated why it works or does not work.

We also don't accuse someone of manipulating a photo..... We ask.

Comments that are not critiques are also deleted unless you are asking the photographer a question.

Thank you.

Tina - First - This forum is for photo critiques and non-critiques as well as short congrats statements or short negative statements without critiques are deleted.. There is a thread about the rules in Patrick's intro. However, let me make a point about the Photo of the Week for anyone else who is confused.

1) it is not a contest. It's just an image the elves decided would be the best choice from the nominated images for a discussion.

2) It is not, contrary to popular belief, chosen from the top photos or recent photos. It is not the photo uploaded this week - for discussion. It is the photo - found on photo.net with no restrictions of time or popularity to be discussed this week.

Moderator note: Luis - you need to understand that changes are made to images all the time and it is allowed on photo.net in forums. Sometimes the result improves the image and sometimes it does not.. and then again some people will agree and others will not. It's all in the spirit of discussion.

Please note the following:

• 
  
• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
  
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum .
  
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
  
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Please give your reasons for why you like the image or not. Short negative or positive congrats comments will be deleted. Please give a real critique. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.
  

Thanks - Actually I never noticed that... This is a slide shot many years ago... I didn't do anything to the image except clean up the blacks above the tree line on the left.

 

MODERATOR REMINDER. Please take a look at the link in Patrick's intro to the Photo of the Week which can only be seen when you click on "Read Discussion".... Many people are unaware that the POW is strictly a critique forum and the content of all comments must be actual critiques. Complaints about the choice, endless discussions about photo vs image and manipulation, one sentence negative or positive congrats posts are always deleted or edited. We're looking for constructive positive and/or negative points to help users understand why a photo is a good one or not.

MODERATOR NOTE:

Two things to remember before posting please.

This is strictly and only a critique forum - In other words - no "great shot" comments without backing it up with reasons why. Same goes for negative comments.

Also - please do not discuss or agree or disagree with the choice by the elves. . If anyone has a problem with the choices - please discuss in the Photo.net site Help forum.

Thanks

Let me know when you've uploaded a new one - I'd love to see it. I think the concept is good.

I think the color is super and I 'get' what you were trying to do here...The muted colors in the background and the greens and yellows go nicely with this daisy.

 

There are some serious problems here for me though. Serious enough that if it were mine, it would end up in the reject pile. Not being harsh - just honest.

 

One - the out of focus branch (s) in fhe forground is visually distracting. I'd have moved them out of the way.

 

Two - I do find the petals out of focus to be bothersome and distracting. This is especially true as the center - which is in focus is almost centered in the shot and the eye tends to be drawn to the whites which are in the better quadrants for an image.

 

There is something called the "optical center" of a page. You may know this but for those that don't - it is where the eye naturally falls on a page. That is why book titles and page titles are not centered - but in the upper quad.

 

Additionally your eye is always drawn to the brightest/whitest part of any image. So - what you have here is your eye being drawn both to the upper portion of the flower and the white - which is out of focus. - Good that it is 'slightly' over to the left - but not enough to make it work.

 

I'd try this again but clear the foreground and your DOF.

Wonderfully original! Such a playful shot - This one I'll remember for a long time.

MODERATOR NOTE: Please stay on the topic of an actual critique of the photograph itself as per the rules for posting in the POW forum. The link above in Patrick's post each week provides the purpose of this forum. Additionally any "congrats, nice photo" type comments without a critque are also routinely deleted. Again, please see the link above.

Personally I like the shot as it is... Wouldn't crop a thing. Both versions that have been cropped above - remove the drama, the story of the location and now miss the feeling of the viewer "being there"....

I get an overwhelming and exciting sense of the moment with the bigger picture.

Hi Simon - I did a double or triple exposure in camera as an experiment. First attempt ;-)

Years ago...

MODERATOR NOTE:

Please take a look at the link in Patrick's intro to the Photo of the Week which can only be seen when you click on "Read Discussion".... Many people are unaware that the POW is strictly a critique forum and congrats posts are requested to be sent as an email rather than done on the thread itself. We invite you to come on back and submit a comment again but this time please tell us why you like the image... We're looking for constructive positive and/or negative points to help readers understand why a photo is a good one or not.

oops - you needed to wait until her arms came down on his body.

 

Crop (see example) should not be at this awkward place on leg.

 

Flash

 

I also would have moved to the right for sky background or to the left for all

tree background - not both - Your eye always goes to the brightest place

in an image.

 

Palm fronds spiking into head.

 

Love love love the backlighting on veil. Love his hand placement on her neck!

 

Better if you were not seeing his hand on her back. Or - hand brought further

around her waist. Still a tender shot... But doesn't work because of her arms...

Would have been a throw away for me - even if properly exposed because of

that.

What I love about this.....

 

Great casual - fun - emotive group shot!!! Love everything about the concept and "people composition"

 

However - I'm sure you already know - not centered.

 

Watch background - horizon -- Yay - no thingy in water on this shot!!!

 

Horizon cutting through heads which is a no no

 

Going lower with camera position could work or having them move back or up on rocks.

 

Flash

See same notes as color shot.. All applies.. This is also not enough of a side view for silhouette

Again - flowers lowered.

 

Don't drop near ankle

 

Flash

 

Background thingy on left - just move to get it out of frame

 

If silhouette - whole body sideways or facing water.

 

Watch horizon - crooked

 

Never crop at this point in the leg.

 

Just a bit higher - or full

 

Basic rule is never crop close to knee, elbow or angle joints.

 

Watch the thingy in the water (always watch backgrounds) sticking out of his head.

 

Flowers lower - at hip level - or left out completely for an intimate shot

 

Like his hand placement. - Very relaxed except for her arms/hands/position of...

 

Horizon line - a bit crooked.

 

Very tender shot though

 

Oh - and flash!!!

 

Or go low and shoot so heads/necks and shoulders are in sky (no horizon) and do silhouette

Here I would have gone down really low with my camera angle so the background is the sky - not the water for a better silhouette.

 

But the couple facing each other like this works well - forheads touching etc.. great.

 

Meter for the darkest portion of the sky so the scene goes dark and silhouette is stronger and the sand is not exposed...

 

Zoom in closer for less sand (negative black space)

 

 

First - watch your horizons... Need to be straight.

Also you don't want to intersect horizons with heads or necks...

 

Have them step back so the horizon is at shoulder

 

Again - you needed flash here. Fill Flash - just a stop or so below the F stop.

 

Again - you could also have done a silhouette here - always a side view or with them looking away from you - or profile...

 

I always notice when a guy has a hanging dead arm ;-) They do this a lot...

 

Hand in pocket or holding her hand or gracefully on her forearm

would have worked

 

Her feet are stiff - close together etc... She actually looks cold here. Should be weight on one foot - one foot forward... Experiment yourself in front of a mirror. I always 'show' the bride how to stand by doing it myself...

 

Watch backgrounds - I would have changed where I was standing to avoid the thingy sticking out of the water.

 

Again shoot a few shots -- one of them I would have told them to put their heads together facing the camera - just touching... Facial expressions become more relaxed as well when heads, cheeks, foreheads touch

This has been corrected in PS to show how it might have been improved with flash.

 

If you had instead - opened up to a wider aperture - lets say F 2.8 rather than F5.6 (just guessing) the sky would be even whiter. The flash - unlike this image I'm uploading that I fixed... would make the sky darker and richer.

Hi Angela - From what I'm seeing in your images - you really really really need flash!!!

 

Here - I would meter the sand and set the flash to one half to one stop less (take two or three of the same shot - at different setting - called bracketing)

 

For another approach - I'd have them walk away from me at the water line and meter the sky and shoot without flash for a silhouette. Or have them face each other in a kiss or forehead to forehead for a different silhouette.

 

Her hands are perfect! The bouquet is perfect where it is... Casual - graceful - non awkward.. Good job.. He - on the other hand looks awkward.

 

Love that she has one foot forward with weight on one leg - always have people do this because not only does the body look more relaxed - a strange byproduct is the face relaxes as well... Just happens..

 

I don't think I'd have used this tree - Unless I had him leaning against it and her leaning into him with his arms wrapped around her waist and their cheeks together..

 

The main thing here is the exposure and/or flash much needed.

Good thought! Honestly I didn't even notice - oops But the green spikey leaf at the bottom bothers me even more... Thanks

Hey - Yes - grain everywhere ;-) I used 800 film. This couple likes grain and I always clear this first. If you notice there is grain in the dress as well. We used 800 NO FLASH in church and 3200 B&W rated at 1500.... Love it.