scottstevens

My take: your images are technically excellent as far as exposure goes. And they look nice and even in tone. The problem is that they are not deliberate enough. There are too many elements in many of your shots, and in some, you haven't taken enough care to get a crisp composition.

 

This shot is 25% exciting, 75% boring: Untitled Why? The foreground has no detail, and the sky has too many clouds. The stars are ruined by CA (which should be removable, mostly, in the RAW converter). But the shot is nice to look at in some way, although it would not make it into the NatGeo.

 

If the light isn't right, you have to wait for it, or try again. Same with this one: Untitled Great light in the background, but the foreground is blah.

 

You should have gone in much, much tighter here. I don't have to explain: Untitled

 

This one is really nice - if only you had a model on the road: Untitled

 

This one has lovely tones and a serene mood, and is almost perfect, but the composition needs refining. Note that there are no clouds in the sky: Untitled

 

You cropped in too tightly, your are apparently off-centre, and it feels like an okay snapshot, as opposed to a photograph: Untitled

 

This one is good enough to be a stock photo, but could still be refined: Untitled

 

This shot of the red barn is not as interesting as you think it is: Untitled

 

This rainbow is very pretty - not much wrong here, if at all: Rainbow in Fairplay CO

 

You shoot too wide in many of your compositions. There are also too many elements in the photos, and sometimes there is no point of interest, like here: Untitled

 

And sometimes you shoot when there is nothing worth shooting: Rolling hills near Fairplay,CO

 

I hope that I have been of some help. Keep in mind that I have laid eyes on a lot of A+ photos in my life, and I know where to find them. I also pay attention to design, as opposed to art alone, and so I have a very strict view of aesthetics - and rightly so. I often preach standards which I myself cannot always attain. If I have been harsh, it's because being nice won't do you any favours. I have seen worse photos receive more praise (despite my protestations to the rest of the audience), so you're on your way to being excellent. Just keep going. :)

 

 

Thanks for taking a look! Admittedly I do compose more of my photos traditionally and maybe lack of foreground or clear subject is what is bothering me. I think next time i shoot I'll try a longer lense to get more detailed landscapes. I've had the desire to bring a model to some of my locations too, to create dramatic environmental portraits. And being real in your critique is what I need to hear, I'm so used to getting the whole "wow your photos look so pretty" from the non photo types. Thanks again!

Hello! I've been shooting landscape and nature photos for about 3 years and have definitely seen an improvement in my skills with schooling and practice.

 

However, lately I feel my photos give off an "amateurish" look. I do use an entry level dslr but have invested in lenses such as 35 1.8 and an ultra wide angle from tamron. I have been told time and time again that it's the person behind the camera that counts, not the equipment.

 

I guess the question i am asking is what can I do to really get that WOW factor and get my photography to a proffesional level? What changes did you make to help you achieve this as well? Below is a link to my Flickr page.

 

scott stevens

 

scott stevens

Hello! I've been shooting landscape and nature photos for about 3 years and have definitely seen an improvement in my skills with schooling and practice.

 

However, lately I feel my photos give off an "amateurish" look. I do use an entry level dslr but have invested in lenses such as 35 1.8 and an ultra wide angle from tamron. I have been told time and time again that it's the person behind the camera that counts, not the equipment.

 

I guess the question i am asking is what can I do to really get that WOW factor and get my photography to a proffesional level? What changes did you make to help you achieve this as well? Below is a link to my Flickr page.

 

scott stevens

The assignment was to take two separate shots. Not 2 identical shots with different apertures. As far as the chromatic aberration, being a beginner it's not something I even picked up on or really understand. I'll do some research. And the course is definitely encouraging creativity but in our first unit it's more or less a refresher/ lesson on basic functions on a dslr

The first is a nice photo, good lighting, well-lit subject, suitably narrow depth of field to allow the background to give context but not be too much a part of the photo. The composition feels a little awkward to me. It doesn't lend itself to a vertical format and feels quite pinched on the left and right. I'd feel much more comfortable with more breathing room.

 

The second one uses a wider depth of field appropriately, but I find the mid-section too dark, to the point where it's just unsightly to my eyes. I would prefer to have some insight into the dark levels there, not too much to spoil the mood but enough not to turn me away. You could try some shadow recovery, but I'd say you probably should have exposed differently for the scene.

 

I appreciate the feedback! I do agree with you that the second photo could have been exposed differently. I think I'll try reshooting or try another subject.

Welcome. You are new here and admittedly the information is (a) not that easy to find and (b) outdated: Forum Guidelines | Photo.net and Image Size FAQ. - in essence images with a maximum size of 1000 pixels should display inline, larger ones show as a ling. Apparently, as your post shows, that's not necessarily the case either. But in general, one should limit uploads to 1000 pixels on the long side and 100kB (or at most 300kB).

 

I don't understand what your assignment is and what you are attempting to get out of posting the two images - maybe you could elaborate?

 

The assignment is to have two photos, one with a wide aperture to create a narrow depth of field, and the second is to have a small aperture to create a great depth of field. Just looking for opinions, I am just starting this online course

For whatever reason the first photo only shows as a link

 

MOD NOTE: It should be showing as an image now.

Hello! My assignment is to post two photos, one with a small DoF and one with a larger DoF.

 

The first one was shot with a wider aperture, second one is around f16

both shot with a 35mm f1.8 from Nikon

 

The photos are both attached! thank you!

 

 

{ }