deleted

[jobush95]

deleted

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by jobush95

[darknj]

I have a question for you, what are you trying to get back as critique ? Composition ? Quality of the shot ? The softness of the image ?

 

From what I can see, you already nailed down the fundamentals just maybe a few pointers about the focusing points, on some picture, the focus is not on your main subject. And watch the lens flare, it's not usually something sought for, at least no longer in 201x.

 

For the rest, just remember to have fun, if you are not trying to earn a living with your camera, remind yourself on regular basis why you took it up to begin with. 

 

As last advice continue shooting, you will get better naturally.

[jobush95]

I'm an artist (of a kind), so I'm always aiming to produce something pleasing to look at. I also personally like my photos being somewhat sentimental. Serene, if you will.

 

So I just want to know if they're first and foremost - visually successful and secondly what kind of impression they make. What kind of feelings they may evoke, I guess I'm going for something that's almost like a photographic expressionism. I think I'm strong composition wise but need to take more time in arranging elements in the frame, and explore different angles.

 

And sharpness, I'm not sure what it is, but my photos seem to come out softer compared to stuff out there in the web. Maybe soft is a wrong word, less punchy. I work straight from Lightroom, and don't push the sharpening slider beyond the 30~40 mark, but do push the radius pretty hard for the edge enhancement. I also apply sharpening for screen standard amount at export settings. Is there anything I am missing? I dony think it's a technique thing, I think it's processing technique I'm not aware of.

[milandro]

I think that there is much to be said about shooting pics for oneself. Shot just to remember that you’ve been somewhere with somebody whom you want to remeber. But these are pictures that have a meaning for you and you alone.

 

You’ve been there and remember what you felt when you were there. These pictures mean something to you but not much to anyone else.

 

Now ask anyone else, someone who hasn’t been there and is willing to give you an honest answer.

 

What do they see in these 3  pics ( I took a look at your enormous gallery too, there some good stuff but there is a lot of clutter too)?

 

They are like postcards or like those not particular interesting paintings that one buys when on holiday and then when you take them home, after the novelty has worn out, no longer mean much and end up being put in the attic waiting to be  forgotten.

 

 

Your pictures do not necessarily have to want to change the world but if you want to make them interesting... think of interesting someone else other then yourself with them.

 

Imagine yourself going through the pictures of a glossy magazine and coming across these pictures..would you dedicate more than a passing glance to these pics?

 

Keep on shooting. 

[darknj]

[...]

And sharpness, I'm not sure what it is, but my photos seem to come out softer compared to stuff out there in the web. Maybe soft is a wrong word, less punchy.[...]

 

Visual softness can be something punchy too, pictures are in many way akin to paintings, some will get emotions from them, others might not.

 

In the end, you are your best and worst critique. Look back at what you shot, what was the emotion you were trying to convey there, do you see that emotion in the shot ? If not, what went wrong ? What can be tried to change that ?

 

An interesting exercise we had with colleagues once was to take a very mundane object as main subject and we randomly drew cards with emotions on them and that was our assignment for the month. At the end of the month, we all took look on all the pictures and tried to name the emotion we perceived from it.

 

It was a rather nice experience but due to busy life and agendas, we had to drop the whole thing after 6 months.

 

I do believe it could be something you could do own your own, just give it a week before you judge your own work. Let that shot seeps away for a week, don't think about it and don't look at it. Then start judging it yourself.

[andrew brown]

OK, I've looked at these pictures a few times - and I'm not sure if these images have been taken without a suitable point of focus, or if they are subject to heavy processing in Lightroom.

My personal preference is on Lightroom processing.

 

With regards the subject of the images, they are not describing an emotion, more over they are showing a moment in your life, documented in away that will help you remember that moment and the associated emotion.

 

Are they good images, technically speaking?

As art/ photography is so subjective, and rules are made for breaking, how can we give a definitive answer?

The same answer applies to the artistic or documentive nature of the images.

 

The mmost important thing is to remember to take pictures that PLEASE YOU. That MEAN SOMETHING to YOU.

 

That seems to ahve been the eths of MArtin Parr, and love or hate his work, it has certainly paid dividends for him.

[Warwick]

A quick critique

First picture - what do you want to draw the viewer's attention to? The spire? I'd crop the top and bottom a bit, maybe. You need to decide about the house at the bottom. Do you want the viewer to focus on it? If so, you should show more of it. Currently it ends halfway down the upper windows. That's unsatisfying - like cutting a face off at the eyes. I'd crop up a bit, to get rid of the distracting half-windows.

 

Second picture - it's a Rule of Thirds composition, I think, with the subject's head at the meeting point of a horizontal and vertical third. I like this - except for one thing: I'm looking at the back of the subject's head. If i could see her face in profile I'd like the picture more - or if she were looking at the camera, engaging with the viewer.

 

Third picture - not my favourite. But then I prefer people pictures to landscapes.

 

The thing I'd do, looking at the images, is to ask myself 'what story is this picture telling?' And then I'd look for ways to make that story stand out more.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[olli]

To second what everyone else says, photography should be about what works for you and what pleases you. Some of my favourite pictures are ones that others have dismissed or glanced over. The important thing is to keep learning, keep shooting and have confidence in your own ability to judge what is of value for you. That said, you asked for comments, so here goes. They are entirely subjective and you are perfectly at liberty to ignore them

 

Picture 1. It's a nice scene (where is it by the way?). It makes for a pleasant landscape. That said, the thing that drew my eye is the line of tiled rooftops in the bottom right. It might be interesting to reshoot (or to crop) and come up with a vertical image with the line of the rooftops leading to the church and the spire.

 

Picture 2. For me I'd say the same thing again. While the wider shot is fine I would be more interested if it was framed a little tighter. I like the fact that her face is somewhat obscured, we are left to guess at her mood or emotion or to attribute one to her. But this slightly intriguing element gets a little lost in the wider framing and in particular in the fussiness of her bag.

 

Picture 3. It's a pleasant scene but with nothing happening on that road maybe reframing to make the road a less dominant element, particularly in the foreground might help.

 

Like I say, just my very subjective take. 

[aceflibble]

I'm a people-person and pay almost no attention to landscapes, so I'll only comment on the second image.

RE processing: I wouldn't change how you process your images. At least at this resolution, I'm not seeing any way it could be sharper without it having terrible halos and artifacting. It looks like it's already sharpened as well as can be. I'm not a fan of Lightroom's standard sharpening for screen—I find setting it to low always looks better, to my eye—but that could just be me.

What I like about this image is it looks very similar to how I shoot medium format film. I shoot Kodak films underexposed by one stop then pushed half a stop in development for more grain, contrast and saturation. 'Proper' exposure would wash out the sand and the sky. It's a nice look, to me. I like that you've got actual black in your images, rather than the lifted grey tones that are fashionable these days.

The only thing I'd like more is either a very slightly wider frame or a very slightly tighter one, and maybe taken from an inch or two lower. It kind of bugs me when peoples' hands are almost in shot but just cut out, so I'd either go a little wider or tighter to include her hands or fully cut the frame off at her waist. I'd lower the camera very slightly because it looks like a kind of "5'6"" shot, i.e. just taken around eye level. I'm of the opinion that the further you are from somebody the lower you should dip the camera to keep a flattering perspective, so at that distance—what looks like three or four feet?—I'd just lower the camera more to around neck/shoulder level. But then, I shoot portraits to make people look their prettiest and don't do anywhere near as much 'documentary' type stuff as I'd like. If documentary is your thing then the height isn't a problem.

Going through the other images on your site, I'd say the same thing for most of them. Like the processing as it is, I just want the camera to be lower by an inch or two and either get that tiny bit closer or that tiny bit wider.

[jobush95]

Deleted

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by jobush95

[Aswald]

Nice end effect. beautiful friend.

 

I would've positioned her a little more to the right and let her stare into some more space on the left hand side of the photo.

[Michael McKee]

I particularly like the second photo. I'm going to buck a couple of other critiques and say that a tighter crop or focus would lose the sense of a large beach and scattered others. I also am just fine with the subject looking away, especially since it's toward the long reach of sand. For me, it asks a question about what she's looking at. Many photos offer a prepackaged scene. Some invite the viewer to ponder. I find the second kind much more interesting.

 

My only suggestion would be to check the horizon. It is subtly off level. That's the kind of subliminal detail that can elevate or detract from an image. You will alway find people who want a tighter crop. That's what the photo blogs preach. However it's best to look at the so-called rules of composition as tools of composition. Each placement of subject and background will create a different mood and feel. Wide crops offer a sense of place. Tight crops focus attention on the subject. It's the difference between and environmental portrait or a personal one. Neither is better. It's you intention that's important.

 

So I might suggest reversing your order of evaluation. First focus on what you want to accomplish with your photo, then ask how the composition, processing, etc. further your goal in making the image.