Brutally Honest Critiques

Fatback

Fatback

VIP Member
I like it, and see nothing wrong with it. Have you thought about a crop though?

something like this
53061127171219f7ed4fb.jpg
 
N

Nanobyte

New Member
jnskyliner34 said:
This was the best I could do on a really overcast day. I shot this with a Polarizer filter to cut some of the haze
Click to expand...
Some of the few downsides of digital cameras are that the cheaper models have no facility for adding filters and that people tend to point and shoot without thought (film and developing costs are out the window). You can't even add a UV filter to most cameras which is necessary for almost any scenic shot.

In Speedyink's pic you could get more pronounced cloud by increasing contrast as I noted.

You may have gathered I don't care for intrusive detail. I would clone out the stanchion in the lower foreground or crop slightly, but not to Fatback's extent.
 
Last edited:
Rit

Rit

Member
@jnskyliner34:
Awesome picture! I really don't see anything wrong with this picture, but if I was super knit-picky, I'd say that there's a color balance issue from the right side of the picture to the left side. And it's not your fault for that, it's just how the picture came up. The right side seems to have more bold colors, and it fades as you move to the left. And like you said, that is more likely from the overcast.
 
powerpack

powerpack

banned
I am a complete noob on this. I like the photo. I like the cliff in the foreground it follows the rule of thirds.

On the very specific critical comments on some of the "rendering" and such. How can we comment on that on this photo sized and scaled as such? I am asking on that as I am no expert? I just think maybe link to larger version with greater file size.
 
Fatback

Fatback

VIP Member
Nanobyte said:
Some of the few downsides of digital cameras are that the cheaper models have no facility for adding filters and that people tend to point and shoot without thought (film and developing costs are out the window). You can't even add a UV filter to most cameras which is necessary for almost any scenic shot.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by what your talking about. What does this have to do with his photos?
 
N

Nanobyte

New Member
Fatback said:
I'm confused by what your talking about. What does this have to do with his photos?
Click to expand...
Jnskyliner34 used a polarizing filter which you can't do if your camera has no filter mount ring. Many people would not think to put such a filter on anyway because it's too easy to point and click. If you want a simpler explanation, Jnskyliner34 thought about the shot before taking it and did the necessaries.

You can do a lot nowadays with digital editing but it still helps have a good shot to work with.
 
powerpack

powerpack

banned
Nanobyte said:
Jnskyliner34 used a polarizing filter which you can't do if your camera has no filter mount ring. Many people would not think to put such a filter on anyway because it's too easy to point and click. If you want a simpler explanation, Jnskyliner34 thought about the shot before taking it and did the necessaries.

You can do a lot nowadays with digital editing but it still helps have a good shot to work with.
Click to expand...
I am a noob and even I know I can put a $5 pair of sunglasses in front of the lens and get a polarized filtered photo. I think that is at odds with part of your point?

And your last comment? I just hope it came out wrong.
 
Fatback

Fatback

VIP Member
Nanobyte said:
Jnskyliner34 used a polarizing filter which you can't do if your camera has no filter mount ring. Many people would not think to put such a filter on anyway because it's too easy to point and click. If you want a simpler explanation, Jnskyliner34 thought about the shot before taking it and did the necessaries.

You can do a lot nowadays with digital editing but it still helps have a good shot to work with.
Click to expand...

Ok but I still can't figure out how your comment had anything to do with this thread. It's was just kind of random to me. Maybe I just don't get it:confused:
 
N

Nanobyte

New Member
Fatback said:
Ok but I still can't figure out how your comment had anything to do with this thread. It's was just kind of random to me. Maybe I just don't get it:confused:
Click to expand...
I guess not.

powerpack said:
I am a noob and even I know I can put a $5 pair of sunglasses in front of the lens and get a polarized filtered photo. I think that is at odds with part of your point?
Click to expand...
"Many people" apparently does not include you

And your last comment? I just hope it came out wrong.
Click to expand...
No. Exactly as intended.
 
Justin

Justin

VIP Member
don't worry Fatback, I had to backread to understand it. ;) Cheers everyone! especially Nanobyte. ;) Shooting in better weather would've made loads of difference eh?
 
Justin

Justin

VIP Member
i like the her pose and your position relative from her. though i don't like how her head's been chopped up top. :p maybe some more light hitting her face would be better. ;)
 
Justin

Justin

VIP Member
if you mind, i had a go at it. i re-did the crop to get her whole head in but still kept that tight feeling which i liked in the one you posted. :) and i adjusted in curves as well.

paige2.jpg
 
Rit

Rit

Member
I like the updated picture better, gives more dimension to her versus her head chopped off and all you see is a majority of her hair/back. For the first one I can kind of see it for like an advertisement, while the 2nd is for a portrait, so it all depends on what you were going for.
 
N

Nanobyte

New Member
I'm not at all keen I'm afraid. Terrific subject. To me it's shifted too far left. Her face is way off-centre and you can't see or guess what she's looking at. If her face had to be over there, her eyes to the camera or slightly off right may have been OK, as in "What are you looking at?" or "What's that behind me?". I'm sure other shots were made at the time more along those lines or centred. Adding to Rit's last comment, it's a bit like a Sunsilk ad. The B&W is nice as is the detail.
 
Fatback

Fatback

VIP Member
jnskyliner34 said:
if you mind, i had a go at it. i re-did the crop to get her whole head in but still kept that tight feeling which i liked in the one you posted. :) and i adjusted in curves as well.

Click to expand...

I like it for the most part. Did you sharpen it though? cause it looks like it's over sharpened, but it may just be my display.

Rit said:
I like the updated picture better, gives more dimension to her versus her head chopped off and all you see is a majority of her hair/back. For the first one I can kind of see it for like an advertisement, while the 2nd is for a portrait, so it all depends on what you were going for.
Click to expand...

Yeah I see what your saying, each edit gives it a whole different feel.

Nanobyte said:
I'm not at all keen I'm afraid. Terrific subject. To me it's shifted too far left. Her face is way off-centre and you can't see or guess what she's looking at. If her face had to be over there, her eyes to the camera or slightly off right may have been OK, as in "What are you looking at?" or "What's that behind me?". I'm sure other shots were made at the time more along those lines or centred. Adding to Rit's last comment, it's a bit like a Sunsilk ad. The B&W is nice as is the detail.
Click to expand...

What do you mean her face is off center? are you saying it should be in the middle of the frame? Cause if thats what you mean I have to disagree. Also not sure why what she is looking at matters. As the photo is of her, not whats shes looking at. Also no this is the only one I have. It wasn't a photo shoot, it's just a photo I took at a family gathering.


Also thanks for the feedback guys. It's nice to get actual critique instead of "i don't like it", or "it sucks".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top