Can we talk about specific pictures? I asked the other guy the same thing. Most of my subjects are off center. There are some centered images like this one, but I’m not sure just moving the composition so it was at the right or left side would’ve improved the picture. When the background is that indistinct, it seems natural enough that the subject is centered. I may be wrong, but I’d at least like to get a specific idea of what people are talking about when they talk about too many centered images.
Some of the bird in flight shots were centered, that’s true, but those are technically difficult shots, and just getting them at all is a challenge, so composition is secondary in that case.
Rule of thirds makes sense to me when you’re placing a subject into a background where they’re both visually important parts of the picture. It doesn’t make as much sense when there’s no subject (as in a wide scenery landscape) or when the background is indistinct. But I could better understand what people were saying if they had specific examples that they thought were badly composed.
As someone who takes photos with their iPhone, I am not qualified to comment on the technical aspects of your work. That said, I thought your work was impressive and you are quite talented at this sort of thing.
Relegating the cute cat pictures to page 8 could upset some of the more militant cat lovers on this board.
And here I was thinking this would be a bunch of screenshots of military-type videogames!
And is that John Daly in that first picture? And of course…Trent Richardson!
Anyway, not a professional photographer but I want to agree with the general consensus that your pictures are technically extremely well done. I really like the way some of the insect photos just leap off the screen in a riot of colors and patterns.
Thanks. While I very much appreciate all the nice things people have said, I’d also like specific critiques that might give me an idea of where I’m going right or wrong. I know some people have offered “rule of thirds” as an eplanation, but when I asked specifically which images were badly composed and would be improved by moving the subject, no one offered any specifics.
I got a batch of prints today and I’m wondering - as a whole, are my pictures too dark? I need to get this monitor calibrated but I haven’t had the spare money for a calibration device - is there somewhere that’d provide a one time calibration service? Anyway, I do tend to shoot some of my pictures darker than most people do deliberately, and then I tend to take down the highlights a bit in post. I hate blown highlights, especially when the sky becomes whited out. I tend not to mind shadows so much if they add character. And I’ve checked my pictures on tablets which are generally pretty well configured in terms of colors and I’ve liked the results there. But the prints were darker than expected.
But I may be editing them with too much brightness, thereby taking my preference for mildly darker pictures and making them too dark. What do you think?
I should add the printing may be a factor - I got them from snapfish, who’ve made good prints that I’ve liked, but last time I ordered prints was back when I did less PP and printed more pictures straight out of the camera. So unless their printing has changed I don’t know if that’s the difference.
I wasn’t asking if I should do it for a living. There’s almost no money in the sort of photography I like to do. There are too many talented amateurs willing to give away their work. Often on photography forums I’ll read about a company trying to make a brochure (or something along those lines) contacting someone to see if they could get the rights to the picture - and often if the person wants to charge anything, even something small, the company just move on to the next person who’ll do it just to have their work out there somewhere and give it out for free.
Even if you do manage to sell something through Getty stock images or similar, I get the impression that you get about 1/6th to 1/8th the take.
The only reliable ways to make money in photography is to do weddings or studio photography, and in both cases the people-wrangling is the primary part of the job rather than photography - or be one of the lucky few who covers pro sporting events or works for someone like National Geographic. If I ever managed to make money somehow, I’d be thrilled, but I have no expectation of it.
…as requested some critique on the set of images you posted. Remember critique is opinion only and it is not right or wrong and is not personal. I am a bit rushed but thought it would be helpful to post, hopefully will give you a bit of insight into how you shoot. Also if you could try to avoid point by point responding to the critique. Critique is meant to be absorbed: it is easy to get defensive…but don’t. I’m well aware that there will be “gaps” in my critique that you could fill by explaining yourself further. But that won’t help your photography. Don’t defend. Absorb. Take on board what you need to take on board. Ignore stuff you feel is irrelevant.
…I just read your comment about your images maybe being “too dark.” This shot appears to be a tad underexposed: your other images a bit more so. It would be interesting to see a more “panoramic crop”: loose the blue sky and the bottom of the image (from about where you see the skids on the road) and see how that looks.
Your names are fine: one of my photography mentors hated “flowery names for photos” and being straight out descriptive is often a good way to go. I struggle to find interest in this image: I find myself drawn to the objects in the foreground and can’t help thinking how interesting it would be to see from their perspective. Get low! Get close!
From a technical point of view the foreground, is, IMO about a stop underexposed.
Agree: nice image. A black and white low contrast conversion might look interesting and if you managed the contrast right would look almost “Ansel Adamish.”
Again: nice, interesting shot. Have you explored playing with the white balance a bit? Its another image that, for me would be more interesting in black and white. Your eye seems to be in-tune with finding interesting compositions but the range of colours in those compositions are almost distracting for me. But a nice image.
Something doesn’t quite work for me in this image: but I can’t put my finger on it. The foreground, IMO, is about a couple of stops underexposed and my mind wants to know what the water is hitting to make it spray so high. Its almost as if the sky contrasts too greatly with the foreground that the two seem disconnected. Not sure exactly what it is, will have a think.
I think you’ve critiqued this one well enough on your own! Great composition: just need to get the shot at the right time of day. Square crop works well for the image.
I love this moment. The way the female is captured in the frame is not necessarily flattering and don’t be surprised or upset if she ends up not liking the shot. (People can be unpredictable and I’ve had people love shots of them I didn’t like and hate shots of them that I loved.)
Its hard to tell from the JPEG: but the couple are underexposed and because of this, at ISO 1600 you’ve lost a bit of detail. (in the JPEG, anyway.)
Having said that: in a shot like this it really doesn’t matter as you were looking to capture a moment and I think you caught it.
When shooting people and/or objects with landscapes try to think of it in terms of “two exposures:”, you are exposing for the “ambient” (the lighting in the background) and then you are exposing for the subject. If working without added light I tend to expose for the subject in order to maximize detail. In my own work I use a lot of off-camera flash in order to maximize the subject detail, provide interesting directional light, and maintain the ambient exposure. When you are shooting without adding light you need to decide which exposure is the one you want to focus on. To be honest it looks like you are more interesting in the background than the people. You’ve found an interesting sky, now lets add people! Try flipping that in reverse.
Nice documentary image taken with the best camera you had on you! I’m loathe to offer critique on this type of image: its simply a good, interesting capture.
Nice set. All of the images are interesting: great composition and the different colours enhance and don’t detract from your images. The images are correctly exposed, and are simply terrific.
If anything, I think you need to have a closer look at these images and see what lessons you can take to other areas of your photography. You clearly enjoyed taking these photos, explore why you enjoyed taking these images and why they work better than maybe some of your other images.
Technically great shot. Nice separation from the background, and only the pendant would notice the DOF.
Great moment! Love the image, you clearly enjoy shooting the critters. I was going to suggest a tighter crop: but looking closely the little guy looks like he moved so quickly you just missed focus by a tad. Maybe push the blacks a bit to get a bit more contrast, but thats just me.
Not a fan of the image: less because of the background and more because of the angle you captured it at. The back of things are normally not as interesting as the front. (Jennifer Lopez excepted!)
I know a few people are fan of this image: but I’m sorry it doesn’t do a lot for me. Technically it seems to be about a stop underexposed. Perspective wise: you seem to take all of your shots standing up. Try lying down on the road, shifting around a bit to see things from a different point of view.
I think my problem with the image is the herd of cattle is just lost in the image. Would you mind trying something radical? Try a panoramic crop with this image. Loose most of the blue sky from the top and crop right to the feet of the horse. The horizon needs leveling and maybe a bit cropped off the left. If you want to be radical, crop off the legs of the horse for a proper panoramic crop! See how you feel about that.
Hmmmm. Its okay. Its a whole lot of wavy lines on a black background. You will take better fireworks photos eventually.
Critique can seem quite personal: but it is never intended to be. This was the first image I ever had critiqued. It was my first experiment with off camera flash and I was quite proud of it. I presented it in class for critique, and the image was ripped to shreds. A lot of the criticism I didn’t get at the time and it really was quite upsetting, and worst of all I wasn’t allowed to respond to that criticism. But that critique was valuable. Not responding and accepting the critique was valuable. I went out the next week and got a shot that was twice as good, and have been getting better ever since.
I mention this because I’m not going to be very polite about this image and I don’t want you to take it the wrong way. Sports photography is my favourite genre of photography and this image is an example of how not to take a sports image!
Without the caption this shot has no meaning. There is a flying helmet: but I only noticed it because I read the caption. It is an interesting moment that you’ve managed to document, but as a sports photo its lacking. Its obvious from the perspective of the shot this was shot from the stands and again that detracts from the image IMHO. Once you’ve done a bit of sports shooting you learn a few of the “cliche’s” like for example “shoot tight, crop tighter.” My own personal saying is "Face and balls. If you can get a shot of a participants face and a shot of the ball: odds are on you’ve got an interesting shot. Its possible to get an interesting sports shot without a face or a ball, but you’ve got to work just that bit harder to make it work.
So to sum up the critique on this particular image: the shot is too loose with no obvious point of interest, shot from an uninteresting perspective. Obviously the moment was unique, memorable and the shot was interesting to both you and others, but it isn’t a great photo.
Again: another image that people seem to quite like but it doesn’t do a lot for me. The composition is messy: I would have liked to have seen the horses head.
And I think that Armish Paradise shows up the biggest thing you need to work on: you don’t like shooting people. Its almost as if your lens is afraid of people, you shoot people’s backs, you shoot from a distance, you shoot them underexposed. In contrast your critter shots are close to exceptional: you fill the frame, you explore their beauty and their quirks, their colours and their magic. Your critter shots are wonderful, your people shots are blah.
Your landscapes are good. I think you are tending to underexpose them (on average you are underexposing by about a stop) because you are “correctly” exposing the sky. If need be use filters (either real one or fake Lightroom ones!) to maintain the sky how you want it and to get the foregrounds “correct.” (I use correct in the “technical” sense, not the aesthetic sense.) Try different perspectives, crops, processing, and of course different times of day. You are coming along nicely here: you just need to keep shooting.
But back to people. Get out of your comfort zone. Shoot the street. Fill the frame. Make people look as wonderful as you do your critters. Stop shooting peoples backsides and start shooting their fronts! Do it purely as an exercise to improve your photography: you don’t enjoy shooting people now and you may end up absolutely hating people photography…but go through the process. Start a photo project like the 365 or a portrait project. Shake things up a bit.
I’m not hyper defensive or anything, so you don’t have to be so cautious with the criticism. I like to hear what people think, and to get better. Certainly I’ve never had any sort of real education on the issue - I’ve never taken a class on photography, I think I read one short book on technique, learned post processing just through fiddling. So I’m just winging it, trying to find things that look interesting to me.
Your points about people vs other stuff are well taken. I really just don’t have much of an interest in people photography. I haven’t taken many pictures of people, nor do I spend a lot of time thinking about it. I find nature - landscapes and animals - to be more interesting for photos.
I especially hate staged fake people shots where they know they’ll be having a picture taken and they’ll be giving big fake smiles for the camera. That and my aversion to using flash means I’ll probably never do any sort of studio type work. (I actually had a friend who works as a studio photographer offer to get me a job figuring with some practice I could become good at studio photography, but she made it sound like it was more about people management - getting uncooperative kids to play along, trying to upsell people on prints than it was about photography. Eh.)
So when I do take people pictures, I try to make them as natural as I can, and since I generally don’t find pictures where just the people are the focus all that interesting, I try to put them into interesting backgrounds.
Oh, could you explain what “push the blacks” means? Does that mean raising the shadows or changing the black point? To be honest, I don’t fundamentally understand what the different exposure control sliders in lightroom do - I understand highlights and shadows, but I don’t understand whites and blacks in relation to them. I also don’t understand the difference between using the highlights and shadow bars, and then the curves control with similar functions below that. Not sure if you use lightroom.
Regarding the butterfly photos - I’m rather happy with those too (one of them was the photo of the week (month? can’t remember) on some butterfly preservation society webpage/facebook thing so that was cool). It’s relatively easy to create a dramatic looking photo with the super short DOF though. Basically, you have to have an environment where you can shoot at a high 200mm+ focal length, but where you can be close enough to the subject that you can still get them in the shot at near minimum focus difference, since the closer you are to the minimum focus difference the greater the seperation. Even at F5.8 the DOF is very narrow.
Downside is that it’s hard to apply that technique to a lot of situations. Bigger subjects, or subjects that aren’t as distant to their backgrounds rule it out. That lens is nowhere near true macro (I think it’s 0.3:1) but I think it actually did a pretty good job in that role. I like that lens a whole lot actually - the results are great IMO for a $350 6x zoom. Look at the bokeh on walking butterfly.
Regarding underexpose, you’re correct that I’m generally exposing for the sky. I find skies to be interesting, and some the pictures I post really rely on the skies. In fact, the sky is the bigger part of the subject in a lot of them. But more importantly, it’s pretty easy to blow highlights, whereas the sensor tech on the camera is remarkable for pulling data out of the shadows. I feel like I can preserve the most overall information by underexposing and lifting in post.
Which brings up the next issue - that my foregrounds are still underexposed even after being lifted. I don’t disagree, but I think this is more an aesthetic preference rather than a technical issue. I could lift foregrounds higher. But as a whole, I like images that aren’t very bright. I also love music with minor key tonality for what feels like similar reasons, so I wonder if that’s related. I feel as though my pictures may be too dark across the board by maybe a third of a stop - and I wonder if that’s a result of monitor calibration - but for the most part I feel that the relative brightness of foregrounds and backgrounds is about right. It’s not the norm, but I try to go with what appeals to me.
I’m going to try a few of the crops you mention and maybe play around with lifting exposures and see what sort of results I can get.
Also, your advice about finding different perspectives is interesting. I’ll try that. You’re right that I shoot almost everything standing up. Well, except long handheld exposures, where I’ll get down to brace myself.
Anyway, thanks a lot for the detailed critiques, it’s given me something to think about and stuff to play around with. Anyway, we added each other on flickr so I’d welcome future comments too - feel free to post them to the actual flickr site.
I’m well aware that there will be “gaps” in my critique that you could fill by explaining yourself further. But that won’t help your photography. Don’t defend. Absorb. Take on board what you need to take on board. Ignore stuff you feel is irrelevant.