Deserted
by gmink

Comment by sidpixel:
*Hello from Sid and the Critique Club*

An interesting image that meets the challenge.

I think you've nailed the composition well here. The shapes and the shadows work well to form an interesting abstract of a common feature. I like the length and shape of the shadow and I like the diagonal that is formed by it. The shape of the structure is revealed by the foreground shadow and the way the light varies across the floor.

For the purpose of the challenge, although its only a minor point. I would definitely have removed the dead leaves preferably before shooting or, if necessary, through cloning, their removal would give the image more impact it truly would be more simplistic.

Thank you for your submission, apologies for the delay in critique, Sid

Church with red door
by gmink

Comment by sidpixel:
*Hello from Sid and the Critique Club*

An appealing image that vaguely meets the challenge.

I feel a little undecided about this one whether I like it or not. There are elements of the composition I like, the shape of the red door with the ivy growing round it against the modern brick wall in front which I am not so keen on, I find the railings ugly and distracting. In fact, as it is, it only the shape of the door that gives a faint implication that this is a church at all, don't get me wrong, that is not a criticism, I quite like it for that.

I am wondering what a composition raised above the level of the railings including the roof which presumably has a cross or some sort of adornment would have looked like. I think in terms of the challenge, it would have come across much more clearly that it is a church. The red of the doors is very appealing and adds a lot to the image.

Apologies for the delay in this critique, thanks for your entry, Sid

Amenita in hiding
by gmink

Comment by sidpixel:
*Hello from Sid and the Critique Club*

A fairly interesting image that meets the challenge well.

Well done for spotting this well concealed fungi! In fact its so well concealed I'm pretty sure it will have escaped the attention of the many voters who will have given it too brief a look, though fortunately a good few did see and appreciate it. I think possibly moving or removing the dead leaf in front of the stalk would have helped to define its shape and whiteness more readily.

I'm wondering why you used such a small aperture? A large DOF was not really that necessary here, in fact a shallower DOF would have helped a lot to make the fungi stand out more against the leaf debris. The too small aperture will have made your shot a lot more difficult in forcing you to use a very slow shutter speed especially at ISO 50, a higher ISO too would have been perfectly acceptable here. Something like f8 at ISO 400 would have enabled you to hand hold it and produce a better end result.

Anyway, thanks for your submission and apologies for the delayed critique, as they say, 'better late than never', or at least I hope it is, Sid. Please feel free to reciprocate on any of my images, I would welcome your feedback…

Jaws
by gmink

Comment by sidpixel:
*Hello from Sid and the Critique Club*

A good macro that meets the challenge well.

The original image is a good macro and most definitely inanimate, a great idea. However, the processing has let it down badly, it has left it looking unnatural and below par. There is a lot of noise which at ISO 1600 with a modern camera is surprising unless this is a compact camera, which having just googled it I see it isn't. The end result is a loss of detail where it matters all those edges and the striations of the metal should be pin sharp and they are not but in a noisy sort of way.

Your exposure is just a little too much, there are areas of the image where the exposure is blown, for example the edges of the handles at the lower half of the frame and the tips of the jaws and the screw itself, all important areas. Some loss of detail may also be explained with the very small aperture you have used. I know the DOF can be exceedingly shallow but assuming this is your smallest aperture I would always use a stop less ie., f24 as you will get loss of detail through diffraction with the smallest apertures of your lens.

I think it is for these reasons that this excellent idea did not fare better with the voters. Thanks for your submission and apologies for the delayed critique, as they say, 'better late than never', or at least I hope it is, Sid.

Please feel free to reciprocate on any of my images, I would welcome your feedback…

Wheelchairing in deep forest
by gmink

Comment by sidpixel:
*Hello from Sid and the Critique Club*

A family snapshot that meets the challenge well.

This is one that they will cherish in the family album for years to come. The lady in the wheelchair looks to be enjoying herself in an area where she is probably not able get very often and certainly not on her own, having her family around her like this adds to the feeling of her pleasure. It does indeed look like a candid unposed moment too.

Your commenters have already pointed out the major flaw about the slow shutter speed which, of course, I also have to talk about. Given the lens you were using it leaves too much scope for me to try and guess what focal length you were using but it doesn't feel as though you were at the telephoto end, I would guess somewhere about the middle. If this was the case you would have had a maximum aperture capability of about f5, ie., nearly two stops more then you have used with f8. The larger aperture would have got you much nearer a hand holdable shutter speed that would have avoided the camera shake you have throughout the image here. Don't get me wrong I love slow shutter speeds and motion blur but if you do use them deliberately it is essential that you have some sharpness as a reference point somewhere in your image, this unfortunately hasn't.

Thank you for a pleasing submission, Sid

Dryer lint puppy
by gmink

Comment by sidpixel:
*Hello from Sid and the Critique Club*

A fairly abstract image that meets the challenge well.

It took me a while to realise that the lint is on a piece of scrap wallpaper that is being held by a lady in a blue gown with red hair. Then result is really quite abstract and more appealing for it. I find the right of the image so intriguing that it takes over the actual subject matter.

I have to assume that your choice of very high ISO was done deliberately to make the noise a feature of the image? If this is not the case you could easily have shot at something like two stops bigger aperture and reduced your ISO to 3200 perhaps even 1600 for a much cleaner result. The focus is also deliberately soft? I assume manual focus was used as nothing appears to be in sharp focus but perhaps this was one of those times when you wanted to present a different result and use soft focus per se.

I'm having one last feast of the right before I leave you… Thanks for your submission, Sid

Arc
by gmink

Comment by Jules1x:
Wonderfully simple and interesting.

Arc
by gmink

Comment by mykoleary:
The levels you pulled on the sky left it super pixelated. Roll a color picker over it or view on a tilted screen.

Low water
by gmink

Comment by quiche:
Maybe crop a tiny bit off the top to eliminate the power line (or whatever that black line is)?

Hazards of 2nd place
by gmink

Comment by cowboy221977:
Hello from the critique club...

You have good lighting. I like how the shot is frozen. However, your subject is almost non-existing. The wall of water really obscures the subject and takes away from the impact of the shot. Happy shooting