Want a critique? - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/27/2007 03:47:56 PM · #1

I must say, stdavidson's weekly threads are some of the best reading on the site. Not just for his opinion, but because I get to 'play along at home' and come up with my own critique before looking at his comments. I've learned a hell of a lot just by looking at the pictures and thinking about how they could be made better.

So, to blatantly steal Steve's idea, pop a picture in here if you want me to critique it. I don't have nearly the pedigree of many on this site, but the last two challenges I've actually scored above a 6 and I feel like I'm starting to get the hang of what does well on DPC. Feel free to have me critique one that you asked Steve about too...

Personally, I think I'll learn more from this than you will -- what can I say, I'm selfish. If I like it, I'll probably join the critique club.

I'll edit this first message when I can't handle any more critiques (if it even comes to that).

EDIT: Ok, let's cap the images now -- I'll do the ones that are posted, but it may take me until Sunday. Thanks everyone!

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 10:41:48.

bassbone

Nikon Df

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

04/27/2007 03:55:51 PM · #2

I'll play...

Here is my Landscape III entry - below average in the challenge and I am looking for some serious comments about what really went wrong. I really thought it was solid technically, but likely a little boring.

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Ben

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/27/2007 04:18:11 PM · #3

Would love any critique/comments on this.
Cheers.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/27/2007 04:33:39 PM · #4

I may have to wait to do more of these when I get home, but I can definitely do this one. My work monitor is a little flaky and I can't totally trust the color. But it is working for now...

Originally posted by pccjrose:

First of all, you did a lot of stuff right in this image: everything is sharp, the foreground water is pristine and a beautiful color of blue, and the reflection of the trees has a lot of contrast is pretty awesome. So why did it get a 5.36?

I think it is because it lacks a main subject, or at least something to draw your eyes. When I look at it, the blue catches my eyes first, then I'm led into the image but I'm left feeling like there isn't much to look at. The island is unremarkable and the trees behind are pretty dead. I only noticed the reflection later (which, IMO, is the best part of the image). Compositionally, it is ok, but without a center of interest it is hard to make a pleasing composition. Also, I get a little bit of an 'overprocessed' feeling from it -- especially in the background sky (haloing around the trees?).

How to fix it? Well, a slightly different vantage point might have helped the composition a lot, although it is difficult to spot something to center the image around. Possibly moving your right and focusing more on the reflection or, alternatively, taking a wider angle would help.

Assuming you can't retake the image, I think a recrop would help a lot -- crop it to the right and maybe remove some of the top, making the reflection more prominant. Even with that crop though, I think your viewers will still feel like something is lacking -- something in the background because that's where my eye tends to go. It was expert editing, so if you have a dog, kid, deer, etc you could have stuck them in a lighted area of the background and it would have given the viewer something to find. But, this was a landscape challenge so sticking a subject in is probably inappropriate...

And that may have been the main reason for your low score. When people think landscapes, they want to see large, sweeping areas of the world. Your view in this image might be a bit too restricted.

Another, random comment: I feel like there is a saturation imbalance in the image. With the saturation of the foreground water, I really want the woods in the background to be more colorful -- maybe warmer tones. There's not a hell of a lot you can do when the trees are still hibernating though :)

To summarize my rambling: technically a very good picture and pretty good processing on it. I think the low score resulted from a lack of something to draw the viewers eye and a 'contained' feeling instead of a 'huge area' feeling that most look for in landscapes. With a background subject, this could have been a really nice picture though -- the water and reflection is awesome.

FYI, I know how you feel. I took a picture for the landscape challenge (woods-covered hills) but when I went to process it I found that what I thought was beautiful at the time looked pretty boring when I looked at it. So I didn't bother submitting.

BAMartin

Apple iPhone 5

04/27/2007 04:35:26 PM · #5

I would love a critique on this one.

Message edited by author 2007-04-27 16:36:54.

cools98

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM

04/27/2007 04:40:22 PM · #6

If you've got the time, please tell me what you think about this shot.

bassbone

Nikon Df

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

04/27/2007 04:47:43 PM · #7

Originally posted by Sting11165:

I may have to wait to do more of these when I get home, but I can definitely do this one. My work monitor is a little flaky and I can't totally trust the color. But it is working for now...

[

Thanks Sean for the thorough critique - I thought that is what was going in and appreciate the reinforcement - nice technicals - boring Shoot again...

Ben

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/27/2007 04:47:51 PM · #8

If you do comment on mine, could you do it on the actual photo page rather than in this thread please?
Ta.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/27/2007 04:48:06 PM · #9

I'd like a critique on this one, something with teeth, between three and 10.000 words. :-)

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/27/2007 05:00:22 PM · #10

Originally posted by Ben:

Would love any critique/comments on this.
Cheers.

Damn, I was going to try to do some work, then I saw this one. I'll do this one then I'll do an hour of work :)

This image is striking to say the least. If you were trying to make the viewer feel that an unhappy guy is invading his/her space, you did it well. I'm assuming this is a self-portrait, at least from what I saw on your profile. You could scare young children with that look.

This is one of those images where the thumbnail is almost better than the full-size version. It just feels like some of the technicals aren't quite there. To pull this off, you need an angry look (check), harsh (hard) lighting (check), selective focus (check -- is that the filter on the image's page?), and some sharply in focus eyes (almost check). I really, really want to see the eyes in super detail (and the appropriate part of the face/nose as well, which is close). That would give the feeling of someone getting so close you can't focus on anything but his eyes, and he is close enough you can see the pores on his nose. The right eye, in particular, seems soft, but the left does too.

If this is a self-portrait, than yeah, that focus is hard to get because you can't line it up. If you are taking a photo of someone else, switch to a single focus point, focus on their lower eye, reframe, and shoot. Alternatively, that might be due to a shutter speed that was slightly too long and the model moved.

Other things that could improve the image: I feel the face is a bit overexposed and the eyes are too dark. The overexposure works well, actually, and I think you should keep it. If you took it again try to get a smaller tonal range by increasing the fill light around the eyes (maybe a piece of paper reflecting from under the camera?) and expose everything a little less. The paper/reflector also might put a nasty little glint in the eye too. Then apply the overexposure to the face in post-processing using curves if desired. It'd just give you a little more flexibility in processing if you don't blow the highlights out.

If the out of focus regions are from a soft-filter, keep it -- it is working really well. Just preserve the eye focus because that's where your viewer will be looking.

Other comments -- the background is appropriate -- I actually like it darker on the right and lighter on the left. Are you holding the camera with your left arm? The border bugs me because it is uneven... silly, I know, but it'd be nice if it was the same size all around.

Summary: so, yeah, I said a lot, but lets be honest -- the picture is really close to perfect as it is. Very unsettling.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/27/2007 05:02:29 PM · #11

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I'd like a critique on this one, something with teeth, between three and 10.000 words. :-)

Three words with teeth: angry harpooned shark

:-P

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll get to it tonight.

Back to work *sigh*.

Monique64

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/27/2007 05:13:14 PM · #12

Left a comment on the picture for you traquino98

Greetmir

Nikon D60

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

04/27/2007 07:31:35 PM · #13

Wutcha think?

mia67

Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro for Canon

04/27/2007 07:41:00 PM · #14

Hope you still have time, so thanks in advance.

Monique64

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/27/2007 07:47:50 PM · #15

Left a comment for Greetmir on the photo site.

Monique64

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/27/2007 07:48:39 PM · #16

Left a comment for BAMartin on the photo site.

TheStick

Olympus E-500 EVOLT

Olympus 35mm f/3.5 Macro ED Zuiko Digital

04/27/2007 08:07:37 PM · #17

Would love to hear thoughts on this one...

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/27/2007 11:21:59 PM · #18

Originally posted by BAMartin:

I would love a critique on this one.

I'm going to steal

stdavidson's template and see how that goes:

Positives:
Interesting variety of texture and colors, including rocks, sand, cactuses (cacti?) and the far off dark rock/mountain thing. At least to me, it seems like an interesting place.

Technicals:
Compositionally, I feel like the dark rock should either be centered or at one of the rule of thirds positions, and likewise for the horizon-line (or maybe a slight rotation to the right would help). The dark rock definitely is the most interesting part of the composition, and I wish we could see more of it as it looms over the land -- it also contrasts nicely with the sky and other elements.

There's a decent amount of noise in the sky which is surprising considering your camera, ISO, etc. Maybe it is oversharpened? Likewise, the rocks and cacti seem noisy but not super sharp at the same time. Strange. Nothing super horrible, but the noisiness in the sky probably hurt your score.

Contrast is good, might have benefitted from some fill light (or narrowing the dark range) so the shadows aren't quite as extreme. But lets face it, you're going to get dark shadows at that time of day.

The Challenge:
Yes, it is a landscape. Seems to fit the challenge pretty well, although it classically landscapes are a little more broad and sweeping: your focusing on the rocky hill in front of the further mountain may have hurt you a little.

Suggestions:
I think the dark mountain in the background in the background makes a great subject, but maybe a different vantage point would help to really show its mass and highlight it a little better. Taking the picture in the morning or evening would have softened the shadows and added a bit too.

Beyond that, playing with curves might have reduced the 'high-noon' look to it, and definitely run a noise filter on the sky to clean it up a bit. Not a bad image at all, but it doesn't capture the imagination as much as you'd like for DPC success.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/27/2007 11:32:47 PM · #19

Originally posted by traquino98:

If you've got the time, please tell me what you think about this shot.

Positives:
Interesting textures in the trees, probably a good choice for desat since there is so much texture. The roots look pretty cool too next to the rocks.

Technicals:
Focus and sharpness is good, but I think what this really needs is a lot more contrast to get the focus on the moss. The overall image is pretty high key, but from a distance, it looks pretty uniform, almost like an etching. At first glance it is hard to recognize the moss for what it is.

Composition is pretty good, at least to me. First I see the tree, but then my eye is led towards the moss. It might be good to get the moss a little more centered in the image (just a touch) because it seems a tiny bit low.

Suggestions:
This seems to be a great place to experiment with other crops, different desaturation (maybe key it in more to green for the moss or the opposite of green to darken the moss). I think the channel mixer is what it is called.

Also, play with curves to bring the focus to the rocks and away from the other objects if that is your focus. The trees also have a lot of interest to them on their own.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/27/2007 11:41:49 PM · #20

Originally posted by Sting11165:

...So, to blatantly steal Steve's idea ...

The Critique Club, DrAchoo and others had the idea long before I ever started. I stole it from DrAchoo. :)

Message edited by author 2007-04-27 23:43:24.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/27/2007 11:44:37 PM · #21

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I'd like a critique on this one, something with teeth, between three and 10.000 words. :-)

Ok, this will be the last one for tonight -- I'll make sure to do the rest tomorrow or Sunday.

If I were to say anything for this one, it would be lines. Lots and lots of lines :) Nice composition, I like the fact that it isn't perfect. And you can tell it is some sort of plant.

I'm not convinced about the desat -- it looks like a plant, my eyes feel like it should be green. But, that's highly subjective, so feel free to ignore me. My wife does all the time.

It seems to have good contrast to me, good mix of lights and darks -- I like it a lot the way it is.

My one major complaint is it seems to be oversharpened, or alternatively, at too low a resolution. The lines get pretty spotty and secondary patterns develop from the hotter pixels from sharpening. Kind of reminds me of an electron microscope.

How to fix it, I'm not sure. It is so simple and I'm afraid if it is any softer you'll lose the lines due to resolution. Interesting -- at first I found it kind of boring, but the more I stare at it, the more interesting it becomes.

EDIT: After posting, I looked at the thumb again -- you did a real good job with the tones and overall shapes and it comes out at lower resolution. It might be very pleasing softer.

Message edited by author 2007-04-27 23:46:30.