Score 5.99 or lower and want a critique? 06/07/07

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/07/2007 12:52:30 PM · #1

I'll critique the first 10 images posted here.

Now that I'm convicted of "illegal activity" people may not want my critiques anymore, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

The critiques won't be any different... they'll be just as bad as they've always been. LOL!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed here are subject to my own photographic views, bias and prejudice. The wise photographer will be able to extract from these critiques whatever helpful grains of truth they may contain.

quiet_observation

Canon EOS-7D

06/07/2007 12:57:59 PM · #2

Thank you.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

06/07/2007 12:58:24 PM · #3

krnodil

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

06/07/2007 01:01:38 PM · #4

Thanks, as always.

hajeka

Canon EOS R5

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

06/07/2007 01:08:54 PM · #5

Just got 1 comment, but that doesn't help me to understand why this photo scores so low.

JamesKW

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/07/2007 01:14:16 PM · #6

AzCKelly

Nikon D70s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G ED

06/07/2007 01:14:29 PM · #7

Would love some thoughts on this one, thought it was better than it scored ....(naturally!)

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 13:16:03.

06/07/2007 02:35:03 PM · #8

OK... got six suc... Uhhhh, I mean takers... there is still room for 4 more. LOL!!!

06/07/2007 03:16:07 PM · #9

Originally posted by quiet_observation:

Positives:
Your perspective allows you to include a lot for viewers to see and think about in a nicely arranged composition that is image processed well.

Technicals:
Image done technically well and very appropritaely as a black and white for the subject. Sharpness good and choice of central focal point works well with the depth of field(DOF). Cropped out Mikky D's Arches nicely! High contrast treatment adds to its visual impact.

The interest objects in the composition are very closely cropped to the edge of the frame. The background building doesn't add much and acts as a viewer distraction.

The Challenge:
Finished 106/302 so positionally speaking it is well above average though the score indicates it is only slghtly above average. The scattering of low scores probably resulted from a couple fringe voters the didn't think it was religious enough for their taste or inappropriate. No biggie.

Suggestions:
This is a fairly long exposure at a high f/stop probably needed to get the distant sign in sharp focus so there is probably nothing you can do to soften the background buildings in-camera. But you might select and blur the background building more in post to lessen it's distracting effects.

Consider widening the composition slightly on the left, right and bottom to keep interest objects from being so close to the edges. Looks like you got framing to work with though you'll have to do some post processing to keep the added space from becoming a distraction itself.

mattmac

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/07/2007 03:18:55 PM · #10

Always happy to get critiqued...

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

06/07/2007 03:59:35 PM · #11

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Positives:
Selective desat done very well with natural and not overpowering color. Tough to do with reds.

Technicals:
This is a very solid technical achievement all the way around. You did an especially good job with the color boundary. The soft focus background works well.

The composition, though not centered, has a centered framing look. There are a few overexposed "hot" spots in the background. The left flower is SLIGHTLY out of focus.

The Challenge:
Fits the challenge... Duh! LOL. Finished above average and that is good given the subject selection which probably hurt it's score overall. Technical quality saved it.

I voted this image a "7". In my world that means I think it is average. I was influenced by the framing and hots spots. Now I'd score it an "8", because it is definitely above average.

Suggestions:

You have a few background blob-like hot spots in the composition you might consider fixing.

Removing "Hot" Spots
Though "hot" spots, overexposed areas in compositions, are surprisingly tolerated by DPC voters they generally are distractions that should be removed.

There is a simple, but effective technique you can use, probably in a duplicate of your background layer using the clone tool. Here is the trick. Set the opacity of the tool low, around 10%, select an appropriate place to clone from that has some detail to it and then very lightly clone over the overexposed area. You will be surprised how natural the effect is and will not look at all like the place it is cloned from. Amazing what a little blending and brightness difference can accomplish.
End - Removing "Hot" Spots

You might consider different framing of the composition for a more offset look. It's hard to say just how, though. There are a lot of possibilties with this picture. Offsetting the flowers more and framed with an offset vignette done automatically or by hand would work very well with this composition. It is hard to go wrong with vignette highlighting.

You might finally consider using the Sharpen tool VERY gingerly for a bit more sharpness to the left flower. But be careful, of course, because it is easy to screw up. :)

chip_k

Canon EOS-20D

06/07/2007 04:01:08 PM · #12

Ooops. I posted (and removed) a non-Challenge file. I don't have any sub-6s that I want to hear anything else about ;)

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 16:11:20.

shanksware

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

06/07/2007 04:02:44 PM · #13

Scored a whole 5.26

06/07/2007 04:26:43 PM · #14

Originally posted by krnodil:

Positives:
Stunning clarity, good color and a nice macro. Good concept.

Technicals:
You didn't say in the notes, but imply that this was captured through a microscope. You probably need a lensed adapter to prevent REAL vignetting. LOL!!! You can always deal with that problem through cropping, though.

Lighting(away from the vignette), sharpness are exceptional.

The image lacks a central focal object for the human eye to latch onto. It is like a really nice background without a main subject.

The Challenge:
Yup... science all right. :) It placed well and scored above average. This undoutably is because of it's superb technical quality. But the composition itself lacked thematic content or eye attractive viewpoints and that held the score down.

Suggestions:
The image, as it is is fine, but it needs more sharply focused chives positioned in more interesting ways... whatever THAT means. ;) How to do it is another story all together. I doubt you have any control over DOF so that makes that a very difficult job. Just keep moving things around until to get a lot of chive in focus in an interesting arrangement. :)

For less vignette simply crop the image closer. Detail will be larger in the frame and your camera provides plenty of data for you to work with.

krnodil

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

06/07/2007 04:35:32 PM · #15

thanks, Steve. Yep, that's a shot through a real microscope. I prefer the vignetting, I just wish I could get a full circle of view, so it doesn't look sawed off on top and bottom. :D

landcamera

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/07/2007 05:38:33 PM · #16

5.3667, I really thought this would score at least in to the 6. something.

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 21:09:16.

zaflabout

Nikon D300

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

06/07/2007 05:42:09 PM · #17

here is one for you, besides body being cut in half, what are the weakneses of this shot, and why did it score that low.( i was shooting for 6ish with it .

thanks a lot

06/07/2007 06:13:12 PM · #18

Originally posted by hajeka:

Just got 1 comment, but that doesn't help me to understand why this photo scores so low.

Positives:
Post processing is the main strength of this image. The incense is a nice addition.

Technicals:
Basically the sharpness, background and those types of things are all OK.

Perspective and composition, however, are on the weak side. Lighting choice does not add a lot of viewer interest to the composition though there is nothing really wrong with it either. The depth of field makes the near foreground part of the incense out-of-focus

The Challenge:
You got 4.9 but that is only about .3 below the challenge average. It probably would hve scored lower if it were not for its technical merit.

It is doubtful voters had a problem with your religious choice, but pictures of stationary art objects typically score low at DPC. Your idea to add more interest by including the incense is a good one, it just needs more viewer interest.

Suggestions:
As far as it goes there really is not much "wrong" with your picture. But there are some things you might try to increase viewer interest.

One thought would be to change from the snapshot perspective. Try a dramatic angle either high or low. Be creative. Another change would be to give it angled and more dramatic lighting as well. Both would add lots of viewer interest.

Instead of having one incense stick, maybe have two or three and maybe add some breeze to show the smoke curling up better during the timed exposure. Directing strong lighting to the smoke rising would help.

Once I photographed a coffee pot with steaming coffee coming out and took over 70 exposures. I had to boil the coffee in a pan and pour it into the pot every two or three shots before the steam disappeared and I had to do it over again. I did that until I got a smoke curl that worked. That effort earned a yellow ribbon. Consider that for yours.

Lastly, you shot at f/6.3 which left the closer part of the incense stick out-of-focus. Consider a higher f/number for greater depth of field if that is practical. It will make the exposure a lot longer which might screw up the smoke curls so you'd have to work with it to find the right combination. Don't discount the possibility of simply letting the incense burn down enough that you could set them more upright.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/07/2007 06:16:53 PM · #19

Looks like I've reached the magic #10. :)

I have to go now but will finish the rest of the critiques later tonight. My apologies for my slow responses today.

daboardergirl

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

06/07/2007 06:22:30 PM · #20

I reserve a spot for a critique after the Painting With Light challenge is over. Is there a minimum low score that you will critique? Haha. Just joking.

Thanks!!!
-Leisha

frisca

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/07/2007 06:23:52 PM · #21

i'd love a critique on my PWL entry too, once voting is over. Can I be on the list?

06/08/2007 07:25:40 AM · #22

Originally posted by JamesKW:

Positives:
Well constructed image. The strength of the composition is in the detailed clouds and bright highlighting behind the main subject.

Technicals:
Nice use of silhouette, background highlighting and the rule of thirds in a clean and simple composition.

You don't say, but it looks like you used the burn tool on a data layer to darked the image edges. If so, you may have overdone it slightly making the darked areas look a tad bit unnatural with a brownish color cast typical from using the burn tool.

Even though the image was shot at f/14 it still looks as though it was focused at infinity on the sky background, which is nice and sharp, but left some softness in the main subject.

Though the silhouette is soft focused in places it appears haloed on the hands and has some digital "jaggies" on the cross edges in a few places which is typical of oversharpening. Looks like the sharpen tool may have been used for selective sharpening.

The Challenge:
This image has a very unusual double winged vote distribution curve. You have a jump in votes at both ends of the scale, yet not a single "1" vote. That usually indicates a highly controversial image but it IS a religion challenge. This is pure speculation but perhaps a display of The Crucifiction generates strong emotions both ways.

40th out of 302 is a very good placing with a 5.9 score. That means in general voters felt this is a very good image. The strong background highlighting effect likely played a roll in that.

Suggestions:
If, in fact, you used the burn tool for background darkening then I have an alternative suggestion that you might want to try. It will reduce or eliminate the brownish hue. It is a bit more work but is non-destructive and gives a more natural result...

Add a new layer and make it an "overlay" layer and click the 50% grey box. You can paint with white and black to perform dodge and burn but without using the actual dodge and burn tools themselves, just the paint brush.

To burn, like for darkening the clouds, you select black for the brush tool and set the mode to "darken" and opacity around 10%. When painting on the 50% layer this combines naturally with the layers below it to produce nice darkening of the clouds without the brownish color cast typical when using the dodge tool.

Seems like both the silhouette and sky should be in sharp focus when shooting at f/14 but maybe not in this case. Shooting at an even higher f/stop might be needed and since you shot at 1/400th you have the lighting to conveniently bump the f/stop. You always want the edging of a silhouette to be crisp and sharp and that does not appear to true in this particular image.

Sorry... this is a lot of verbiage for such a conceptually elegant image.

06/08/2007 08:00:57 AM · #23

Originally posted by AzCKelly:

Would love some thoughts on this one, thought it was better than it scored ....(naturally!)

I haven't had a good score in so long I can't even remember. LOL!!! Your poor Suguaro looks like it lost a fight with a bolt of lightning.

Positives:
General technical quality and tonality are the strength of this composition.

Technicals:
Tonality is particularly nice in this image, especially the browns on the cacti. They are just plain nice. Sharpness is very good except for a little haloing around the right arm and a bit of digitalization visible in some of the "skeleton" fine detail on my sharpness sensitve LCD monitor. The clouds, which sometimes are really hard to find in Arizona, make a nice background.

The Challenge:
In free study challenge voters always have exceptionally high expectations and look mostly for two things. 1-Exceptional technical quality and 2-The elusive "wow" factor. Your technical quality is good but not exceptional and the "wow" factor kinda low. Combined, voters felt yours was a little below average for the challenge.

Suggestions:

kawhona makes some excellent observations and very good suggestions in the comments. I'd go with what he says. His comments remind me of this picture similar to yours that I took down in Tucson using a polarizer: