Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Connect to User

loading

paulbroad's Gallery Comments

paulbroad > paulbroad Recent Activity > paulbroad's Gallery Comments
Front on jump by cf73

Front on jump

Good angle, composition and background. For that, full marks. The fence is hugely dominant and I look at that rather than horse and rider. That's lighting or after work or both. A bit of dodging to lift the horse and rider, possibly. It may be a touch under exposed, so try a general brightening, than darken the fence if necessary.

Paul

By: cf73

Motherhood by mgoldman

Motherhood

A very nice picture, and even better if you had left the tones alone. The mixture of mono and colour is rather confusing and draws attention from what you should be looking at. I would rarely mess with this type of subject.

Paul

By: mgoldman

Eye of the Heron by Chandler

Eye of the Heron

Very well seen. Just a touch under exposed on the head, but easily corrected in software.

Paul

By: Chandler

that lad again by pluckyfilly

that lad again

Yes, much prefer the crop. Unfortunately, with this rather greater enlargement, we now see junior is a bit off sharp. It's movement, too, so will not sharpen.

Paul

By: pluckyfilly

Hey be careful. Dont get choke on your prey by kjteng

Hey be careful. Dont get choke on your prey

Generally with Willie. Very good in general, but a slight tweak on the sharpness, which may be high ISO related and the grass is unfortunate and relatively easy to remove.

Paul

By: kjteng

Hornet by paulbroad

Hornet

I hadn't, actually. But you are right!

Pauo

By: paulbroad

Battle of the giants by Coen

Battle of the giants

Good, but you are over exposed a bit. Better expose less and correct the shadows later. The bottom head needs darkening and the tusks are loosing detail. You used spot metering. What did you meter from and what compensation did you use.

I suspect the grey of the top animal. It is closer to 18% and will be the reason for the over exposure of the lower animal. You are not actually far off, and the content is good. A few minutes with the burning in tool could make all the difference.

Paul

By: Coen

Lichen revisted by Hobs

Lichen revisted

That is much better. You will struggle a bit and any compact, other than a CSC, will hold you back on specialist subjects. Many compact cameras are actually quite good at macro, but will struggle with depth of field. You may be able to get to f8 and the smaller the better. The higher the number, the smaller the aperture and the greater the depth of field.

Depth of field is roughly 1/3 in front of the point of focus and to 2/3 behind. The actual depth in total that is acceptably sharp depends on the aperture.

You can learn the basics with a compact, but even bridge cameras restrict in some areas by slow operation and the tiny sensors used.

Not for me to spend your money, but if you become seriously interested you need a DSLR to start to encompass the whole scene. Then you are on another learning curve. Compat system cameras are now very good and my Fuji X-E1 is as good as the EOS 7D for image quality. It still lacks that speed of operation and full range of lenses and accessories to potentially try any subject.

Paul

By: Hobs

Stroove Lighthouse at sunrise by ladigit

Stroove Lighthouse at sunrise

Nice shot. I would just run the burning in tool over the sky, top right, to reduce brightness on the frame edge. Do I detact flash in the foreground. There is a change of colour balance and intensity in the foreground which looks like flash, but your EXIF says none?

With Willie, just no need for f22. Not the best aperture for most lenses except macro. F8 or 1q quite enough.


Paul

By: ladigit

Ray of Warmth by IshanPathak

Ray of Warmth

Good sky and a stock shot. Skies rarely stand as single images, they are foils to simething else.

Paul

By: IshanPathak

Esther by parslakoo

Esther

We do need a bit more detail. However, a perfectly good family shot of which you can be proud. Why would you want more?

Paul

By: parslakoo

Lichen by Hobs

Lichen

What a lot of comments. The basic problem is that you are trying to get too much in with not enough depth of field. The blurred areas are a distraction. The best way to show such lichen, or similar subjects, is get in close to a much smaller number of examples, then use a tripod and f18 to 22 to get some depth.

I assume you are using a compact so probably f8 is as low as you can go, but f2.9 is just not going to give enough sharp.

However, nothing is truly sharp, so you have some movement blur or focus on entirely the wrong plane. Did you lock the auto focus on a fixed point, or focus manually. You must in these circumstances.

Paul

By: Hobs

Shells spread... by Dibyajit

Shells spread...

The idea is first class but the grossly unsharp heavy objects in the extrene foreground totally grab the eye and do nithing fir the effect. You must either have them fully in frame and sharp with a blurred background, or crop them off totally. A lot can be said, but this, above is the simpke basic problem.

Paul

By: Dibyajit

Butterfly by jimjohns

Butterfly

Could be so good but the quality is a bit off. Basically, it's not critically sharp where it should be and I struggle with your settings. You needed f11 or 16 and did not need such a fast shutter speed or high ISO. None of which will help the quality issue which may be partly due to sizing.

I never go above ISO 400 for such images, less if possible, and if you are going to use such a wide aperture for close up, your focusing must be critical.

Paul

By: jimjohns

Between you and me. by OlwenB

Between you and me.

The composition is good but it must be sharp. This is a pictorial natural history image and the birds need to be very clearly defined. You obviously know that. There are two main basic requirements fipor most images, correctly exposed and sharp where it needs to be.

Willie covers everything, so no need to repeat. Be sharp!

Paul

By: OlwenB

Milestones Museum Basingstoke by pluckyfilly

Milestones Museum Basingstoke

The lad looks like something from 50 or more years ago in those shorts. I'm not sure about the position of his hand? Would crop the light from the extreme left. Never a good idea to have a bright highlight right on the edge.

Quite nice in general, but would crop in a bit tighter. You have already lost a bit of the bottom of the engine, so loose part of the top and left too.

Paul

By: pluckyfilly

Sunday Best... by Frank_Reid

Sunday Best...

Very well done and far better than most of this type of thing we see. If you think cloning is cheating, you are in trouble. Anything that could be done in a wet darkroom has to be sensible photographic treatment, and many great images were as much the result of a skilled printer as that of the photographer.

The same applies digitally. You can do and believe as you like, but all the tools available are fair game if they improve the image for the viewer. It depends what the image is meant for, and pure record should not be altered in base content, but even then shifting an object which should not be there, like litter, for example, has to be entirely sensible.

Paul

By: Frank_Reid

Rocks on Stroove beach by ladigit

Rocks on Stroove beach

Much better than many of it's type because it has a strength, and the composition does lead nicely to the sky. The sky is a touch too bright and the rocks a little dark, but not outside the range of a bit of software manipulation. Out with the dodge and burn tools!

Paul

By: ladigit

Contrails by mdconnors

Contrails

I rather like this. The curve of the horizon makes it and I even accept the tiny tree as a focal point. For once, mono works in a sky shot too, due to the drama. Nice.

Several others who shoot skies should look at this.

Paul

By: mdconnors

Audi Q5 by Philo

Audi Q5

Very nicely done. I would need to see the colour version but, for me, colour would be better for a motoring image like this. the car and surrounding shout colour to me. I might just touch the dodge tool under the front end to lighten the very dark shadow just a touch.

Paul

By: Philo

ruins at Kos by justahobby

ruins at Kos

A pleasant and well exposed scene. You lack a constructive composition. With such scenes it is best to select something to make dominant, a focal point for the whole image. Then let the scene act as background. There are a lot of subjects here.

Paul

By: justahobby

Dettifoss Iceland by tuss234

Dettifoss Iceland

For me, too much soft water and not enough background scene. The sharp rock in the foreground is the strongest feature due to being sharp. This one is going to be a personal one. There is nothing really wrong with what you have done, it comes down to content.

Paul

By: tuss234

Hud Hud. by IshanPathak

Hud Hud.

Basically, the tonal range is too great. You need the foreground brighter, but the brighter area of the sky darker. You may be able to do something in software, but, I suspect, not enough. I hate to say it, but HDR might have been the way to go, or a graduated ND filter. How many people regularly carry such items unless on a known commission?

Paul

By: IshanPathak

Lost in Narnia by markst33

Lost in Narnia

The basic composition and idea is first class, but you are a touch under exposed and thd lighting has not fallen well on her eyes. The eyes are the most important bit and they have shadow. I think a weak flash fill would lift things a bit. Very weak, or it would take over, but the fall of light is just not quite right.

Paul

By: markst33

Gone to seed by billmyl

Gone to seed

Nice enough, but it needs something to give impact, and that is lighting. It screams for a backlight to give strength and a glow. Late evening sun, bright and golden.

Paul

By: billmyl

Thursty by dusfim

Thursty

This is going to sound silly, but I have to say it. It looks like someone elses arm sticking into the image. The quality is good, but, even though I like tight crops, I think you need a bit more here.

Paul

By: dusfim

PLEASE HELP!!!! by MyOwnWonderland

PLEASE HELP!!!!

No filters for wedding. Most definately NOT! Just go down the sound technical photography route.

This has some interest, but .i find the content a bit disjointed with no link between girl and door. It also has your characterustic slightly flat washy look? I wonder why you do this. I know it is a styke statement, but I'm not convinced the average custoker will appreciate it.

Pauk

By: MyOwnWonderland

Untitled by camdcwhite

Untitled

Leave the crop alone for me, but clone out the text on the walll, bottom right. It pulls the eye to that corner. Nice work.

Paul

By: camdcwhite

One Zebra About To Bite The Dust by RobLouw

One Zebra About To Bite The Dust

There was a time when I would have doubted the high ISO. Not now. I used a 5D mk2 recentky and it was superb at high ISO. I assume the mk 3 is even better. Excellent stuff. Great composition. Might just slide the burning in tool gentky over the white dust cloud?

Paul

By: RobLouw

Two zebras about to bite the dust by RobLouw

Two zebras about to bite the dust

Very impressive indeed. Some may say there are two distinct images here, but how often would you get such action in the same frame? Prefer the local take away myself.

Paul

By: RobLouw