Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Sooty_1's Gallery Comments
You could have come down on the ISO and used a larger aperture if you had wanted to, just to improve the overall quality, though it doesn't detract from a nicely observed scene. I added a mod to get rid of the blue material, and to tidy up a few intrusions. I think it helps isolate the figure and the doorway more easily. I also adjusted the contrast slightly too.
And here was me thinking of the complex juxtaposition of buildings and landscape, vis-a-vis the destruction of the natural to make room for the man-made, which when abandoned, reverts to being an organic part of the landscape, and the more dilapidated it becomes, the more part of the landscape we perceive it to be.
A lovely moment caught, just a small shame the girl on the right isn't smiling too.
The detail is there, it just needs a bit of work to bring it out.
I'm going to disagree with some of the comments above.
It looks to me as though it could do with a slight anticlockwise rotation, for aesthetic purposes. It is a nice atmospheric shot, though the colours are muted, especially in the sky, which would be so much better if it were more yellow. A crop to a more letterbox shape would suit well too, methinks.
I agree the colours are all muted and very similar, but with more drama, it wouldn't matter. The main problem here making it dramatic enough for it not to matter.
As you probably know, the hand-holding has taken the edge off the sharpness, as has the limited depth of field at f/2.8. There seems to be a bit of luminance noise in the background too.
That is dangerous. They are close to walking over the cornice, which is liable to break off in warm afternoons as the sun makes the snow softer. You can see the jagged bits where some has broken off before.
Welcome to the site.........however, I don't wish to sound negative, nor discourage you, but if you're serious about getting criticism on your photos (as you say on your profile), you need to think more about what you are trying to achieve. This just looks like a snapshot using Hipstamatic or one of those apps.
The Om is the right way round.
Working with what you had, I think trying to move so the web was more against the shadows would have been better. As you can see, half the image is out of focus bright wall, adding nothing to the picture.
I like it. Lighting is entirely appropriate for the mood, I think the colour is good and my only criticism really is her eye make-up is a bit heavy - on first viewing, it makes her eyes look a funny shape, like she has a squint.
A pleasant image, and not a bad conversion. You've done well to keep the verticals perfect too, though the sky has gone a little blocky (probably the result of noise reduction and excessive darkening?) and I find the corner of the railing bottom right slightly intrusive with the clean line of the railing behind it. Possibly a small step to the left would have solved this. Settings are ok, though a slightly smaller aperture might have improved sharpness, you don't really need 1/1600, so maybe you could have traded a couple of stops of aperture for a little less speed.
Welcome to the site. It's brave to launch straight into the critique gallery right off the bat, but it's the best place to learn quickly, as long as you can take a bit of criticism.
But you're not "exploring the craft of painting" - at all. If you took the image home and painted from it, then you would be, but as it is, you are just using filters and effects in your processing program. I suspect all you are doing is moving sliders and seeing what the results look like. Well, it still looks like a cheap paint-by-numbers, still without any real subject. A nice sky is seldom enough in itself without something to catch your attention and hold it. You need a big rock, a boat, something to focus on.
The horizon isn't too far off - there is some barrel distortion giving the impression of being off, but it slopes very slightly down at both ends. The picture is also slightly overexposed, which is why you've lost the sky and blown the highlight in the white water. It is easier to recover shadow detail than overdone highlights, so better to slightly underexpose than overexpose.
Unfortunately, the attempt to make it look like a painting has made it look more like a paint-by-numbers with a limited palette of colours. I'm not sure exactly what you mean - are you painting from a photo then digitising it, or is this just a digital photo badly manipulated?
I think it would have been better if you had moved round to the right a little, to elongate the single shadow and change the angle slightly, which would have had the added bonus of omitting the second shadow at source and filled the frame with the single cross and shadow.
I would suggest a shorter focal length and getting a lot closer. What Willie says, plus you have a lot of fringing around the pink petals, caused by using a (frankly not very marvellous) lens in extreme circumstances. Better to use a shorter lens, closer, on a tripod with a low ISO and a middling aperture (f/8, f/11). That will eliminate camera shake and allow a shutter speed of anything appropriate, plus the lens is working at it's optimum sharpness. Close ups and macro are better when not hand held, as any shake is exaggerated at large magnifications. Use manual focus and ensure it's focussed on exactly what you want.
As Willie says! You could have taken this shot (to keep the sand pristine), then walked forwards and right to make the bridge bigger in the shot. The idea of it stretching out to the hills is a good use of perspective, but it only occupies a small portion of the frame. If you could have gone 1/2 of the way to the water's edge (just past the big brick on the right) and shot from there, you would have eliminated a lot of dead space, used the shoreline as a near point and made the bridge bigger, yet still the perspective would have taken the end away to the mountains.
Firstly, congrats on using grads. Too many people use PS trickery when simple steps at taking would be much easier. Unfortunately, the grad in use is too high up, and you can see the tansition. Secondly, you could have used the polariser to good effect here, as the sun is in the right place. Keep the polariser, it is just as important with digital as it is with film.
I have no wish to discourage a new member, but sometimes it seems like a picture is deliberately inserted with every basic error in it to see if it gets a reaction.
As some of the other comments really, though has no-one else seen the paler haloes round the figures? I see them better on the thumbnail image, but it looks like a little dodging has been done, though the figures are in silhouette anyway, so I can't see why.
Slightly overexposed, and you've cut the top off the minaret.
I think the square mod is compositionally stronger, but I don't really get any emotion from it. The rider looks distracted and distant, but I don't get any tension or pre-performance nerves.
The business areas of London are usually quiet at the wekends.
Nice idea, and the exposure is pretty good. There isn't much there to critique really, though I would have liked to have seen more of the trails, as it's only an impression of a heart rather than a complete one. It looks a bit like you've added a blue grad effect at the bottom to hide something (heads, perhaps?) which has hidden the bottom of the heart as well.
I think you are limited by the equipment here. I'd love a really wide sweep of that sky, and that would mean a wider lens. That would also shrink the foreground, so you might have to move to recompose.