Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

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!

Get on1's Perfect Effects 9.5 for FREE! (£48 value)

Connect to User


Sooty_1's Gallery Comments

Sooty_1 > Sooty_1 Recent Activity > Sooty_1's Gallery Comments
Early morning mist by peterjay78

Early morning mist

Most of the comments have already been made, but the reason you are better to shoot in colour and convert to black and white, is that you may need the colour information to adjust the relative tonality in the mono image.
In olden days, we used a coloured filter with mono film: it lightened its own colour and darkened complementary ones (check out the 'colour wheel'), so a yellow filter lightened grass and foliage slightly and darkened blue sky. Orange and red had more intense effect, yet left clouds white for a real contrast. Blue was often used to increase the contrast on male faces, increasing the "ruggedness" of the subject.

Unfortunately, some colours look very different, yet when you remove the colour, they are similar tones, and so you sometimes need to change the tones by using a filter to separate them in a photo. You can use the colour information in a digital file to do this, eg in the channel mixer, so if you use just the b&w jpg and discard the colour information, you negate your ability to alter it later.


By: peterjay78

Sitting fairy by marosmitro

Sitting fairy

The problem here is one of balance.
All the 'weight' of the image is on the right side, and the large lantern draws my attention away from the girl. There are four prominent lanterns on the right, against two less so on the left side.
A pleasant image though slightly surreal, and the pastel feel makes it dream-like. I think redistributing the lanterns more evenly (maybe losing the closest one altogether) would improve it tremendously.


By: marosmitro

What happened to the view? by Canonshots

What happened to the view?

Unfortunately, all you have is a picture of some tufts of grass. I'm sure you will agree, not the most captivating of subjects unless you are an agrostologist.
It probably means more to you as a memory of the place, than as a standalone image.

With weather like this, it lends itself to other forms of photography than landscapes. The soft even light is great for still life (plants, people, small details), or as Willie says, the others in your group. There is no subject here, and the lack of drama robs the image of anything you want to fix your attention on. Even close ups of the grass or flora would have more interesting details to see.

I can see what the pro meant, but there isn't much in the weather to work with, here.


By: Canonshots

Hope! by paulbroad


Quite nice, I find my eye drawn to the red and white stones on the left.
I can't process at the moment, but maybe a slight crop from the left, and clone those two rocks out, might be something I'd try. That and reversing the image horizontally.


By: paulbroad

Low Summer Sun ! by TornadoTys

Low Summer Sun !

I don't have the facility to photoshop at the moment, but as there is the 'wrong' amount of body in the shot, I'd consider straightening as much as possible, then cropping so the free hand is on the lower third and the upper hand is on the upper third. That makes the composition more dynamic IMHO, which would counterpoint the image then being square.

If you can have another go at this, it might be worth trying to get the whole body shadow in (by jumping perhaps), and squaring up the camera, but maybe jumping at an angle for a different dynamic?


By: TornadoTys

Storm on the Vestmann by jerryiron

Storm on the Vestmann

While the image is very descriptive of the harsh conditions where the land meets the North Atlantic, there are a couple of technical things that strike me.

First, there seems to be a bit of lateral chromatic fringing, particularly on the rock edges to the left. If this is like this straight from the camera, you will need to use the lens profile, or reduce it in the RAW processing stage. If it is an artefact caused by your processing, you will again need to find a way to reduce it afterwards. If it is the Nikkor 12-24, there are profiles out there that will automatically remove known fringing issues.

Second, I'd remove the seabirds. They are too small in the frame to have any impact, and just look like imperfections at first glance. More of them, but larger, would round this shot off well.

I like the vertical elements, thrusting into the stormy sky, but I would like to see the foreground lightened a little. I find the shadows losing definition as they are quite blocky, and I think lightening it a little wouldn't detract from the dark brooding rock, but would allow more texture to show. At the same time, the darkening sky needn't lose any of its menace, so it would need to be localised dodging.

Otherwise, I think it's pretty good.


PS: how long before a black and white version appears? It would need some tonal adjustments and some more localised work, but it could be stunning.

By: jerryiron

Magnolias by EveLine1


Apart from the under exposure, the problem I have is that it's just full of distracting detail. I'm afraid that I spend as long looking at the out of focus statue and tree as I do the main subject.

Sorry, but for me, a simple plain coloured subject shouldn't have a busy and distracting background. None of it really works, IMHO, a plainer background, or one that is completely blurred (so as to be unrecognisable as anything) would be much better. Then I'd be free to concentrate on the shape and form of the subject itself.


By: EveLine1

Shhhh by jhaslam4


Judging by the depth of field, I'd say a wide to middle aperture. The light is pretty good, it just needs a small reflector to bounce light back into the shaded side of the face. The shutter speed is fast enough to not display any shake, and the plane of focus is pretty much around the eye and fingers, where it should be.

Being asleep, she's not going anywhere fast, so get the banker shot and then you can try different things! Reflectors are useful for babies, as their delicate skin shows better when well lit. It can even be slightly translucent in some lighting.

Filling the frame excludes any distractions, just leaving you to concentrate on the subject. Exactly what you want with a baby picture.


By: jhaslam4

Colours of the wind by DB_Photography

Colours of the wind

Most of it's been covered above: a pleasant scene that really needs something else to lift it.

I agree the colours are worth shooting, but you need to be more proficient with your burning in. There is a tell tale halo round the treetops, which you didn't really need. The trees are silhouetted anyway, so brushing over the trees won't darken them any more, but darkening the lighter patches behind the branches will make the sky look more consistent.

The logo has drawn some comment, but you really don't need one when showing your pictures. If you wished to sell your work, and you printed it for someone, you wouldn't include it in the frame as it spoils the image. By all means include a very small or unobtrusive one on a website, but including it here smacks of someone just pretending to be a professional.


By: DB_Photography

Dinorwic quarry by lespaul

Dinorwic quarry

You have used settings that are entirely reasonable, but the light is the real problem. Shooting at midday rarely works as the light is harsh, unflattering to the landscape and fro too high a position. It means undulating landscape has no modelling, no real detail is revealed about its shape and form. It looks like the sun is pretty much above the scene in front of you, judging by the shadows on the hills, and thus a polariser will have very little effect. It will do more of the sun is lower and at right angles to you

Whilst the reflections are ok, they will be there regardless of the Suns position, so shooting at midday won't make them any better. In fact, there is a hazy feel that robs the scene of a lot of its colour and contrast, and the dark tones are a result of the shade, rather than the texture.

If possible, it would be better to shoot early or late in the day, with more side lighting, that should really bring out the texture and form of the landscape.


By: lespaul

Why doesn't this appear vertical? update: Issue fixed! by pablophotographer

Why doesn't this appear vertical? update: Issue fixed!

If you want to bring out the colour of the nontranslucent parts, ie the heads, you will need to light the front a little.
Add a silver or white reflector in front of the flowers to bounce light back into them. The danger if you add more exposure is the you will get bleed round the flowers spoiling the edges of the subject, but you do need a little more if you want to eliminate the curtain patterns.


By: pablophotographer

Lilly by eskimo


A project is a good way to stimulate creativity, as long as you don't fall into the trap of shooting everything the same way!

Flowers are a good subject, because there are a multitude of different shapes, textures and colours to show off, and even restricting yourself to monochrome you will have great choice in how to shoot various subjects.

This main image, I find a little heavy. The predominance of mid tone detracts from the varied shades of white that the original displays, and it looks a bit like an underexposed high key image. It might be better a purer colour, either white (and lit better) for a high key delicate shot, or black as a contrast to the paleness go the petals. If you shoot high key, you can expand the lighter tones digitally to achieve more detail in highlight areas, particularly useful for very light subjects.

The handy thing with digital is that you can move your light around to see the effects of different angles, and if you make notes, you can go back to successful images and avoid wasting time when you do shoot film. Then you can tailor a lighting set up to the particular subject matter.

As lilies go, this is neither a particular delicate species (muscular is a good analogy), nor in particularly good condition, but you've captured the detail in the petals and kept virtually all the highlights intact. I too prefer the mono version, but the main image, if lightened significantly, could be much better, IMHO. Compositionally, this kind of shot is a matter of taste, and will depend on what you want to show of the flower.


By: eskimo

Economic divide by olamii97

Economic divide

A noble cause indeed, though I'm not sure the partial colour really works here. You would normally use selective colour to emphasise a subject, make it stand out from the background, but is your subject the people or the building?

I don't think the people's clothes are bright enough to stand out if the rest were monochrome, and the building doesn't appear to be particularly special, so maybe just having the whole thing in colour or mono would be better. The partial colour just looks incongruous.
Unfortunately, the person in the background is in the way too, it would be better without them there.

These sort of pictures often look better with the people larger in the frame, and the background to give context rather than be a main part of the image. Their appearance and expressions often tell you so much more than a general view.


By: olamii97

Colibri hovering [almost] by WimpyIskandar

Colibri hovering [almost]

Quote: I increase the speed at 1/1250,is it still blurry ???

1. No you didn't. It's still showing as 1/1000.
2. You have the original. Can't you tell? I can see it on my phone screen.


By: WimpyIskandar

Edmondthorpe Church by Stevecarr2010

Edmondthorpe Church

Not really sure what you intended using a tilt effect on this picture? It is split into three parts naturally, and all you're doing is blurring the foreground. Tilt really works best when you change the plane of sharp focus to make something sharp that wouldn't be (or vice versa). Here it will naturally be the church, which is on a plane parallel to the camera back already.

The whole thing is a bit heavy, and the sky just adds to that. Willie goes some way to lightening the feel of the image, but tbh it isn't really that good a conversion.
Looking at the screenshot, considering its a fairly bright day, it's underexposed by some way, and doesn't exhibit a full range of tones - hence the muddiness of the conversion. Add to that, there is a lot of similar tone in the image, and it's all pretty dark. Converting to black and white requires more thought than just desaturating....you need to think about tonal separation to make a mono image really pop. Lots of foliage, lots of grass and now a heavily burned in sky gives an image almost entirely composed of dark mid-tones. Perhaps revisit this and try changing the tonal relationships using "channel mixer", or even a preset, depending on your chosen software. You should be able to make the church stand out much more, and the sky might be more dramatic without the heaviness.

Perhaps upload the original image to see where you've worked from?

I say this a lot too: when it's bright, the light at midday is poor for landscapes and architecture due to harsh shadows and a lack of modelling. Early on or late in the day are better - when the sun is lower in the sky you get much better sculpting light to show detail and texture, and it brings stonework to life. You can get away with more when the light is overcast, as it operates like a giant softbox, but the you don't get the drama of directional light, which is what most people prefer in this kind of shot.


By: Stevecarr2010

general by shydallah


I'm afraid it's the same old portrait, with the same old faults.

You've made no attempt to modify the lighting (the main problem with your flash portraits), the composition and pose are the same, it's just a different person.

All you're doing is letting the camera make the decisions, without thinking about how to improve things, despite repeated advice in this forum. You will never improve if you don't take control, because you shoot the same way, the camera makes the same decisions, your pictures all come out the same.



By: shydallah

Dinner by paulbroad


I think it matters less about the second bird being sharp as it does it being completely within the frame. However, I think as a small cameo, it would be better if the DoF was a little deeper. As is, the falloff is such that it looks more like an added ps tilt effect than a genuine shallow DoF.

If it's part of the shot, and it's look at the front bird is definitely part of the story, it needs to be fully in.

Not sure whether it's something to do with the lens or processing, but there is an odd striped effect, particularly between the birds.


By: paulbroad

Parts by olamii97


It's very hard to really critique this kind of shot. It's very subjective, and owes more to the philosophy or psychology behind it than to the mechanical process of recording it.

If I had to criticise one thing, I'd prefer the floor tiles to be more symmetrical and square-on, or to be radiating out from the feet. I see Willie's second mod as more my kind of symmetry.

Nice to see something different, or should I say, something entirely familiar, from a different place.


By: olamii97

Roger Shard Over and Out! by WendyEhoff

Roger Shard Over and Out!

It's a pleasing panorama, and full credit for envisioning it in black and white, where most would go for colour. It has the advantage that the murky orangey colour of street lights don't spoil the colour, but the disadvantage that the other wonderful mix of coloured light isn't there.

Shot as a single image, you might struggle for sharpness at very large sizes, as this version doesn't look that sharp, but that might be to do with resizing as much as the original image. Even on a tripod, the bridges vibrate (particularly the Millenium Bridge) robbing you of critical sharpness, unless you can really minimise the traffic.

Planning to split the image, you need to plan carefully to avoid cutting through important parts (like Tower Bridge), and with that in mind, a looser crop would have given you more options. Another part of that, is that I'd like to see a little more space either side of the two "bookends", as you want them to be a part of the image and 'contain' it, rather than be right at the edge and 'frame' it. It would also be nice to have a little more space above the Shard, as it looks a little cramped at the top. It looks like you need a small anticlockwise rotation too.
One other small thing, it looks like you've angled the camera up, as the buildings at the edges aren't quite true. Added to the other sloping buildings, everything leans in slightly at the top. A little perspective adjustment will sort that out easily, and the two main buildings will look more natural.

Overall, it might have been better to take a series of vertical shots and combine them for a panorama, as you would have had much more information to play with and more flex with your crop, but if the sharpness holds up and the divisions fall in the right place, I'm sure it'll look fine on the wall. Good for you to not just go for the obvious shot.


By: WendyEhoff

An Cuilthionn light by Skeet1Away

An Cuilthionn light

Good scene, good light, good camera settings, good composition. Great shot.

There might be a case for a colour burn grad, or local adjustment from the bottom, to strengthen the colour of the foreground. The paler colours emphasise the stark, cold nature of the landscape.

There might be a case for cropping the sky slightly, to improve the ratio between the sky and land, but the higher sky here gives a sense of the grandeur and the openness of the scene.

The use of the grad has helped keep lots of dynamic texture in the clouds, and emphasises the windswept upland.

I'd be interested to see a version with slightly warmer light and more colour, but it like this version too. Very Colin Prior.


By: Skeet1Away

Little Egret by continuum

Little Egret

Quote: I think you have it just about spot on. A first class **** of the bird

You know him?

Pretty good effort. There is detail in all the highlights without making the rest of it look muddy, the bird is natural, and is going about its business. You won't always be able to get down to water level, and doing so may well have spooked it. As good a shot as you're likely to get. Don't worry about dated equipment, it never hampered people like Eric Hosking and Stephen Dalton!


By: continuum

Delicate by shinds57


I find it less delicate, and more heavy handed, I'm afraid.

The pose is ok, pretty standard stuff, but the lighting is very heavy, and isn't sympathetic. Luckily the model has helped pull it off, though I find her facial expression incongruous. Staring into space, or at the floor, looking thoughtful or peaceful would be better.
The highlights on her face are much harder than on the rest of her, suggesting its a bit of an effort holding that pose!
It would be nice to see a little separation between her hair and the background, unless you go for a harder, more spotlight effect. I think the light is just too soft to work like this, unless you wanted to make her look more delicate, in which case you needed a much lighter image.
Whilst it's hard to eradicate skin folds when holding this sort of pose, the waist area looks ugly with the deep shadowed creases, maybe reducing them a little, or cloning out all but one, and the jury's out on whether the tattoo helps or hinders. While it's uniquely hers, it affects the appearance of the smoothness of her form, which I'm guessing was the prime driver in this shot.

The vignette you've created isn't symmetrical in the frame, and the hard left edge contrasts with the soft right side, and it looks like the chair leans slightly to the right. I hadn't even mentioned the logo!

All that said, it's quite a hard subject to light well, and for me at least, isn't so far away from what I envisage you were after. I often say it, particularly about studio work, that it's the small details and tweaks that often separate a decent image from a great one.


By: shinds57

Evening Calm by Otinkyad

Evening Calm

You have achieved a calm, tranquil feel, and the meandering water leads you naturally back to the mountains in the distance.

Not much to change, though I'd either clone out or crop the blue container or whatever it is, bottom left, and (though it is probably totally level as it is) I might try a small clockwise rotation. I'm not sure whether local contrast adjustments to try to bring out the jagged peaks would give you much more, but it would be nice if they were slightly more defined. You could even try adding a small amount of colour to the sky with a gradient effect, which would prevent the sky "bleeding off" the top of the frame. Perhaps just a darkening gradient would do.

This is the sort of place to stay and watch the sun go down, and hope for the lovely colour changes in the sky. Unfortunately, here it looks a little hazy, spoiling your sky a little. Wintertime, with low raking sun would be ideal, but for the conditions, this is about as good as you were going to get.


By: Otinkyad

Reminisce by IanSR


So, if it's perfect apart from the watch, what is it you want critique on?

As you pointed out, it's completely incongruous, and spoils the timeless nature of the image. My other minor gripe is that the hat looks a bit too big.

Ironic that it's the addition of "time" that spoils the "timelessness" of it.


By: IanSR

Stocks Reservoir, Lancashire by SeanTelford

Stocks Reservoir, Lancashire

There are a couple of question marks for me.

The cloud isn't directly over its reflection, and looks different, like a couple of images were a short while apart.
The nebulosity should be better defined if it's supposed to be the Milky Way, especially with a wide lens. It looks more like local lightening has been applied with a soft brush to make it look like that.
The stars, particularly higher in the sky, are pretty uniform in colour and brightness, and there don't seem to be any other objects there. There will always be blobs of fuzziness and odd shaped stars that on closer examination are other galaxies and deep space objects. The uniformity of colour might be due to overexposure washing out the colour of the stars, but they range from very blue to very red and a correct exposure will show that.
There seem to be areas of different colour balance in the foreground, as if some local adjustment has taken place.

Other than that, a pleasant enough view. It isn't easy doing this kind of shot, so keep trying, and it will come.


By: SeanTelford

Thaousand trishaw. by WimpyIskandar

Thaousand trishaw.

It's a difficult subject to get a good photo of, unless you can somehow get higher. The colours are lost in the jumble, and from here it becomes almost a panoramic.

The reason it doesn't work for me is the light.
1. You've shot looking into the sun, which has reflected highlights on every available surface, destroying the colours and adding a multitude of blown highlights, and
2. You've shot with a high sun, which has caused deep shadows and bright highlights. This also robs the scene of colour.

Better to shoot if possible with a lower sun or in shade, as the light is too contrasty.

The position isn't too good either. You have shot at an angle, where it might have been better to shoot straight on and accepted the linear nature of the picture, or emphasised the angle more. As is, it's neither one nor the other. It's a record shot.


By: WimpyIskandar

Sod the Diet! by paulbroad

Sod the Diet!

Much better timing than the last. Still needs a crop, but at least something interesting is happening now.


By: paulbroad

Cathy by Stevecarr2010


Portrait professional? Or just overdone smoothing?

There is no texture at all, just a diffuse glow, which looks unnatural and obvious, I'm afraid. She looks like she has pretty good skin though, so maybe a less processed image would look better.

There are a couple of hard lines round her neck which could be minimised by asking her to stretch slightly. It sounds like it will change the pose, but pro models know how to tighten areas of skin that form creases, particularly around the neck, arms, waist etc. it's a muscular thing rather than a movement, and it makes all the difference.

On the other hand, she looks comfortable, and focus and exposure are ok, though I'm guessing you might have cloned out a couple of hotspots.

It also looks good if you crop just at the top of her hand, making just a headshot.


By: Stevecarr2010

lucky shot by unk001

lucky shot

Why are they in the critique gallery? Or should they be in the main gallery? Are you wanting critique on them?
If so, there are far too many. For critique, choose one or two and enter them separately.


By: unk001

wildlife/nature by shydallah


Taking your requests in order:
Exposure...you used spot metering, what did you take your reading from? You need to be careful and ensure you use a mid-tone, or you will need to compensate for it. Here, you have a dark, muddy exposure, so I'm guessing you metered from the water, which your camera has turned mid grey, and thus underexposed slightly. That has affected the brightness of the white plumage which can be brightened in processing.

Focus....well at f/11 on a digital sensor, virtually everything over a couple of metres is going to be in focus, so no issue here. Slight softness is probably due to resizing the image. You need to check and adjust sharpness after you've resized.

Composition....well you can't do much about where the birds stand, but you can choose how you frame it, what you include and what you leave out. Here, the position of the birds shows little thought to harmony. There are shadows overlapping, they are all moving in different directions and the lower left bird doesn't fit into the composition. Maybe aiming for just the central vertical line would have been better, or just including a couple of birds, you have to wait for the right moment, which may not come!
This is just untidy...you need a more harmonious composition to make pictures like this work.

Using manual and spot metering, you need to ask yourself if you're learning anything, if all you do is follow the cameras recommendation? In your position, it would be better to perhaps use auto modes and concentrate on more important things like lighting, composition, focus etc. certainly don't use spot metering unless you are confident you know how to interpret what it's telling you - you have to know what exposure the spot needs, or how to achieve it if it isn't mid-grey.

You should also be thinking about constructing the elements in the frame, ensuring they are harmonious. If you don't know what you are looking for, all the critique in the world won't help you achieve better images. Look at other peoples efforts at the sort of images you are taking, and ask yourself why you think they work, or why they don't.. Then when you understand that better, you start to apply it to your own efforts both after, and importantly before, you press the shutter.


By: shydallah