PhotoPlus Practical Photoshop N-Photo Digital Camera World
Go Back   Digital Camera World Forum > Photography Technique > Photo critique

Photo critique Post your best shots here and get feedback from other members or request critiques of images in your albums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 06-09-11, 01:30 PM
donoreo's Avatar
donoreo donoreo is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 2,610
Images: 2
Ok, my two cents worth now

The horizon, while I believe it was level when the photo was taken, looks off because of the angle of the river bank and the slope of the hill.

I agree with cropping the top a bit.

It does lack punch. However, if that is how it looked in real life in person, what is wrong with that? I have seen to many times where a photo is posted in a forum where they ask for others to edit, and people go way overboard with punching it up. Does it look good as a photo? Maybe. Does it reflect reality, no. So it depends on what you want, a good photo at any cost or do you want a photo that reflects reality?
__________________
My Flickr gallery
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-09-11, 01:51 PM
jools-elliott jools-elliott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 173
Thanks James.

I really want to help people out here and pass on what I know. But, it just seems that how I take my images and produce them is not for here.

Is this image my best work? Nope, I have done better. However, what I don't like is over-critical stuff like "nice location but your images are dull". If that is the case, may I ask why a very well respected mag has asked me to go to London to talk about my work as they feel it would be an inspiration to people?

If you want to know more about the digital burning technique, I'll gladly pass on what I know.
__________________
Jools Elliott
My portfolio
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-09-11, 03:06 PM
James Blonde James Blonde is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 165
Jools - I do - probably makes sense to do that in the other thread?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-09-11, 03:17 PM
jools-elliott jools-elliott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 173
OK, will do. Or I'll start a proper "how to" thread and try to explain it A to Z.
__________________
Jools Elliott
My portfolio
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-09-11, 04:14 PM
jools-elliott jools-elliott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by donoreo View Post
Ok, my two cents worth now

The horizon, while I believe it was level when the photo was taken, looks off because of the angle of the river bank and the slope of the hill.

I agree with cropping the top a bit.

It does lack punch. However, if that is how it looked in real life in person, what is wrong with that? I have seen to many times where a photo is posted in a forum where they ask for others to edit, and people go way overboard with punching it up. Does it look good as a photo? Maybe. Does it reflect reality, no. So it depends on what you want, a good photo at any cost or do you want a photo that reflects reality?
Thank you. You are spot on with the horizon and the reasons behind the slope. It's just one of those oddities.

And yes, people are going way too far with processing things as of late. As photographers, you will all too often hear "well, you must have PS'ed it". A new plugin comes out and you see images plastered across the forums with gaudy processing.

If an image is worthwhile, it shouldn't take you long at all to get the best out of it.

I think the "science" behind photography is slowly being ebbed away because a great number of people are saying "that's alright. I'll fix it later in PS".

The best way to find out how good you are is to go back to basics, get a spot meter and a camera that has no meter in it. You'll soon find a difference without the instant feedback on the screen!
__________________
Jools Elliott
My portfolio
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-09-11, 07:53 PM
Nigel Powles's Avatar
Nigel Powles Nigel Powles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 171
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-09-11, 10:25 PM
lesrhar's Avatar
lesrhar lesrhar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 94
Images: 5
There is no right or wrong in much of the discussion in this thread; it falls into the area of personal preference. There are those who think it okay for their photos to look over-processed, and those who prefer that the picture appear not to have been processed at all.

What we tend to forget is that even in the days of film the pictures were processed. The main difference between then and now lies in who did the processing. In the days of film, unless you were fortunate enough to have your own lab and equipment, you handed the film in somewhere and trusted the lab technicians to give you prints that accurately reflected the scene you tried to capture. The way the photos were processed, and even the choice of paper used for prints, could dramatically alter the results. Most times the lab guys got it right, sometimes they didn't.

Furthermore, some photographers were better at taking pictures, others were better at lab work.

Today we all have to process our own pictures. Those who excel at the lab work, so to speak, will get better and more natural-looking photos after processing than those who excel at shooting and tend to rely more on plug-ins and automated procedures during the processing stage.

The technology is seductive, and we tend to forget that it is a tool to serve us, and not the other way round.

I also suspect that most of the photographers here would fare quite well with jool's "back-to-basics" test; after you've been taking pics for a while you get a feel for what the exposure should be. The exposure meter helps you fine-tune things, but if you know what you're doing you can usually manage quite well without one.

Just my devalued 2 cents,
Les
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-09-11, 10:26 PM
ianpinion ianpinion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 975
Images: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jools-elliott View Post
Thank you. You are spot on with the horizon and the reasons behind the slope. It's just one of those oddities.

And yes, people are going way too far with processing things as of late. As photographers, you will all too often hear "well, you must have PS'ed it". A new plugin comes out and you see images plastered across the forums with gaudy processing.

If an image is worthwhile, it shouldn't take you long at all to get the best out of it.

I think the "science" behind photography is slowly being ebbed away because a great number of people are saying "that's alright. I'll fix it later in PS".

The best way to find out how good you are is to go back to basics, get a spot meter and a camera that has no meter in it. You'll soon find a difference without the instant feedback on the screen!
Jools, photography has always been a two stage process, namely the capture stage and the development stage. With film this meant choosing the time, location and equipment to use to capture your image as close to how you wanted it to look as a finished print or transparency, because there were limits as to what could be achieved in the darkroom, even armed with the nounce of a skilled professional darkroom developer. With digital, the capture stage is still as just as important to ensure you get the right raw material to work within the digital darkroom. Digital editing is not really meant as a means of correcting ones in camera errors at point of capture, it is a means to create and develop your image for presentation using whatever medium you choose. As I said in my earlier post, how you either visualise or imagine how your image to eventually look, determines what digital editing is done to it. I think you have to conceed that you can not create many art style images in camera alone, where the photographer is portraying what they imagine their image to be like and is a work of fiction based loosely on an actual scene.

I believe your style is and what you're aiming to do is record a scene, at a given time, in particular light conditions as accurately as you can to what your eyes have seen. You want to be able to look back at that image and remember how it was at that time when you captured it. You are in effect describing a factual account of a particular location at a definite point in time for prosterity. As such, you will not use an elaborate editing processes because that would spoil what you are trying to put across and change the message. However, when other people look at you image, they're looking at it from there own perspective and this may differ greatly from your own. We all tend to look at images and judge them against what we would have done to the image to present it in the way we would want to. This is why we get so many different viewpoints, but nobody is necessarily right or wrong, it's just a personal opinion, even though there is often a general consensus about certain points.

As photographers, we all have different ideas, different tastes and that only go to show how much diversity of styles there is and how much healthier photography is for it. If some like to heavily process there own images to create the effects they want, then let them, so long as they don't start doing it to someone else's images, that's fine, because if they do there will be hell to play!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-09-11, 06:21 AM
Markulous's Avatar
Markulous Markulous is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Peak District
Posts: 577
Images: 1
Personally, I find the composition a little lacking (it could do with another element in the foreground) and I'm not too sure about the long exposure. OK, so it's provided a bit of a reflection but despite the lens pouch technique (which I find interesting) there's still a bit of cloud movement blur detracting from the resulting image. Lighting seems somewhat flat (hence the comments about levels, I guess) - and I think it is level (physics states that a reflection will always be on a straight line from the subject - you can't bend light!).

Whilst I'd agree with the comments about some who slavishly use (or misuse!) filters and PP, I'd also suggest that maybe you're slavishly sticking to in-camera. Nothing wrong with that and a laudable goal but it'll never be the best final solution 100% of the time - I'd suggest it's the best possible start point - with a view to possibly enhancing further.

Technique-wise, I tend to use blending as my preferred method, probably as I then don't have to use/faff around with (or misuse!) grads and also as I've been using computers for rather more years than I care to admit (but still don't use effects). When I started landscapes, I concentrated on composition, keeping the gear simple and mastering that - so rather leap-frogged the necessity for filters.
__________________
If it moves then snap it. And if it doesn't move snap it twice in case it does move!
mark at Photobucket
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-09-11, 01:33 PM
jools-elliott jools-elliott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 173
Thanks for that.

I want it in camera as I don't want to spend ages in front of a PC. The only time it isn't done in camera is when I do interior shots where grads are impossible.

Faffing about with grads isn't as bad as you think. You can meter and select a grad in around a minute rather than spending longer than that in front of a PC merging images.
__________________
Jools Elliott
My portfolio
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump