Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by triptolemus, Apr 14, 2012.

  1. triptolemus macrumors 6502


    Apr 17, 2011
    Hi... just looking for a little critique on these two photos... same subject, yet different...they both speak to me in different ways, but, what do you think? If I had to pick one, it would be #2, or are they both shyt? 1, 2, or shyt? Both are unedited. I appreciate your time, and seriously... I value your opinion, I really do.


  2. mulo macrumors 68020


    Aug 22, 2010
    Behind you
    I would of gone to a lower angle to increase the distance to the background, and thus blur it out. I would also have used portrait orientation to fill the frame better.
    I see that your also using you lens' closest focus distance, so a little larger subject, or perhaps two flowers etc would help composition.
    also try not to use auto exposure, do aperture priority (i think its called A on your Nikon D3100) and work with that to see what different effects different apertures have.
    also if you can bring a piece of paper or maybe four taped together, you can use them to bounce light back into the shadows of your subject, reducing hard shadows. (although their both OK about that since your subject is mostly transparent)
  3. chrono1081 macrumors 604


    Jan 26, 2008
    Isla Nublar
    #1 is alright although the subject is a bit too centered for my taste. The subject is only a blade of grass (would be better if something was on the blade of grass). The lighting is a bit harsh too, maybe try shooting in the morning (sometimes late evening works too but I prefer morning light).

    #2 has no real subject, the only potential subject is blurred out. The background doesn't have any really interesting elements to hold attention. Not to mention having something heavily bokeh'd out right in the center of the frame isn't generally a good idea.

    Keep up the practice though!
  4. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    #1. The subject is boring, and as mentioned already, shoot in portrait mode. ;)

    #2. There is no subject, which makes this photo even more boring than #1.

    There are a number of things wrong photographically, but it seems your biggest issue is picking a subject. It may sound like I'm being too strict, but you need to ask yourself why you're taking the photo to begin with. Your photos haven't provided people with a reason to look at it.

    So Step #1: Before taking a photo, ask yourself why you're taking the photo. Alternatively, take lots of photos and keep the best ones. Then, before you decide on a photo to share, ask yourself if there is anything interesting about it. Even subjectively, you should be able to determine this.
  5. fa8362 macrumors 65816

    Jul 7, 2008
    Both photographs tell me the photographer is a novice and understands very little, if anything, about making a photograph.

    Look at some good photos and try to understand why they're good. That will accelerate your progress. Note that most photos on the internet are terrible and should be used as examples of what NOT to do.

    You are still at the stage of near random shutter activation. A lot of people never advance beyond that stage.

    Good luck.
  6. Captpegleg macrumors member

    Jan 19, 2009
    Unbelievable Hearing

    You gotta have it to hear what these random shots of corn plants emerging from dirt are telling you.
    Responding to your call for critique just brings one question to mind.
    Are you serious?
  7. paolo- macrumors 6502a

    Aug 24, 2008
    To be brutally honest, I just don't get it. Boring subject, boring composition, boring light... I mean, they're ok from a technical point of view, exposure seems ok and you seam to be learning to control DoF. Though they just look like test shots from someone who's trying to understand Depth of Field. Nothing wrong with that. Just not something I'd ask critiquing for.

    As others have said, in the morning it might be more interesting if it was in the morning with softer light. Maybe some dew on the grass with some damp mud would be much more interesting. A lower angle might also add some context to the shot. You know, the lone standing piece of grass ready to brave another day in an endless field of mud is a better story than oh hey random grass strand lemme take a picture of you!

    That said I'm also guilty as charged. Even bothered putting some hipsterific toning on top on top of it. Though it's not really what I consider an interesting picture. :p I was just testing out the bokeh of a new lens...


    (example of what "context" a lower angle could possible give)

    Happy shooting!
  8. waloshin macrumors 68040

    Oct 9, 2008
    In my opinion neither are great. But keep trying. :)
  9. rocknblogger macrumors 68020


    Apr 2, 2011
    New Jersey
    You could have made these photos interesting by getting in closer to focus on texture but I'm going to assume the lens is at its limit here. You could have also sprayed some water to catch the bubbles. But then again you would need a different lens that would allow you to fill the fame with the plant.

    You have to understand the limitations of your equipment. Understanding which lens to use in which situations is half the battle. This is why photography can be a very expensive hobby or profession. If you're limited to the lens you have you have to learn what to shoot with his particular lens.

Share This Page