Feedback on my Pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by TimJim, Aug 26, 2007.

  1. TimJim macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    #1
    http://timjim1037.deviantart.com/

    just tell me your favorite/least favorite and what you think of my pictures out of 10 or whatever you want just some feedback... thanks.
     
  2. M@lew macrumors 68000

    M@lew

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #2
    Your first one with the sunset is the nicest I reckon. The rest don't really seem to jump out at me very well.
     
  3. 01jamcon macrumors 6502a

    01jamcon

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #3
    Yeah, I have the same feeling bout your pics, the first sunset picture is the best, mostly because it is full of colour. The rest lack colour and saturation, and the other two shots of the animals are sharp, but the lion one would look so much better if the colours 'popped' a bit more. The elephants could have been better if the composition was better picked, the herd in the picture don't seem pleasingly arranged, and maybe the use of a different depth of focus on maybe the small elephant, and the rest being blurred would've looked cool.

    Sorry that this post isn't very coherent. Things to do in future: think more about colour either in-camera or in post-processing. Also, with animals and stuff think about composition, and getting a shot that is captivating, (which of course is what all photography is about). Maybe some reading of basic guides to photography would help give a background knowledge and understanding.

    Overall, not too bad, but I hope my small pointers help in some way.
     
  4. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #4
    I echo what others say about the sunset being your strongest photo. The lions would be great if you had used a flash. That would bring out the color and even up that lighting a bit. I do find the elephants to be decent but not quite sharp and it doesn't quite pop. I messed with it a bit doing selective saturation of the midtones and shadows. I also don't think you should discount black and white when color is absent. If you're offended by me messing with them and posting them please let me know and I'll remove the post asap.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. baby duck monge macrumors 68000

    baby duck monge

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    #5
    This is exactly why people need to strongly consider investing in Photoshop (even just Elements) or some other post-processing program. Even small adjustments can greatly improve nearly every picture you take. The problems with your other pictures could be greatly diminished by a little Photoshop action (so don't give up!).

    And jessica., you were spot-on with your edit of the elephants. Nice work.
     
  6. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #6
    The sunset shot is good but it has been done to death. As have the lions and tigers and bears... um elephants. I don't know if those shots were from Africa or what but the one thing that stands out amongst shots from Africa are that they all look alike.

    The other shots are okay but they more closely resemble snapshots than anything else. Not that they are bad, just not portfolio pieces. The sunset is the best one, but as I said before, done to death.

    p.s. I don't name my photos or if I do I give them a very ambiguous name. The one called parade of elephants should be called gathering of elephants since they aren't moving at all.
     
  7. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #7
    Yeah because that matters!

    Thanks Babyduck. :)
     
  8. MacUserSince87 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    #8
    When I look at a photo critically I first react emotionally to it, then try to break it down to figure out what caused the reaction to it (or not). That's a process of reverse engineering where I make a mental inventory of everthing I noticed in the photo in the order of attraction then condsider how all those elements relate to each other and the message.

    Photos will contain elements which deliver the message or guide the eye to where it is delivered (the effective stuff) but may also contain elements which distract from the center of interest and the message. That's where the relative attractiveness -- contrast with the background -- comes into play. A photo in which the center of interest contrasts with the overall background will be more effective at delivering the intended message that a photo where the COI and background blend together or where some other area of the photo has more contrast and becomes an eye catching distraction. The quicker the viewer finds the COI and the longer it holds their attention the more effective the message will be.

    How the various things in the photo relate to each other in large part will dicate the path the viewer's eye follows within the photo to find the center of interest and grasp the message. How the COI is composed in the frame will dictate the path the eye must take to find it. How interesting the path to the center of interest is and where the eye goes next after locating play a big role in how effectively the story in the photo is told.

    Some photos with a single strongly contrasting COI are like a one-line joke; short delivery and a quick strong "punchline". You wouldn't want or need a lot of other stuff in the photo to distract from the message. A head and shoulders portrait is a good example. The real COI is the front of the face, specifically the eyes. Putting light on the front of the face and in both eyes is really what is important. Everything else is secondary, but you want to compose the face in the frame in the upper third so the viewer sees all the less important stuff on the way to the face and there's really nowhere to go above the head to distract the eye off the face. The viewer finds and stays on the face and the net result is a very effective portrait.

    Some photos may have more than one center of interest. It's a challenge to compose these types of photo well because whenever there is more than one COI they will compete with each other to some degree. The degree they appear to be harmonious or in conflict is controlled compositionally via their relative contrast to each other and the background tone -- the one with the strongest contrast will get the most attention and be noticed first -- and by their distance from each other in the frame.

    Viewing a photo with two eually strong COIs on opposite sides is like watching a ping-pong match. The viewer can focus on them both at the same time so the eye flits between them. The abrupt eye movement creates the illusion of conflict. But put the same to equal COIs close together and they will merge together as a single unfied and harmonious COI. That dynamic is very important in group shots. If the heads are too far apart the photo begins to look like a collection of individual portraits pasted in the same frame. Keeping the heads closer together and equally spaced unfies them an creates a nice smooth dynamic as the viewer moves from face-to-face.

    Its the movement of the eye within the photo which creates an illusion of movement in the composition. That long preamble leads us to how you selected your center of interest and composed it in the frame.

    Some of your scenic shots like the first one don't have any compelling center of interest for the eye of the viewer to gravitate towards. The eye is led out the sides of the photo without really finding any strong focal point to stop it. There is no visual clue what you thought was most important and thus its not particularly interesting to look at in part because the horizon is cutting the photo in half. The reason for composing a scenic with either more foreground and less sky or more sky and less foreground is to clue the viewer what is most important in the photo (i.e. the part that occupies the most area in the photo).

    In the scenic shots with a foreground center of interest such as the boat and the flag and lion you have put the COI "dead" center in the frame. That can be used effectively if you want a static composition, but it causes the eye of the viewer to tend to stay there and not explore the rest of the photo because the eye is conflicted -- should I go right, left or up? Putting your foreground COI off center provides a more interesting path for the viewer's eye to follow to get to it.

    For example the composition of that rainbow/flag shot would have been killer if the base of the rainbow was in the lower right and the flag over on the left at the end of it. The eye would either see the rainbow and follow it to the flag, or alternately see the flag first then the rainbow and follow its eye pleasing curve. Which one the viewer would likely pick can be predicted and controlled by which you make contrast with the background more with color, tone and size; the flag or rainbow.

    The two photos in the batch which are composed most effectively are the elephants and the sunset.

    The close pack of elephants unifies them as a single harmonious group and the arrangement creates a nice curved eye path up along the backs of those on the left leading the to the one facing the camera on the right. The elephant on the far left is actually a bit of a distraction because it does not contribute to that nice eye movement. You might try cropping him out and compare.

    The sunset shot works well because its not cut in half by the horizon and because is has two compelling centers of interest - the tree and the sun. The fact you managed to keep sun and tree close together unifies them and contributes to the harmonious feeling this photo evokes.

    I think the flower manipulation photo is also a good example of when centered static composition can be effective. The grid pattern lends itself to a symmetrical, centered composition and the flower with the best overall contrast (most eye catching) is in the central square. The fact you tilted the grid at an angle is a nice counterpoint to the centered static compostion of the flower, which adds another level of interest to the shot.

    Chuck Gardner
    http://super.nova.org/DPR/
     

Share This Page