How does this picture look?

The first one is a lot more interesting, minus the blowout due to the sun in the top right.

 

dull. lifeless. bland.

 

I would not consider this constructive criticism. It's just criticism. Harsh.

The first one, as mentioned, is much more interesting than the second image. The girl plays a prominent feature in my opinion and in the second image she is far too small and badly placed, being too close to the edges as well. She is far better placed in the first image, and more adheres to the rule of thirds. I personally would have lowered the camera so that she is filling more vertical space though, it looks a little empty above her head.

 

right, and maybe HDR it and see what you get

 

Definitely slap as much HDR on there as you possibly can.

And sharpen the crap out of it. There's nothing better than a heavily sharpened single-shot HDR.

 

I was about ready to fly in with words of wisdom until I saw the sarcastic roll-ey eyes

As for the first picture the mountains and girl look a hint underexposed. The blowout of the sun doesn't bother me, I think it adds to the picture by making it look like something interesting is happening in the brighter spot; the placement of the girl does bother me though.

The girl in the photo looks like she may or may not have been an accident. I think if you would have made her a little bigger in the photo it would provide a better feel, like she is looking over the desert and pondering something. Also a hint of the side of her face would have improved the shot a lot I think. There is also too much vertical space above her head.

As for the second shot, my eye is instantly drawn to the bright bricks. The angle that you are against the subject seems odd too. Its more like you got a shot of her sitting there bored (her facial expression looks bored) than that of someone staring at the desert and pondering something (which I think is what you were going for).

The girl also isn't big enough. She seems more like an accident in here as well. A closer shot of her and the camera more parallel to her (and a straight horizon ) would improve it greatly.

I hope the above made sense. I'm glad you posted here for CC, its the best way to learn

 

Your two photos suggest to me that you may need a little help with that "rule." Its primary purpose is to help with the placement of your subject/main point of interest, which should fall somewhere near one of the four 'power points' in the image. These power points lie where the divisions of the thirds intersect:

​

I think a better name for the rule of thirds would be "The Guideline Against the Center and the Edges," but that's not nearly so catchy as a title. The basic idea is that the yellow zones (in this graphic) should be favored over the grey ones when it comes to placing your subject or secondary points of interest in the frame.

The edges are weak areas of the picture, and the center is so strong that the eye needs some compelling incentive to leave it and move around the frame. If you put your subject near an edge, it loses visual weight; if you put it in the center, it tends to create a static image. Placing your subject in the yellow zones usually works out the best. You'll know when you can break these 'rules' by understanding why they work. If something about the picture offsets the negatives of the grey zones, then you can get away with breaking the rules.

The horizontal and vertical lines in the graphic are where strong horizontals and verticals ought to fall (you did use one of them where your hills meet the sky). The reason for this 'rule' is to prevent the image from 'breaking apart' at the center. Strong lines that fall near the center have a tendency to bisect an image, so they will be a problem unless something in the picture ties the two bisected areas together quite strongly.

Hope that helps.

 

^ What Phrasikleia said.

I think they're both nice landscapes, it's just the positioning of the girl that's off imo.

I would have positioned the girl in the lower-left highlighted region of the diagram she posted, possibly seating her on the wall to allow for that great landscape to still be visible in the frame.

 

Strong and sound advice from two very accomplished photographers. Just move the girl more to the right or your camera/frame a little more the the left. and she will occupy the left third of the picture (first photo).

 

personally I think it will be more impactful as a black and white. It is just too bland - both foreground and background. Just my opinion

 

The last one of the girl looking at the landscape is worth tweaking... but it's lacking in contrast, saturation and sharpness.

I would maximize the contrast or apply some curves to it. Then I would bump up the saturation... but that will start to pop as the contrast improves so do the contrast adjustment first. Then make the orange in the soil pop against the blue sky. Use selective color adjustments to those two pallets to achieve the desired look. Then sharpen it. You will likely be amazed at how good you can make that photo look.

 

You're getting closer:

Aside from astethic tweaks others mentioned in the first shot (contrast, color, etc), the girl still seems a bit insignificant. I would suggest getting closer to her, maybe a just below the shoulders and up shot. Since she is important, I would have her larger.

That may not be what your after but in my mind I think it would make the composition more interesting.

Another issue is the road, it cuts right through her. (Lines through your subject usually aren't what you want.) I'd suggest getting lower and closer to her view and take the shot. This will also bring your horizon down and you will get more of the sky.

For the second shot, its blurry but I understand you said you were using a camera phone.

With moving subjects (or subjects that look like they are moving like that ibex (I think its an ibex) you want space for him to walk in to, meaning he should be on the left side of the composition not the right. He looks cramped where he is at now.

The above is a rule that generally should never be broken, you always want space for your subject to "move" within the frame.

Keep up the practice though! I really hope you are learning a lot from these CCs.


EDIT: To clarify the first picture, if I were composing it I would try putting her eye line with the top left circle on the rule of thirds image that was posted here and get more to her eye level and a little behind her and take the shot of what she is seeing.

Gimme a few minutes and I will put a pic up to explain what I mean
EDIT2: Sorry no pic The pic I thought I had I can't find for the life of me : /

 

i would recommend that you posts your photos to photo.net instead or may be trekearth or treklens .. you'll get good critiques from there...

 

Shooting in the Negev or any desert can be difficult. I am not a fan of the 1st or 3rd images. The colors are too flat and do nothing to show the nuances of color in the landscape. The 2nd shot is a bit better but the lighting is still too flat. These should be shot from an angle or time of day that puts more light on the cliffs. Also, this is a great setting for shooting at dusk when the sandstone takes on central Israel's unique golden hue. Also, because the sky is flat negative space, it detracts from the image. My eye keeps going to the horizon which is not interesting. I would crop a little off the top and this will help make the more interesting features more noticeable.

I don't think the 4th image works at all. The animal is lost in the brush and its position in the frame brings my eye to its nether end. I would frame this so the animal is on the left side moving into the frame not out of it. Also, (paying attention to the rule of thirds) the focal point is the shoulder and not the head.

 

Hi there

Had a play with your picture - not sure if any better but more zip I think.

Tighter crop makes the woman seem less lost in the picture

 

It looks bad, you suck, and I hate you.

But seriously though, it's a fine shot. I get what you're going for with the girl in the foreground, but the depth of field being super-wide doesn't give you a true scope of the mountains in the background. I'd consider using f/3.5 or lower, focus on the mountains, leave her in the bokeh.

Either way, keep the girl in the corner of the crop (like as been done already, so good work there).

 

The shot should be framed with her shoulder in the corner. Not sure if there was a lot of haze or just washed out sky. Drop the exposure a stop, the sky is way to faded. The second shot is just not framed well, the elk (I think that's what that is) is walking out of frame.

 

If you had the ability to process those some they would be great pics. The colors just need work.

 

Uh oh. Photography snob Alert!! Everyone hide!

 

I am not a fan of HDR, most of it looks over the top and cartoonish.

 

Fair enough. I like it personally. Just seemed a bit wrong of him to just rule it out without seeing the results.

This guy is the Jedi of HDR.....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/artiephotography/sets/72157605103119650/