Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

looking for honest critique

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:35:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi all....

I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to me
to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or they get
all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there willing to lend
a hand?

http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries

Brutal honesty only please.

Thanks a ton!!!

Tanya

More about : honest critique

Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:34:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

crazylikedat wrote:
> Hi all....
>
> I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to
> me to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or
> they get all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there
> willing to lend a hand?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries
>
> Brutal honesty only please.
>
> Thanks a ton!!!
>
> Tanya


I like your eye for subjects. You've made plenty of good choices among
myriad opportunities that are much more ignorable than these. We have in
common a difficulty in bringing the inspiring view into full play when
we push the button.

Tilted horizons, mis-framed subjects off by just a few percent,
inclusion of distracting elements that flew right past the cortex while
in full view of the eye, unpleasant location of frame-edges, too much
dependence on subject in valuing photos - all errors I have committed
and will perpetrate again to be sure.

A very few people have perfect pitch from the git-go; some of us have to
work hard and verbalize everything we do just to hum a recognizable
tune. Another lucky few plug away at it until one day it all falls into
place and what was difficult and laborious becomes natural, even
inevitable, the stuff of divas.

I'm in the middle category, trudging into each day's offerings with my
always-improving toolkit, hoping for the flash of revelation that
transforms my tentative, ugly duckling yodelings into a true, effortless
swan of an operatic baritone.

If the process weren't rewarding in itself I'd probably have given up
rather than persist for well more than half a century.

Which is to say: It's just a matter of a few degrees, millimeters,
lumens, Herz between a snapshot and a _photograph_, and it is work,
finding them.

PS: San Diego is a great place for photo-ops, isn't it?


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:09:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"crazylikedat" <belatrix001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109892922.280036.196610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all....
>
> I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to me
> to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or they get
> all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there willing to lend
> a hand?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries
>
> Brutal honesty only please.
>
> Thanks a ton!!!
>
> Tanya
>
Perhaps its your style, I find them all a bit dark. I will try to be more
brutal next time.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:12:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks Frank. You are right...I seem to live for the moment that I put
my stuff on the pc and see something half-way decent. I am very new at
digital and am struggling with some of the more rudimentary skills ie
exposuure. I think I am heading towards a digital class and soon. I do
wish I had it as easy as some that point, shoot and create a wonderful
photo. It almost seems that the harder I try the more problems I have.
I do not have as trained of an eye as some and miss little details that
they quickly pick up. It is true that the camera sees everything in
the frame not just what we want it to see. I am having fun and that is
what it is all about.

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it!!!!

Tanya
Frank ess wrote:
> crazylikedat wrote:
> > Hi all....
> >
> > I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close
to
> > me to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or
> > they get all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there
> > willing to lend a hand?
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries
> >
> > Brutal honesty only please.
> >
> > Thanks a ton!!!
> >
> > Tanya
>
>
> I like your eye for subjects. You've made plenty of good choices
among
> myriad opportunities that are much more ignorable than these. We have
in
> common a difficulty in bringing the inspiring view into full play
when
> we push the button.
>
> Tilted horizons, mis-framed subjects off by just a few percent,
> inclusion of distracting elements that flew right past the cortex
while
> in full view of the eye, unpleasant location of frame-edges, too much

> dependence on subject in valuing photos - all errors I have committed

> and will perpetrate again to be sure.
>
> A very few people have perfect pitch from the git-go; some of us have
to
> work hard and verbalize everything we do just to hum a recognizable
> tune. Another lucky few plug away at it until one day it all falls
into
> place and what was difficult and laborious becomes natural, even
> inevitable, the stuff of divas.
>
> I'm in the middle category, trudging into each day's offerings with
my
> always-improving toolkit, hoping for the flash of revelation that
> transforms my tentative, ugly duckling yodelings into a true,
effortless
> swan of an operatic baritone.
>
> If the process weren't rewarding in itself I'd probably have given up

> rather than persist for well more than half a century.
>
> Which is to say: It's just a matter of a few degrees, millimeters,
> lumens, Herz between a snapshot and a _photograph_, and it is work,
> finding them.
>
> PS: San Diego is a great place for photo-ops, isn't it?
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:09:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"crazylikedat" <belatrix001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109892922.280036.196610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all....
>
> I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to me
> to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or they get
> all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there willing to lend
> a hand?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries
>
> Brutal honesty only please.
>
> Thanks a ton!!!
>
> Tanya

Honestly? I really like the shot of the baby's foot in the towel. You
could have done an entire series on parts of the baby and it would have been
quite interesting. Otherwise, nothing here excites me. Very dark. Not
much color.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:53:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

crazylikedat wrote:
> Hi all....
>
> I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to me
> to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or they get
> all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there willing to lend
> a hand?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries
>
> Brutal honesty only please.

You won't get any of that here....

--
Ben Thomas
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:29:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3 Mar 2005 15:35:22 -0800, "crazylikedat" <belatrix001@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to me
>to look and critique. Problem?

I like a lot of your compositions and subjects but I would suggest
some digital enhancements to get the real emotion of the subject
across to the viewer...
=======================

sd51010004.JPG

I'd rotate the image about 2 degrees to make the lines vertical,
add some saturation to the sky - I'd remove the people moving out of
the frame at the bottom and crop the image more tightly I would
sharpen the image.

I posted my version and yours at: .....
http://tinyurl.com/6dwq6 (slow to load sometimes)

============
P1010010.JPG
Nice, strong,

Remove the distraction of the person on the bottom
lens flare - use PhotoShop and edit it out.
====================

01/02.JPG
Nice
I'd add some saturation and contrast to the colors
I'd remove the distracting two white sticks(?) in the relfection

================
P1010053.JPG
No center of interest and a bit washed out.. The skyline merges with
the horizon line
(not a keeper)
=================
P1010054
I'd crop to the lower left quarter and make the bridge the strong
element and add contrast and saturation to the image
================

That's a start...





+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:12:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

Here we are, some genui honesty:

DSC_0256.JPG - almost there, lift up sky and brown building color, make it
more vivid, nice composition, maybe except snow in foreground on the left,
you could compose it without it

DSC_0269.JPG - hugely underexposed

DSC_0250.JPG - focus on board behind, nothing to see here, I would like to
see close up photos, it is such a subject

DSC_0234.JPG - lift up levels, bring life, it could be good shot

DSC_0257.JPG - nothing here

P1010011.JPG - line up perspective, crop it as blue, glass wall will fill
whole frame, it could be good, now it is a snapshot

DSC_0268.JPG - nice composition, a bit too soft, levels againg

DSC_0197.JPG - nothing here, just pet

etc ect

Check you monitor, try to calibrate it a least a bit, it seem that it is too
bright.

Regards,

K.Polak
March 4, 2005 2:29:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

crazylikedat wrote:
> Hi all....
>
> I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to me
> to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or they get
> all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there willing to lend
> a hand?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries
>
> Brutal honesty only please.
>
> Thanks a ton!!!
>
> Tanya
>

In my honest opinon, you need to learn to edit.

Pick your favorite two or three and I'll spend time looking at them.
Give me 50 or more and it tells me you either don't respect my time or
you haven't really thought about your work.

My first impression is that you have a good eye for composition.

Bob
March 4, 2005 3:58:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

crazylikedat wrote:
> Hi all....
>
> I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to me
> to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or they get
> all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there willing to lend
> a hand?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries
>
> Brutal honesty only please.
>
> Thanks a ton!!!
>
> Tanya
>
I've said this so often, even I'm getting bored with it. When your camera is on automatic, and less
leight reaches the lens, the camera opens the lens aperture to admit more light, That reduces
resolution in thepicture. The same thing happens in your eyes and mine. A black backgrounds looks
neat, but it is counterproductive if you want to show your pictures to bets advantage.

Otherwise, most of your photos are basic snapshots. Nothing wrong with that, if the subjects
interest you.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 4:13:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:11:02 +0800, Derek Fountain
<nospam@example.com> wrote:


>...says I'm not logged in as the owner! :( 

OOPS .. Sorry, Is this better...

http://community.webshots.com/album/287398199vhiQqZ







+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 4:46:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

crazylikedat wrote:

> Brutal honesty only please.

Um, OK! :) 

You need to hold the camera level. This problem is repeated throughout. Or
learn to correct the problem in an image editor.

Reflections of buildings in buildings make for very dull subjects.
Reflections of roads (at night or dusk), sunsets, crowds, etc., yes, they
work, but buildings? Especially uninteresting buildings? No.

Learn the rule of thirds. Most of the photos in the Americana gallery would
benefit from its implementation.

If you're going to put pictures like the "Philly church.JPG" one in a public
place and then ask for comments, you deserve all you get! It's hard to know
where to begin.

Learn to use exposure compensation and bracketing for when faced with
subjects like in "philly02.JPG".

"P1010005.JPG" shows the importance of getting square on to a subject. As
does "P1010016.JPG". And "P1010025.JPG". I used to do this all the time
too.

Take a moment longer to think about the framing of the shot. Look at
"P1010051.JPG". If you'd taken 3 steps either left or right you'd have had
the building and the fountain, as opposed to neither, which is what you
got. Lots of the others have details going out of frame, a distracting lamp
post, etc.

Most importantly, when asking for critiques, get the cruft out from your
collection. If you want to keep a viewer interested every shot needs to be
your best. There's some good stuff in there, but when it's surrounded by
very ordinary shots, it's hard to find. I suggest making another gallery of
your best shots - those are the ones where critiques are most useful. The
rest, which are only of interest to you, your family or friends, are not
really for public consumption.

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
March 4, 2005 5:55:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <PY%Vd.601$Q83.595@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, not@not.not says...
> > I have some of my pics up on a website and have asked those close to me
> > to look and critique. Problem? either they don't say much or they get
> > all gooey. I want some real honesty. Anyone out there willing to lend
> > a hand?
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/crazylikedat/galleries
> >
> > Brutal honesty only please.
> >
> > Thanks a ton!!!
> >
> > Tanya
>

I took the time to peruse the "Animals" and "Nature" galleries.

My thoughts are:

THE BAD NEWS:

All the pictures show up as a little bit dark on my monitor (it has been set
up properly). Probably just a little tweaking in PhotoShop would do the
trick for me.

THE GOOD NEWS:

I think you have a good sense of what it takes to make a good picture. The
only ones that seem like a "snapshot" to me are the playfull little dog..

Some practice with editing, and cropping wouldn't hurt, but overall I think
it is a fine collection, and with some work it could be better than "fine".




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:46:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>...says I'm not logged in as the owner! :( 
>
> OOPS .. Sorry, Is this better...
>
> http://community.webshots.com/album/287398199vhiQqZ

Yup, that works. Although I'm not sure you've improved the picture too much!
I'd say you've over rotated it. The sky is now multicoloured (could be JPEG
artifacts I suppose) and you didn't remove the lines from across the arch
structure. I'd also question your cropping - I'd have put the arch dead
centre I think, since there's nothing to the right of the picture worth
keeping. And would you say you've over sharpened? The colour correction of
the street area looks pretty good though. :o )

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:46:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:46:24 +0800, Derek Fountain
<nospam@example.com> wrote:

http://community.webshots.com/album/287398199vhiQqZ


>Yup, that works. Although I'm not sure you've improved the picture too much!
>I'd say you've over rotated it. The sky is now multicoloured (could be JPEG
>artifacts I suppose) and you didn't remove the lines from across the arch
>structure. I'd also question your cropping - I'd have put the arch dead
>centre I think, since there's nothing to the right of the picture worth
>keeping. And would you say you've over sharpened? The colour correction of
>the street area looks pretty good though. :o )

Yes, I agree with what you say. I did that adjustment quickly in a
few minutes (and I am not an expert) just to see what could be done.
and to show Tanya there are a lot of enhancements possible to improve
a below average photo.








+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
!