Opinions on these shots please

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

Craig M. Bobchin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently took a vacation to the S.F. Bay area. During the week I took
> over 700 shots with the 20d. I've posted a few of them and would like to
> hear comments/critiques on these so I can improve my technique.
>
> The gallery is at: http://www.pbase.com/craigbob/sf_vacation
>
> Thanks
>
> Craig

I'll start by saying I'm no longer a "serious" photographer and
unqualified to make technical comments. From that standpoint, I hope
when I get my first digital camera (I'm shopping as we speak) that my
pics are technically this good.

As to composition and such. They all seem very symetrical - subject in
the center of the screen. None of them really "catch my eye" or make me
want to look harder or longer. They're technically good enough for my
inexperience eye, but I wouldn't care to look. I think it's often the
toughest thing to do in photography, to find a way to "see" differently
than everyone else with a camera sees that same scene. If you can
manage that, your pics will be far more interesting and you'll feel
much better about what you're accomplishing.
Hope this helps in your world.

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

Craig,

The observatory I like, but I cant tell which way is up. If you could
have gotten very wide angle, like 12mm, and added a person to get the
sheer size of the place captured, you would have a "great" picture.

The oracle buildings have no point and no composition. Maybe zooming in
to get the juxtaposition of the residential right next to the cold
glass structures.. dunno. You obviously saw something, you need to
decide what elements NEED to be there to convey the idea of what you
was, and leave th rest out.

Pyro chef needed to have the pyro chef in the picture. Close in on the
subject and wait for the flame. The people in the background are
superfluous.

Rock candy did have different composition, but it was not engaging.
Can't see the rest of the scene here. The angle of the flash deleted
any real contrast. Need off camera or a diffuser or something.

I didn't mind snoopy glass, but then again, I just didn't mind it. It
didn't make me think or feel anything besides, "oh, snoopy" and move
on.

Coit sky. Too much sky, not enough Coit. You might look silly, but if
your lense is not wide enough, then lie on the ground. I looked like an
idiot at Yellowstone half of my trip, but I got some good pictures.

Doorway. I like this one. Would have been better if you were dead in
the center of the door. Also, it seems as though the door is not quite
in focus. Could be wrong.

Guard tower. Too little contrast IMHO. I didn't mind the truck. Good
picture, but not striking.

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

Hi Craig,

The shots are fine if not startling, the subjects you have posted links to
are pretty subdued, perhaps we could see some of your others. Couple of
things to keep in mind when out shooting (particularly with digital) is
think more, shoot less and make sure you keep your horizon straight unless
there is a very special reason not to.

"Craig M. Bobchin" <CBobchin@MySkincsi.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5d60bbf1fbe6199896fe@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> Hi all,
>
> I recently took a vacation to the S.F. Bay area. During the week I took
> over 700 shots with the 20d. I've posted a few of them and would like to
> hear comments/critiques on these so I can improve my technique.
>
> The gallery is at: http://www.pbase.com/craigbob/sf_vacation
>
> Thanks
>
> Craig

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

Thanks for the comments. Which of the images did not have straight
horizons? As for some other images check out the rest of my galleries at
www.pbase.com/craigbob .

In article <DQQIe.72719$oJ.55164@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
no@email.com says...
> Hi Craig,
>
> The shots are fine if not startling, the subjects you have posted links to
> are pretty subdued, perhaps we could see some of your others. Couple of
> things to keep in mind when out shooting (particularly with digital) is
> think more, shoot less and make sure you keep your horizon straight unless
> there is a very special reason not to.
>
> "Craig M. Bobchin" <CBobchin@MySkincsi.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d5d60bbf1fbe6199896fe@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I recently took a vacation to the S.F. Bay area. During the week I took
> > over 700 shots with the 20d. I've posted a few of them and would like to
> > hear comments/critiques on these so I can improve my technique.
> >
> > The gallery is at: http://www.pbase.com/craigbob/sf_vacation
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Craig
>
>
>

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

Dave, thanks for the comments.

I agree that finding a way to 'see' differently is tough, and I try very
hard to do so. I really thought the Rock candy was very different in
composition.

> I'll start by saying I'm no longer a "serious" photographer and
> unqualified to make technical comments. From that standpoint, I hope
> when I get my first digital camera (I'm shopping as we speak) that my
> pics are technically this good.
>
> As to composition and such. They all seem very symetrical - subject in
> the center of the screen. None of them really "catch my eye" or make me
> want to look harder or longer. They're technically good enough for my
> inexperience eye, but I wouldn't care to look. I think it's often the
> toughest thing to do in photography, to find a way to "see" differently
> than everyone else with a camera sees that same scene. If you can
> manage that, your pics will be far more interesting and you'll feel
> much better about what you're accomplishing.
> Hope this helps in your world.
>
>

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

Thanks for your opinions and thoughts they are quite helpful.See my
comments below:

In article <1123283383.290609.156500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
sbrisendine@gmail.com says...
> Craig,
>
> The observatory I like, but I cant tell which way is up. If you could
> have gotten very wide angle, like 12mm, and added a person to get the
> sheer size of the place captured, you would have a "great" picture.

I do have other images, but the ones I posted were geared for a more
artistic/abstract feel. I wanted to capture the detail of the
latticework and the juxtaposition of the telescope and the observatory
slit.

> The oracle buildings have no point and no composition. Maybe zooming in
> to get the juxtaposition of the residential right next to the cold
> glass structures.. dunno. You obviously saw something, you need to
> decide what elements NEED to be there to convey the idea of what you
> was, and leave th rest out.

I did like the contrast of the residences and the glass buildings. I
felt that the wood borders around the rocks acted as an angle pointing
to that. Maybe cropping it closer to eliminate the water will help.

> Pyro chef needed to have the pyro chef in the picture. Close in on the
> subject and wait for the flame. The people in the background are
> superfluous.

I see what you mean on this.

> Rock candy did have different composition, but it was not engaging.
> Can't see the rest of the scene here. The angle of the flash deleted
> any real contrast. Need off camera or a diffuser or something.

Hmmm I intentionally wanted this as a kind of abstract looking shot.
What would you have liked to see?

> I didn't mind snoopy glass, but then again, I just didn't mind it. It
> didn't make me think or feel anything besides, "oh, snoopy" and move
> on.

For me I liked the colors and the curves, but would have preferred to
remove the sclupture, but that was not possible.

> Coit sky. Too much sky, not enough Coit. You might look silly, but if
> your lense is not wide enough, then lie on the ground. I looked like an
> idiot at Yellowstone half of my trip, but I got some good pictures.

I actually had the camera lying on the ground wide open. I guess I
needed a wider angle lens on this one.

>
> Doorway. I like this one. Would have been better if you were dead in
> the center of the door. Also, it seems as though the door is not quite
> in focus. Could be wrong.

I thought I was in the center when I shot it. I looked at the RAW and
the door is in focus.

>
> Guard tower. Too little contrast IMHO. I didn't mind the truck. Good
> picture, but not striking.

I was going for the sepia toned snapshot style of this so it looked like
it was taken back in the 40s.


Again thanks for your helpful critique.

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

Craig M. Bobchin wrote:
> Thanks for your opinions and thoughts they are quite helpful.See my
> comments below:
>
> In article <1123283383.290609.156500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> sbrisendine@gmail.com says...
> > Craig,
> >
> > The observatory I like, but I cant tell which way is up. If you could
> > have gotten very wide angle, like 12mm, and added a person to get the
> > sheer size of the place captured, you would have a "great" picture.
>
> I do have other images, but the ones I posted were geared for a more
> artistic/abstract feel. I wanted to capture the detail of the
> latticework and the juxtaposition of the telescope and the observatory
> slit.
>
> > The oracle buildings have no point and no composition. Maybe zooming in
> > to get the juxtaposition of the residential right next to the cold
> > glass structures.. dunno. You obviously saw something, you need to
> > decide what elements NEED to be there to convey the idea of what you
> > was, and leave th rest out.
>
> I did like the contrast of the residences and the glass buildings. I
> felt that the wood borders around the rocks acted as an angle pointing
> to that. Maybe cropping it closer to eliminate the water will help.
>
> > Pyro chef needed to have the pyro chef in the picture. Close in on the
> > subject and wait for the flame. The people in the background are
> > superfluous.
>
> I see what you mean on this.
>
> > Rock candy did have different composition, but it was not engaging.
> > Can't see the rest of the scene here. The angle of the flash deleted
> > any real contrast. Need off camera or a diffuser or something.
>
> Hmmm I intentionally wanted this as a kind of abstract looking shot.
> What would you have liked to see?
>
> > I didn't mind snoopy glass, but then again, I just didn't mind it. It
> > didn't make me think or feel anything besides, "oh, snoopy" and move
> > on.
>
> For me I liked the colors and the curves, but would have preferred to
> remove the sclupture, but that was not possible.
>
> > Coit sky. Too much sky, not enough Coit. You might look silly, but if
> > your lense is not wide enough, then lie on the ground. I looked like an
> > idiot at Yellowstone half of my trip, but I got some good pictures.
>
> I actually had the camera lying on the ground wide open. I guess I
> needed a wider angle lens on this one.
>
> >
> > Doorway. I like this one. Would have been better if you were dead in
> > the center of the door. Also, it seems as though the door is not quite
> > in focus. Could be wrong.
>
> I thought I was in the center when I shot it. I looked at the RAW and
> the door is in focus.
>
> >
> > Guard tower. Too little contrast IMHO. I didn't mind the truck. Good
> > picture, but not striking.
>
> I was going for the sepia toned snapshot style of this so it looked like
> it was taken back in the 40s.
>
>
> Again thanks for your helpful critique.

Craig,
You're right, the rock candy pic is different. I tend to generalize to
much!
More importantly from my perspective, is that you had the guts to post
the pics and ask publicly for feedback! I admire that, and can't help
but think that with that kind of willingness and committment, you'll
improve as photographer quickly.
Best of luck to you!