Critiques Requested
M.O
Once again I am calling on you to stop by and critique a photo of mine. I am
thinking of entering it in my club contest. The contest is small and for
some local amatuers to get a chance to show some work. I would like your
comments.
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=33863
ivan
Ivan
======
Mark Morgan
No blown highlights or lost shadows in a shot with a pretty wide range of
values.
"M.O" <aol...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:lcpu8.80851$VM5.39...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Barry Pearson
news:lcpu8.80851$VM5.39...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
I've already said that I like your work, so I'll be critical here.
I think the petals should be at least as sharp as the framing leaves. As it is,
the sharp & strong leaves tend to draw attention away from the petals.
But - if you can't fix that, go for it!
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
Dennis Bradley
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gmwu8.26173$C21.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
I agree with Barry's assessment regarding the sharpness.
If you have access to an image editor, such as Photoshop, Paintshop Pro etc,
then I would try to darken the other flowers and highlights which being at
the edge of the frame, tend to drag the gaze away from the main subject.
Have had a quick go at it myself
www.kktwins.fsnet.co.uk/flower.jpg
Lovely picture. Even if you can't improve on what you have, go ahead and
enter it in the competition. You have to be in to win, and if you are not
fortunate to be a winner, you might get some good feedback. In any case,
enjoy your photography, and if the judges don't like your picture, then that
is just their opinion. I they do, then that is a bonus.
Dennis
www.dbradley.freeserve.co.uk/fuji
www.ekcameraclub.freeserve.co.uk
Charles Robinson
:
: All,
I guess the only thing I've got to say critically about it is that the
short depth of field makes the top of the flower blossom all fuzzy - but
there's not a lot you can do about it if you also want to have the water
droplets in focus from that angle... Looks rather pretty otherwise.
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson
St. Paul, MN
char...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~charlesr
Mike Savad
news:lcpu8.80851$VM5.39...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com:
i like the contrast, and the green is pretty saturated.
i would have lowered the angle a little and deepened the focus a bit. i
want the spots to be clearer.
you can easily take the shot on a sunny day, just spray the plant with
water. primarily the water is supposed to add a 3-d quality to the plant.
it also magnifies grain, and add's a little more to the plant.
primarily to me, what i see is a wet pink flower, with very green leaves.
other then that, i may have ripped off the flower beneath it, to give it
more dimension, and that's really about it.
---Mike Savad
--
---
Mike's Canon Powershot Pro90 IS - Photo Page 2 - http://www.pbase.com/savad
- NEW
---
Mike's Canon Powershot Pro90 IS - Photo Page - http://www.savad.0catch.com/
---
Mike's Stained Glass - http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1141/
Contains a wealth of stained glass information, stained glass tips, stained
glass instruction, and many, many stained glass links.
Mark Morgan
> water.
Gee... That's really going after an authentic scene, now, isn't it??
>SNIP> other then that, i may have ripped off the flower beneath it, to give
it
> more dimension
You can get some very interesting action photos if you cause
accidents...burn down buildings, and create general havoc as well...but I
prefer to shoot real events and real nature.
Why don't you just take pictures of plastic flowers?
They would be at least as natural as the result of your tactics above...
:)
jan_49
Don't mind Morgan. He developed his personality in a car crash.
--
Jan
Atheist #2028
"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind
of human cloning to come out of that chamber."- Pres. GW Bush,
Washington, D.C., April 10, 2002
Mike Savad
news:5CKu8.48440$zN.22...@twister.socal.rr.com:
>> you can easily take the shot on a sunny day, just spray the plant
>> with water.
>
> Gee... That's really going after an authentic scene, now, isn't it??
>
that's how the pro's do it.
i was watching some home show and they showed the steps involved in good
rose photography. watching him it was a little scarey.
step:
1. find a good flower.
2. diffuse the light around the flower if needed.
3. place a black drop cloth over the ugly flowers.
4. tie back any odd thing, that might make the flower ugly.
5. yank off dead leaves.
6. trim the oddly shaped or bad petals off with a pair of scissors.
7. spray with water for extra dimension and sparkle (i think it also helps
the focus of the camera).
8. that's it, now you have a pretty looking flower, that could be natural.
basically it allows you to set it up. if there's sun, you have a better
picture, but there won't be water, until you spray it on.
>>SNIP> other then that, i may have ripped off the flower beneath it, to
>>give
> it
>> more dimension
>
> You can get some very interesting action photos if you cause
> accidents...burn down buildings, and create general havoc as
> well...but I prefer to shoot real events and real nature.
> Why don't you just take pictures of plastic flowers?
> They would be at least as natural as the result of your tactics
> above...
>:)
well, i suppose that's one method. kind of an odd comparison. like stealing
someone's watch and finding it for them.
movies do this all the time. the room looks real but is fake. the dock
looks real but it's fake. the explosion looks real, but it's set up.
same thing with models. do you think they walk out like that? no - make up,
special lighting, etc. some of these things need to be set up if it's not
already setup.
it's not a fake flower it's a real flower. it's not fake water, it
s real water. when the picture is taken, who the hell can tell?
some shot's you get lucky, but most you do not. you take a picture of a
real pretty flower, but there might be a car in the background, would it be
wrong to remove it? what about sunset filters, are they wrong? the sunset
wasn't really there at the time of visiting a place, make a fake sunset,
alot of people won't notice the difference. and it's still all very real.
Mark Morgan
> > accidents...burn down buildings, and create general havoc as
> > well...but I prefer to shoot real events and real nature.
> > Why don't you just take pictures of plastic flowers?
> > They would be at least as natural as the result of your tactics
> > above...
> >:)
>
> well, i suppose that's one method. kind of an odd comparison. like
stealing
> someone's watch and finding it for them.
>
> movies do this all the time. the room looks real but is fake. the dock
> looks real but it's fake. the explosion looks real, but it's set up.
>
> same thing with models. do you think they walk out like that? no - make
up,
> special lighting, etc. some of these things need to be set up if it's not
> already setup.
>
> it's not a fake flower it's a real flower. it's not fake water, it
> s real water. when the picture is taken, who the hell can tell?
>
> some shot's you get lucky, but most you do not. you take a picture of a
> real pretty flower, but there might be a car in the background, would it
be
> wrong to remove it? what about sunset filters, are they wrong? the sunset
> wasn't really there at the time of visiting a place, make a fake sunset,
> alot of people won't notice the difference. and it's still all very real.
None of that is wrong in my book, Mike.
Note the smiley. I just thought your description was blunt and funny.
I see it like a posed portrait vs. a candid.
One gains its apeal from it's natural look...the other gains it's appeal
from a thoughtfully planned pose.
Its similar with flowers, plants, still life, etc.
I tend to like to "capture nature" rather than necessarily create the
shot...but that's just me.
-mm
HRosita
>Gee... That's really going after an authentic scene, now, isn't it?
Please, get off your high horse. Everybody has their own techniques.
It is like saying women should not use makeup because it is not real?
Rosita
Mark Morgan
>
> Please, get off your high horse. Everybody has their own techniques.
> It is like saying women should not use makeup because it is not real?
Note the smiley...and read my follow-up post before you make your
declarations about my intent.
It jes' ain't as awful as it apparently seemed to you.
I found his post humorous, and utterly non-offensive.
I'm sorry that what I wrote gave an impression I didn't intend.
Mike Savad
i saw the smiley - but answered anyway.
the point is, the viewer doesn't know it's a candid or a setup. a candid
shot can be found in anyone's album. i have dozens of wet flowers saved
right now. a posed portrait is unatural actually, candid in this case is
better (unless their eating, don't take those pictures).
for example, look at food photography:
a burger king hamburger - raw meat, stained with stain. singed on lines, a
bun, with a certain amount of seeds and roundness, a drop of ketchup here
and there. - and a yummy looking burger. try getting a picture of the
burger you get there, and you have something that looked like someone sat
on it before hand, (squashed, lopsided, drippy).
ice cream melts in the studio lights, they use mashpotatoes.
the point is, sometimes you have to set up your own shot, with your own
props in conditions you can control. in the end, all the viewer see's is
the photo, and not the 3 guys aiming a bounce reflector at the object, nor
all the string holding back the less perfect flowers.
Mike Savad
but it wasn't meant to be funny. and a smiley doesn't cancel out what a
person says. btw....
jan_49
>>> Gee... That's really going after an authentic scene, now, isn't it?
>>
>> Please, get off your high horse. Everybody has their own techniques.
>> It is like saying women should not use makeup because it is not real?
>
> Note the smiley...and read my follow-up post before you make your
> declarations about my intent.
You're priceless, Morgan. You can't resist the opportunity to pontificate,
then passively/aggressively stick in a "smilie" -- end your post -- then
start another post after you see someone has taken you to task.
Of course, then you have to go back in and pontificate all over again.
Mark Morgan
> person says. btw....
Oh good grief! Get over it! I meant you no ill, for crying out loud.
Mike Savad
>> but it wasn't meant to be funny. and a smiley doesn't cancel out what a
>> person says. btw....
>
> Oh good grief! Get over it! I meant you no ill, for crying out loud.
>
>
a smiley face is used in jest.
a smiley is not used in this example:
i punch you in the face, but i am smiling, so it is ok yes?
the smiley is used in a basic sarcastic remark. your's wasn't in that
level. yours was trying to belittle my comments....
CJMorgan59
It's cluttered, it's messy, it's somewhat chaotically confusing. Stop looking
at "things", stop looking at them as "objects," stop looking at them as
"flowers." Stop looking at the label, but never tasting the wine, as it were.
But don't stop shooting this stuff.
Rather, live in your viewfinder, and refine and refine, perpetually editing out
the cluttering details until all that's left is the graphic essence of what you
are trying to show.
And if that's too much of a quantum leap, then begin just becoming engrossed in
photographing the graphic quality of "things", not the things themselves, but
rather just start to look at them as shapes colors, textures, lines, patterns,
etc.
A flower at 12 noon by the midday sun is still a flower at 3PM and at 6PM and
at 9PM. But as the light changes, the graphic qualities of this "thing" in
front of you changes. Get in the "graphic mode of thinking" so that as the
light does change, you are aware of the changing graphic qualities of these
things you're photographing, and that you start reacting and composing you
images based on these graphic element rather than just responding to this
"thing" called a "flower."
For the majority of us, the problem is not that we cut out so much from our
images that we lose the essence of what we are trying to show, but rather that
we don't cut out enough, diluting the visual impact of our images by leaving in
too much clutter.
Dare to regularly risk getting in closer and closer to your subject matter so
that you even risk such close proximity that the very essence of what you are
trying to show gets lost. Only when you are willing to do this on a regular
basis will you any sense of how close is "just right" -- that fine line between
keeping the essence of what you're trying to show, but so tightly shot that any
surrounding clutter is either extremely minimized or altogether eliminated.
Dare to be bold in approaching your subject matter. But don't just point the
camera and shoot, only taking snapshots of objects.
Harsh as that all sounds, I still hope it's of some help,
CJ
Mark Morgan
>
> a smiley is not used in this example:
>
> i punch you in the face, but i am smiling, so it is ok yes?
>
> the smiley is used in a basic sarcastic remark. your's wasn't in that
> level. yours was trying to belittle my comments....
No...I was not.
That was not my intent at all, Mike. You don't have the power to know my
intent any more than I can know yours.
But--At this point, you are getting so rediculous about this...and so bent
about what others would let run off them...that NOW, I am quite ready to
disagree with you and voice my opinion that you are acting like a whimpering
child.
If you really think a "punch in the face" even remotely fits as a
comparison, then you are not only a whimpering child, but a fool as well.
Now there you have it.... A perfect setup to come back with some snide
remark about how I'm showing how mean I am, etc.... -Or perhaps the more
typical response of "I don't have to say it...you did...etc."
Where I was feeling bad that I gave the wrong impression, that has now been
erased by your rediculous pouting.
You need to get over it and quite being so fragile in a public forum filled
with strangers.
Mark Morgan
Mike Savad
why bother...
it seems to be you were dropped one too many times as a baby.
:) <---- note the smiley.
Mark Morgan
>
> it seems to be you were dropped one too many times as a baby.
>
> :) <---- note the smiley.
I probably WAS dropped too many times...
:)